Talk:Accumulated cyclone energy

Subpages by year: Atlantic • E. Pacific • W. Pacific • N. Indian • South
Subpages by ACE: Atlantic • E. Pacific • W. Pacific • N. Indian • South

Possible link error

The links to the second reference (Climate Assessment for 1999) is not working for me, neither the link to the URL nor the DOI. I'm reporting it here rather than identifying it as a bad link or fixing it on the chance that it's a one-off glitch that will be fixed by itself.

If it isn't a short-term glitch, I believe the article can be found at Climate Assessment for 1999 S Philbrick(Talk) 17:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Extension of WPAC ACE section

The Western Pacific section only has the years since 1950 and I was wondering if the section could be expanded to include individual storms. Some of them may be outdated, I know, but it is really necessary. tai (he/him) (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

ACE v 'power' /'energy'

Is there any viable calculation as to the power output of a cyclone versus say a volcano or earthquake. I would like more data on how Mother Nature is hugely bigger than most 'human' activities. The typical diagram for 'energy' has 'large lightning' and a storm has thousands; often with has Mt St Helens and 'one day of a hurricane'. This is kind of vague. Suggestions please.NojokingHELP (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, before answering your question, I’d like to note that these talk pages are typically used to promote discussion on how to improve and change the articles they correspond to, rather than trivial knowledge like the energy output of a volcano to that of a hurricane. Furthermore, I imagine that people may be confused with your query, especially as you haven’t linked the page that caused your confusion, and have possibly worded your query in a confusing manner, so providing more context would be great. I’m not an expert, and cannot satisfy your curiosity, but there are various resources on the internet at your disposal which you can use to reach out to actual experts in the field, rather than using talk pages on Wikipedia that are not necessarily used for answering questions. Don’t take this response too harshly, just know there are probably better places to search for an answer to your question. -Shift674-🌀 ^contribs 04:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.

I could have attached the same query to some dozen or so 'relevant' pages - you imply that this too would be unsuitable- so the question must be unasked and the power of mother nature will remain an unanswered query. I have attempted to ask 'experts' but often you need to prove your credentials before they will respond ... rather than merely a significant interest. Any suggestion as to where to ask would be gratefully received. I will then delete this string (if possible)NojokingHELP (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I’ve reached out to the National Hurricane Center’s website before, and that’s worked out well for me. Perhaps they or another government agency could answer your question. Also, I wouldn’t recommend deleting this thread unless it proves necessary, we usually archive these. -Shift674-🌀 ^contribs 01:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll give NHC a go. Thanks. and then i'll work out which sites to edit?! NojokingHELP (talk) 07:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The wpac should be 17 ns and not 19 ns, Maliski and Wukong were not ts force, and not named by the jtwc, the season should be 17, like 2010 was like 18 or 19 instead of 21

All im saying 2600:1004:B1A5:6FBE:6DC4:62E5:52F7:4F89 (talk) 05:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

You are entitled to your own views about Maliski and Wukong's intensity, however, Wikipedia has to follow the JMA, which as declared Maliski and Wukong to be tropical storms/named storms.Jason Rees (talk) 09:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)