Weather conditions across the U.S. mean bomb cyclones are possible | Hacker News Reader

Weather conditions across the U.S. mean bomb cyclones are possible

npr.org

19 pointstux7 comments

"The origins of bomb as a meteorologic term are not entirely clear; although reputed to have been in spoken use for a number of decades prior to this, our earliest written record of this sense of bomb occurs in 1980."[0]

I call B.S. on "bomb" as a meterological term "for a number of decades prior", it is just another lame clickbait term. "The rapid intensification of a low-pressure system in which the barometric pressure of the system drops at least 24 millibars in 24 hours (also referred to as explosive cyclogenesis)"[1] is nothing like an actual bomb.

[0]https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/what-is-bombog...

[1]https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/what-is-bombog...

I'm not sure it follows that it's a clickbait term rather than having a simpler explanation. It seems more to me that "explosive cyclogenesis" is a bit too complex for the sub 7th-grade reading level most Americans are comfortable with.

To me, the relationship is pretty clear:

Explosive => Bomb

Cyclogenesis => Cyclone

Suddenly your news article is based on a concept whose nomenclature doesn't require you to know how Latin roots work.

Like a bomb calorimeter… you rapidly decompose your sample to efficiently extract the energy from it in thermal form for measurement.

My point was that while the actual weather event has presumably been happening for all of human history, it is only in the last decade or so that the term "bomb" has been applied to it, which I conclude is solely for clickbait reasons.

here is some evidence:

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=bomb+cyclone&y...

And my point is that your conclusion have to doesn't follow when pandering to American literacy to make sure the lowest common denominator comprehends what they're reading is just as likely a scenario. It's been a trend in "journalism" for a very long time. You ignored what I said and repeated yourself, good job.

>to make sure the lowest common denominator comprehends what they're reading

So are you saying that prior to the last 10-15 years, "lowest common denominator" people didn't understand anything about when a low pressure system developed quite rapidly around them, changing the local weather drastically -- because there was no easy-to-understand name for it?

No, that is indeed not what I am saying.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com