Talk:Cumulonimbus flammagenitus

Merge?

I don't really know how to do this, but I really think this page should be merged with Pyrocumulus cloud. Pyrocumulonimbus cloud just seems to be a type of Pyrocumulus cloud, and most of the content in this page is completely redundant. Thanks. 66.25.7.206 (talk) 04:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

=

Some thoughts to the contrary: The study of pyro-Cbs is of considerable importance: 1) They are a source of injection of aerosols into the Stratosphere 2) The study of the behaviour of those aerosols is providing considerable insight into atmospheric physics - such as sunlight lofting particles up to 20km in height. 3) Pyro-Cbs are a source of considerable risk to firefighters and the communities that they are trying to protect. Pyro-Cus are not. 4) Pyro-Cbs produce fire behaviour that is quite different to that of other fire types. Plume-driven fires appear to respond to the weather within the plume, while the plume is pushed along by middle-level winds. So I would advocate keeping "pyro-Cbs" as a separate entry, and it needs to be expanded. [I am a co-author of one of the papers cited, and have more work being refereed. I am also involved in supporting front-line firefighting.] Rick McRae — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.46.141.189 (talk) 05:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

=

I agree with Rick's comment. The difference is at least as significant as the difference between a cumulonimbus and a cumulus. A cumulonimbus can kill you - a cumulus is light and fluffy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heatrash (talk • contribs) 00:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pyrocumulonimbus cloud. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm06/fm06-sessions/fm06_U14A.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm06/fm06-sessions/fm06_U14A.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Volcanic sources added. Some clean-up and expansion of main text but more needed.

I've worked on the volcanic part of this article, as that's included in the definition of Cumulonimbus flammagenitus but the distinctions between these and volcanic plumes are subtle. I've also added a section on the Dec 2019 fatality. The article could do with other major events being listed including 'Black Saturday' in Australia and other northern hemisphere events. Because these beasts are still a fairly new discovery there is a lot of confused and contradictory media out there ('fires that create their own weather' etc), and most articles that do mention the cloud name use the common term of PyroCb, so there's probably lots of clarity that we could add to the discussion through careful development of this article. Heatrash (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 2 January 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: retain the current title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 09:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Cumulonimbus flammagenitus → Pyrocumulonimbus – Move from obscure Latin technical term back to most common name. Jpatokal (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC) —Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended rationale: In 2017, this article was moved from Pyrocumulonimbus to Cumulonimbus flammagenitus with the rationale "Moving common name to official name". This goes squarely against WP:COMMONNAME, which recommends using common names when possible, and pyrocumolonimbus is clearly the most common term as used in (for example) this Guardian article. Jpatokal (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Really important suggestion - thank you. I personally feel very torn on this, as I'm part of the 'pyrocumulonimbus' community and I was quite shocked when WMO made their decision. However, I also see their logic. There are five reasons to retain the official wording in my view. 1) Clouds are named in Latin (pyro is Greek), and pyrocumulonimbus can't ever therefore become the 'official' name - so it's a lost cause. The references for this are in the article 2) Although more common, pyrocumulonimbus is still not a 'common' term in terms of people's English, which is why people talk about 'thunderstorms generated by fire' and 'fires that create their own weather' 3) The renaming is very recent in relative terms, and it's reasonable to think that it will take a little while to catch on. Renaming this page actively works against that and sets up an ongoing conflict 4) WMO have every right to name clouds under international convention, and to educate the public on that in every language. The very use of terms such as cumulus, cumulonimbus, stratus, etc as universal names across languages attests to the success of this strategy. 5) Importantly, the redefinition formally accounts for multiple sources of development, including eruptions and explosions. Pyrocumulonimbus has developed from the fire specific community. We would need to rewrite the article to splinter off the volcanic Cb.

So somewhat reluctantly, I'm coming to the view that WMO are right. Heatrash (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Heatrash's argument, more or less. Both terms are uncommon enough that a WP:COMMONNAME argument is basically moot (it's a duel between two obscurities, with too little coverage of either in non-specialized, mainstream-English, independent, secondary, reliable sources to be statistically meaningful). We have precedent for using official terms when they are subject to internationally recognized standards (e.g. Aluminium, with a redirect from Aluminum, and Paracetamol with a redir from Acetominophen, both of them cases where the raw numbers in a typical COMMONNAME analysis would support reversal). This is very different from what WP:OFFICIALNAME denigrates (namely, favoring an unfamiliar name that the subject of the article or the owner/controller of the subject of the article prefers, e.g. a company and the names for its products, or a government and its formal name for a stretch of roadway it administers). Perhaps most important, though, is the scope point. If cumulonimbus flammagenitus covers clouds resulting from volcanic activity and manmade explosions as well as wildfires, and pyrocumulonimbus does not, but the article scope includes them all, then it can't remain at pyrocumulonimbus. In the end, since that will redirect here anyway, it will not matter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.