Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Statistics#Project bounties / other stats

It's been about a year since I compared the quality of the various basins by each decade, so I thought I'd give an update. I used only the articles and seasons that are good article or better, from 1950 to 2009. Some highlights.

Atlantic

The Atlantic gained 57 to a total of 288. This represents a 20% increase. The decade that had the most GA+ articles was the 1990s, which increased from 30 to 47, or by 36%. The 1980s also had significant gains, going from 23 to 39, or by 41%. Collectively, the 1980s and 1990s represented 33 of the new GA's, or 57% of the the total new GA+'s.

EPAC

The Eastern Pacific had significant gains, with 32 more to a total of 146. This represents a 22% increase. The decade with the most GA+ articles was the 1980s, which increased by 11 to 21, an increase of 48%.

Outside of those two basins, the WPAC had the most gains, with 15 more to a total of 58. Similar to the EPAC, the WPAC had a significant increase in the 1980s, largely thanks to Cyclonebiskit who added six GA's in the 1989 Pacific typhoon season.

--♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

They are really 21 GA articles during the 1980's in the EPAC? I find that hard to believe? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikilinking within the project

Since there are a few articles up for GA, now is as good a time as any to check on what this project's policy is on geographic name wikilinking. I can check again, but as of several months ago, wikipedia advised no wikilinks for geographic locations. At least one of the articles up for GA wikilinks geographic locations at every use. Thegreatdr (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of that WP policy. Our policy has been that we link uncommon place names that the writer thinks the reader might not know (in which case, no linkings of major countries or US states, since this is the English Wikipedia). That is, unless it's a sub-article on a particular area. Then, I think it's worth it to link the area, like New Mexico in List of New Mexico hurricanes. Generally, all city names are linked (unless they're used more than once). Basically, the uncommon place names are linked every time on their first usage. If they appear in the lede, then they'll generally be linked in the MH. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

That would help solve the dilemna with one of the GANs...dropping the country name to zero or one wikilink. Thanks for the feedback, and if anyone else has any thoughts, now would be the time to mention them. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikilinks for uncommon geographical locations are desirable. Not everyone knows where, Tucson is, but they probably know where Arizona is located, so there is no need to link to the latter. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with both of you, geographic links should be used for an uncommon place from a non-US reader (which may or may not include Arizona, depends on interpretation). YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox winter storm

I have just received a complaint about date format changes such as this causing breaks in image links because image names have been changed. Upon investigation, it seems that there is a particularly template that uses non-standard terminology as parameters. Whilst I will modify my script to avoid changing such instances, I would like to raise the issue here. I find the |image name= confusing because it usually refers to, er, image name. I hope that the template in question could be modified, so that |image location= is changed in favour of the more universal |image=, and |image name= be changed to |caption=. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Changing file names (like with the first modification in your linked example) is a really, really bad idea! Did I say bad???!! Files mostly are located on commons and are used in other Wikipedia language versions as well. Aside this, converting one valid data format into another valid data format is not encouraged (WP:DATERET). --Matthiasb (talk) 08:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

And changing American date format into British date format in an article on an Alaska weather event is just wrong in genereal, WP:STRONGNAT. Stop this please. --Matthiasb (talk) 08:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

SSHS classifications

Outside of the NHC AOR, when should we be allowed to classify something on the SSHS. I ask as we currently have CPHC saying that a tropical depression exists in the SPAC while NWS PAGO PAGO have called TD's before the JTWC previously and both use the SSHS.Jason Rees (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't quite get your question. Tropical depressions aren't part of the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane scale. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Except in our infoboxes we treat them as if they are a part, but for the avoidance of doubt i am meaning adding 1-min winds to the infobox when the JTWC havent initiated but the CPHC and or NWS Pago Pago have.Jason Rees (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I think I get you now. However, I don't think CPHC should be included, as they aren't warning for the SHEM. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible source of information

A set of publications I had forgotten about is out there for people looking for more information regarding Atlantic TCs beyond 1973. They are titled ANNUAL DATA AND VERIFICATION TABULATION OF ATLANTIC CYCLONES and cover from 1974 onward. I stopped looking/using them after the 1987 publication for the CLIQR database, as this information from 1988 onward is currently within the ATCF database and the extended best track database. They sometimes show longer tracks than HURDAT for various tropical cyclones, and include eye diameter information from recon and radar imagery, as well as central pressure information from recon flights into systems. This type of information (in the current era of ATCF) would be considered fixes. FYI. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam

Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

SSHWS

Should we create an article on the SSHWS now that the windspeeds have changed or rather will do come May 15. Also in the infoboxes shouldnt we now be using SSHWS worldwide rather than SSHS?.Jason Rees (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we should hold off on moving Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale until we see if the public changes what they call it. SSHS is still the common title. I don't think a new article is needed, since the new scale is only off by 2 mph, and there are no retroactive changes. The info should be added though. That said, I agree that the infoboses should use SSHWS, since that is often where the 115 kt/116 kt debacle is often seen. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I personally think that a new article is warranted as the SSHS was the scale with all the information on the Surge pressure etc while the SSHWS just contains the wind.Jason Rees (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Ehh, still the same basic scale though. Like I said, I think we should wait to see if the public/media recognizes the name change. If they still call it SSHS, then we shouldn't move/create a new article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No new article, but is should be moved IMO. See the discusion at Talk:Metta World Peace (where he changed his name from Ron Artest to Metta World Peace, the article was soon moved). YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Eh, it's different when a person's name is legally changed to something completely different. This is a case where there's one extra word and some minor changes. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Id hardly call the removal of pressure, flood ranges, storm surge estimations, rainfall and a general tidy up of the scale minor.Jason Rees (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

What about the other warning centers that use the SSHS, are they changing? — Ines(talk) 22:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

(reply to JR) It's the same scale though. No one ever used all of those other meteorological aspects of the SSHS. It's really minor. It isn't changing anything in the best track. This is quite unlike the Enhanced Fujita scale, which created a new designation (EF4 instead of F4) and had significant wind changes. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I too think it's unnecessary to create a new page, per Hurricanehink's reasoning. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you notice that the difference won't change anything, since wind speeds are rounded by five knots all the time? It was an issue when converting but actually the on five knots interval based wind speeds published by the NHC are not affected at all. --Matthiasb (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Meteorologist notability for article inclusion within project

Since I'm now the proud target of an AFD (go me!), now is as good of time as any to define for the project what is needed for someone to be considered notable. I believe wikipedia has a few guidelines which cover this. Just because someone gets on TV from time to time does not make them notable. Just because someone makes weather forecasts and/or contributes to wikipedia does not make them inherently notable. How many refereed articles do they need to have under their belt, either as a main author or under some acknowledgements section for the providing of a data set? Does having their name as a main author within papers count if their normal work duties require it (see NHC, HRD, CPC, and anyone who writes a thesis or dissertation)? Do awards matter, meteorological or otherwise? We've been needing to have this conversation as a project since at least 2007. Now seems to be as good of a time as any to have it. Ideas? Thegreatdr (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

BLPs should be a rare honour in the met projects ie those who have significantly contributed to the day to day weather on a global scale and not just hold a certain office. So this would mean that all the NHC directors and forecasters articles would go as they haven't done anything major GLOBALLY while articles would be kept on Davorak, Fujita since both of them have had a significant impact on Global forecasting.Jason Rees (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the highest-up officials and employees and the most influential forecasters are fine to stay, even if their work is regional. The NHC is more-or-less leading the way for TC forecasting in western society (most of the European media cites them, for example), and the UKMET runs models that are used globally every day. I think it's kind of hard to work at a major forecasting operation and not have a global or semiglobal impact. Juliancolton (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

But what about the head of the IMD, Canadian Hurricane Centre, or the Indonesian Agency for Meteorology, Climatology and Geophysics? I don't think there'd be the info for them. I wouldn't want notability to be tied to how much info there is. The fact that there might be more sources on a US meteorologist doesn't mean they're more important than someone who's from a language other than English. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

From what I've read, notability is tied to the amount of information out there in published form, whether it be via journal articles or books. Meteorologists such as Joanne Simpson who are pioneers in the field should have a lot of info out there, so they are notable (as I understand it). As would Fred Sanders (meteorologist), Isaac Cline, those involved in the Norwegian cyclone model, and Lewis Fry Richardson. Specifically related to the TC project, William Gray and Ivan Ray Tannehill would likely be notable. Once you start going down from those lofty heights though, it's hard to know. Lance Bosart might have a good amount of info out there. The article we have on Robert Case probably wouldn't survive an AFD. The Lixion Avila and Ed Rappaport articles have virtually no information, regardless of whether or not they are notable. Just because you work for a National Center within the NWS would not make you notable. Age doesn't make you notable either, so in theory, the amount of time you've been a meteorologist really shouldn't matter. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Now that the article concerning David M. Roth is gone, can someone program a bot to strip out all the related wikilinks? This would take a great deal of time to do manually. Much thanks. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Since I happen to have this page watchlisted (likely from a prior notification), and was the one who nominated that article for deletion, I've done so using twinkle. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Here are the guidelines from the Military project, adapted for our use:

In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources.

In particular, an individual will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they:

1. Were awarded their nation's highest award for meteorology or
2. Were awarded their nation's second-highest award for meteorology; or
3. Held a rank considered to be that equivalent of a national agency; or
4. Played an important role during a significant tropical cyclone event; or
5. Made a material contribution to tropical cyclone meteorology that is indisputably attributed to them; or
6. Were the undisputed inventor of a form of weather technology which significantly changed the nature of the science; or
7. Were recognised by their peers as an authoritative source on meteorology/tropical cyclones.

• Think this could work? Thegreatdr (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it could work to me.Jason Rees (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It has been reworded for the TC/meteorology project purposes. I'll post it over there as well. Other opinions would be good to hear. Two does not make a consensus. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

IDK, thinking about it some more, the military project has like 100,000 articles. We have barely 3,000, and I don't think people in meteorology are as notable as military generals. I think the best way, as with many of our articles, is to go article by article. I wouldn't say awards in meteorology warrant people getting articles, and as for national agency, I don't really think every director of the IMD, or FMS, deserve an article, since in the grand scheme of things, how important are they really? At least, that is based on my assessment of the project right now. There isn't any need to have stubs for every director for each of those agencies while the articles on the warning centers are so lacking. However, that isn't necessarily the case for the Atlantic, where many articles are more developed, and there will likely be more info. Above all, I think we should go just article by article (or group by group, such as the case of a deletion of all NHC forecasters due to lack of notability). Speaking of the NHC forecasters, the only ones I'd avoid in the AFD are Mayfield (since he was a director) and Landsea (since he is involved in the re-analysis project, whatnot. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that most of the NHC forecaster articles contain mostly quotes. How do we handle this? Create an article on Quotes from the National Hurricane Center (which I am not sure if that is encyclopedic) or outright deletion along with the forecaster article? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I'd say that article would not be encyclopedic. Check out both James Franklin (meteorologist) and Lixion Avila after their quotes have been removed. I think they might be deletion worthy. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

TC Rainfall maxima issues this week

The original code for the page became corrupted within Microsoft Word last weekend. After battling with the issue for a couple days, it was decided to redevelop the page from scratch. Yesterday, half of the information was re-included...but until Friday or Saturday, TC rainfall maximum information prior to 1982 will be missing due to my work schedule. It should be back online fully by Friday or Saturday. If this is an issue, I'm sure there is an old version within archive.org that has the information during this transition.

On the plus side, the last couple visits to the NOAA Central Library yielded rainfall amounts for Thailand TCs from 1989-1991, gathered from their Daily Weather Map-type series. Later visits should be able to extend this information back to 1987 or 1986. There is also a significant old archive of Cuban weather publications (in Spanish) that date back towards the turn of the 20th century, which could allow Cuban information to be added to some of the older rainfall maps. FYI. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

That's terrible news about the corruption, but interesting about Thailand. Would there be enough info to make maps for Thailand, or would it end up being listed as rainfall totals, along the lines of how you have Bermuda and America Samoa storms listed? Nice about Cuba too - I was beginning to wonder whether Flora was an outlier. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The publications do have enough data to create the rainfall maps, though finding latitude/longitude pairs would be necessary for these sites. The problem is, the heavy rains which fall in Thailand from TCs normally occur through its narrow southern section. Without rainfall amounts from Cambodia and Vietnam, there wouldn't be much to draw. For now, I'm holding off on rainfall graphics for that region. If I find similar information for Cambodia and Vietnam, I would go ahead and compile all the precipitation amounts into spreadsheets and draw the graphics. The process would be slow as it would be derived from a non-digitized dataset, similar to how the TC rainfall graphics were prepared until 2002/2003. Even with the older data from Cuba, I'm quite sure Flora (1963) is a once-in-a-century outlier. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense about Thailand, no sense having a map for that. How likely is it finding data for Cambodia or Vietnam? As for Cuba, daw, oh well, Flora was a once-in-a-century storm too. Only fair for it to have such a awesome map. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you planning to be covering each storm that affects a country now when there is information available about the rainfall or what?. Eg: Adding the freely available rainfall from Roke in Japan to the Maxima.Jason Rees (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no problems adding maxima from TCs worldwide to the page, as long as the source is considered reliable. NCDC has a good deal of international information, but several years back one of their data archivists mentioned they had less faith in data from other countries, particularly the real-time SYNOP observations. As long as it's from the horse's mouth (so to speak), sure, I could include the information on the page. Who/where is the source of Roke, Japan? Thegreatdr (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Rokes rainfall comes from its passage report on the Typhoon Committees website C/O RSMC Tokyo, while others are there for Hong Kong and Macau. I also agree that we have to tread carefully around rainfall especially when you consider that 2 or more tropical disturbances can affect a country within a couple of days.Jason Rees (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

If it's already on an RSMC's website, I probably wouldn't add the information into the TC rainfall maxima pages unless it adds value to a current graphic. I still run into the occasional piece of information from an NHC TC report or NCDC storm data item which needs to be added into the graphic. The 25" report from Danielle reported by the public about 10 miles northwest of Junction does not appear that it will be one of them. It's good to know about that link from a wikipedia article standpoint. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Finished rebuilding the web page last night. We had the technology. It's stronger, faster....you get my drift. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Moving North Atlantic tropical cyclone

Seeing the above discussion, I propose the above title be moved to Atlantic hurricane. As mentioned above, the warning center is the "National Hurricane Center", and each year storms form in the "hurricane season". The WP:COMMONNAME rule should apply here, as "Atlantic hurricane" gets 1.35 million Google hits, but "North Atlantic tropical cyclone" gets only 745,000. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I would involve the GAN reviewer on this. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The one from four years ago? Just checking. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep. I seem to remember this discussion occurring back then as well. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the GA review appears to be inactive (has not edited in a month or two). YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

After rechecking its talk page, it appears it wasn't the GA reviewer who made the suggestion...it was you, Mr, Hink. hehehehe Thegreatdr (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I support the Atlantic hurricane name as well. That's what the article covers, that what we should name it. Contrast this with South Atlantic tropical cyclones, which only deals with tropical cyclones in the South Atlantic (which are not named "hurricanes"). No reason not to move. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 00:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Well DR, I've been here going on seven years. I'm allowed to change my mind every once in a while :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

We evolve. It's understandable. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Just like Pokemon and monkeys :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone else oppose? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Tropical wave

Some more eyes on this article would be nice; I just reverted vandalism more than two weeks old there and the most recent edit before that one was November 14, 2011. I'm also somewhat scratching my head at the "Screaming eagle waves" section. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Satellite termonology from Hank Brandli/the Air Force from 1974. It's real and not vandalism. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Hurricane Effects

That was originally created due to certain limitations of the regular hurricane infobox, but I think by now it doesn't do much good having a separate template. When looking at Effects_of_Hurricane_Isabel_in_North_Carolina (one of the featured effects article), one can see that there is nothing additional but the Hurricane Isabel series. I'm thinking of putting it up for TFD, but I wanted to get some feedback first. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Template:Infobox Hurricane Effects has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox hurricane. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually I think, that articles like Effects_of_Hurricane_Isabel_in_North_Carolina should not use the Template:Infobox hurricane because of they're not the article on the hurricane. --Matthiasb (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Reminder about the CLIQR database not being the official TC database

Normally, any alterations made to HURDAT for this database are to extend/correct tracks based on the North American and Northern Hemisphere map series, and when they are significant NHC is e-mailed. There are a few systems where the intensity is different, based upon the maps. Since HPC is not the RSMC, go with the NHC intensity. It is going to be quite some time before the hurricane reanalysis makes it into the 1960s and 1970s to address these details/concerns. The Hope and Irma 1978 update was different in that NHC had made these designations, but somehow they didn't make it into HURDAT until now. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

History of Atlantic tropical cyclone warnings

This new article was created yesterday, and has seen significant expansion today. From the page views in the article history for yesterday, the new page is a hit. The question is: is the scope of this article sufficient the way it stands right now, or do more sections/concepts need to be included? More expansion is planned for the early years section and the earliest years of NHC, as well as more referencing. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Very nice. That way the main NHC article can focus more on what it does now. As for the history, hmm, maybe include a bit of the history of Atlantic tropical cyclone forecasting? Like, when they went to 3 days, and when they went to 5 days, and how they plan to go to 7 days. Would it be appropriate to mention when TS warnings came about? Or when the first hurricane warning was issued? (this one). Like, overall, more about the literal word "warnings"? Perhaps how warnings were distributed to the public before the internet? Just rambling here, but good work so far. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

If the information can be found about, it will be included. I know they did 3 day forecasts through 2001 or 2002, and have done 5 day forecasts ever since. The timing of the change from gale to tropical storm warning could be included. We'd need to cover the recent change in watch/warning periods as well. Good ideas. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh right, I forgot that they extended the warning and watch time. I know TS warnings were first added in 1987 (per here). It actually appears they had 3 day forecasts going back very far, at least to 1967. Only the change from 3 to 5 is needed then, IMO. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a significant article to me, but I think the title should be moved to History of Atlantic hurricane warnings per WP:COMMONNAME. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Good call, I agree. That OK, DR? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be shorter, which wikipedia general likes. But, will the article be able to pass through GAN with this title? Atlantic hurricane couldn't...the name had to revert to North Atlantic tropical cyclone. Hurricane really isn't a synonym for tropical cyclone. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it'd be fine to move. After all, it's the "National Hurricane Center", "hurricane season". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Both of those are established terms and entities. I was planning on talking about gale/TS watches and warnings along with their hurricane counterpart. That's the possible issue, as it was in the Atlantic hurricane/North Atlantic tropical cyclone article. I like to avoid conflict when possible. I'll leave it to a consensus though. If more people feel the name can be changed, you all can change it. If it needs to be changed back later, so be it. I'm just here to improve the content where I can. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it should pass GAN wit that title. List of Arizona hurricanes was able to pass FL with that title. BTW, I also feel North Atlantic tropical cyclone should be moved back to Atlantic hurricane. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

There have been no objections, so I made the move. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I initiated the unrelated discussion below about moving the article title for NATC. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

1932 Cuba hurricane

I am somewaht confused. While the article says, it was the tenth named storm of the season what suggests the track map should be named File:1932 Atlantic hurricane 10 track.png it was moved to File:1932 Atlantic hurricane 14 track.png. What's going on?

I also saw that into the 1932 hurricane season article have been added some further storms. I don't think that the counting changes retroactive only because the reanalyses project found some more storms. See, AL232005 Tammy and the later storms kept its designations even after that unnamed storm was added in reanalyses after the season. --Matthiasb (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Those numbers were never officially designated by the Jacksonville or New Orleans Hurricane Warning Offices at the time, nor by NHC since then. The only official designation NHC makes for storms prior to naming is NOT NAMED. This is the primary reason why I do not like our project's naming convention for TCs prior to 1950. We should just be generic, calling them Mid-September Caribbean Hurricane or August Florida Tropical Storm. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

1926 Miami hurricane

After a brief discussion on IRC today with TA and a few others, I decided to brings this up on the talk page. It is widely known that KAtrina is the costliest Atlantic TC, but adjusted with inflation, it is the Miami cane (which does not even sound right, is $100 mil really worth 126 bil in today's money? Should we convert ancient storms to inflation or not? Converting to inflation allows us to truly compare storms, but Jason Rees (talk · contribs) has told me that inflation is OR, which IMO is not true since inflation numbers are released by the cove, and there appers to be dozens of fairly reliable inflation calculators across the web that cite the government. So, the main question is, should we use inflation? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It is OR because there are several ways to inflate the data, and unless you have a source stating the way to do it and that it is applicable to the thing you are trying to inflate the data. On a personal note i feel that inflation provides a lot of hassle that isnt worth it. What does inflation provide? For the last 3 decades the prices haven't changed that much to make it really worth bombarding people with an inflated total every time we have a damage total. What i would love to do is to be able to make the box able to accept other damage totals in addition to USD.Jason Rees (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Inflation data is generally pointless for natural disasters, since, as implied above, there are so many other things that factor into it. If someone went back in time, put the hurricane in a bottle, and let it go tomorrow, it might leave only $10 million in losses or inflict $4 billion worth. As for the inflated number itself... I have no reason to doubt its accuracy if the hurricane is a binary statistic. As far as I know, there's really only one way to calculate the inflation of a single system of currency. Otherwise, damage totals themselves are of pretty dubious nature when presented in number form (I've studied hundreds of storms, thousands if you count non-tropical events, and I couldn't tell you the exact monetary losses for any of them). Inflation is even less likely to be absorbed by readers. Juliancolton (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Huh? There has been plenty of inflation since the early 1980s. Back then, you could buy a loaf of bread for under a dollar, gas was close to $2 per gallon (near its peak prior to 2005), a head of lettuce was about 40 cents, and you could get a reasonably priced house of about 2000 squared feet for $30-$100k (central and south FL prices respectively). Even without an inflator, I know that the value of items has gone up 2-4x since then. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

But 2-4% isnt that much imo, when compared to some of the parts of the tropics that we would inflate the US dollar for (eg: Zimbabwe, China).Jason Rees (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK, inflation calculators are reliable sources that calculate it for you. and JR, I'd like you to meet your new friend Template:Inflation that takes care of any hassle (you just need to know how to use it). YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

They maybe reliable sources but it is still OR, especially when applying it to storms outside of the United States with Zimbabwe providing a very good example of this. How can you take convert 1 ZWD to USD and then inflate it using the US rates and then convert it back to ZWD and infer that it is the proper damage total. Oh yeah you cant because its Original Research. Also how do you know that the inflation calculators are upto date?Jason Rees (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't consider it OR. You simply use Template:Inflation (which has sources in the documentation) and convert it. However,I woulnd't convert non-US stuff since the sources are usually fairly recent and the inflation rate has not changed much or even de-flated slightly. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

You may not consider it OR but you are forgetting that there are numerous inflator's out there for the US, that are updated several times a year. Also the sources in the inflation calculator do not cover how we should use the inflation calculator for TC's. It is also worth noting that if you were to inflate stuff for the US only then we would have problems when it comes to articles where there are multiple countries involved.Jason Rees (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Using inflation indices would not seem to me to be OR, as it seems to fall under the "routine calculation" exception articulated in WP:CALC. The question is: Which price index are you using to make the calculations? {{Inflation}} uses the Consumer Price Index, but storm damage inflation adjustments in NHC basins use the Implicit Price Deflator for Construction.[1], p. 5, footnote 2 Thus, as long as you show the calculation you should be okay, if all you are trying to do is inflate totals from a pre-existing source. (Now, trying to introduce a storm into a list of costliest TCs gets into a much grayer area, and requires discussion to verify that you are indeed not committing OR.) Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, it isn't so much OR as it is, why should we be including inflation? Movie articles don't usually include inflation prices. As we all know, simply having inflation doesn't provide nearly as much as the calculation that also takes population increase into account (wealth normalization). Saying that a hurricane in 1940 that caused $20 million would be $600 million with inflation... just doesn't sound that impressive, given how low that would be nowadays. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Timeline of the 2010 Pacific hurricane season

Why don't we recreate this page? Despite the lack of storms don't you think we should have a time line of events? I mean it's not on the season's page either but putting it there would take up too much space and there's also a link to the page contained within the season's page that redirects to itself. So what I'm basically asking, should we put the time line on the season's page, recreate the time line's page, or just leave it without a time line? Curtis23 talk to me 21:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

In this case, due to lack of storms, yea, put the timeline in the season article. In most cases, no. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

WP:TFL

Hi there. I've been checking through the lists we've featured on WP:TFL so far, and was surprised to find that we haven't had one of our featured meteorology lists on the Main Page yet.

I was wondering if anyone had a specific featured list in mind that they'd like to see go up, and would be willing to submit at WP:TFLS (I'd be happy to draft a blurb if that would help)? Perhaps (but not necessarily) to coincide with an anniversary of a specific storm? TFL is admittedly a slow moving process, but if you mention in the nomination that we haven't had a meteorology list, that should get the wheels turning a little bit quicker. —WFC— 02:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Would anyone here mind seeing timelines go to WP:TFL? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Lets wait, since we now have the list of the wettest tropical cyclones in the United States on there.Jason Rees (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

That does not mean we can't have another one :P. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Until TFL goes to twice a week i would suggest that it does, since we dont wanna spam them. Also i dont think timelines should go up, when we are all still in dispute about if they are needed anymore or are useful.Jason Rees (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

We've settled that months ago. I think more TFLs=more exposure to the project. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree though that we should refrain on timelines. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

United States TC rainfall data prior to 1956

• The link was uploaded last night. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • For those who go TLDR there is a summary of the data on PDF page 308, to which you should add 10 pages to get to a meteorological summary of the data.Jason Rees (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Issues with WP:Accessibility

Over at 2011 Atlantic hurricane season the timeline has been changed to include "(TS)" or "(C1)" etc. after the storm name to indicate its strenght to those with colorblindness. The problem with that is that the text then often runs into bars for later storms. The solution for now has been to reduce the size, but it's too a level that is too unreadable. Considering that the information on the strength of storms is easily found elsewhere, I think this should be a common sense exception to WP:Accessibility (similar to our exception right now that we use only color to indicate the strength of storms in our storm track maps). Any thoughts? Inks.LWC (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I think if you reorganised the timeline eg: put Emily on another line and maybe expanded it a bit you be fine. Ive just had a play with it and removed the overlinking and came with this.Jason Rees (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Your link doesn't seem to be working. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

There's still some overlap. And in my opinion, it makes it look cluttered. Again, I'd advocate that we make this one of those "common sense" exceptions that WP:Accessibility allows for, like we do with our track maps. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tropical Storm Erick (2007)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tropical Storm Erick (2007). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Big heads up

Big heads up guys. Hurricane Andrew is at WP:FAC. Be nice and please help out and leave comments. Thank you. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

1997 Pacific hurricane season#Hurricane Jimena

Some time ago the peak intensity of Jimena was changed (by Hurricane25, for the matter) vorm 120 kn down to 115 kn. The TCR on the NHC website (article's footnote 22) does not support the change. Could you guys verify it please? --Matthiasb (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The peak intensity is 120 knt, you have to look at it closely though. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

AFD for List of Category 6 Atlantic hurricanes

FYI, I've just taken List of Category 6 Atlantic hurricanes to AFD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Category 6 Atlantic hurricanes. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Pacific hurricanes and you

A conversation as the Pacific hurricane article has significant ramifications for the project. Someone (me) just realized that tropical cyclones are called hurricanes in the southeast Pacific by American Samoa. The term is used Western Hemispheric wide, not just the Northern Hemisphere. This would change how "hurricanes" are covered in season articles, no? Thegreatdr (talk) 1:24 am, Today (UTC+1)

• It would not affect the SPAC seasonal articles since we just use RSMC Nadi and JTWC.Jason Rees (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • No, it would not. However, it would affect the numbers reported in the season articles, should the names stay the way they are for the northeast Pacific hurricane seasons; i.e. 2012 Pacific hurricane season. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Two points:
      1. Is the change recent?
      2. I'm not sure we need to cover Samoa storms in the PHS articles. The climatology behind SEPac storms and NEPac storms is completely different, which is one reason behind keeping South Atlantic tropical cyclone and North Atlantic tropical cyclone separate. Putting Samoa numbers in the EPac season articles would inflate and confuse the seasonal statistics, and would make it harder to verify the season data with other sources (e.g. MWR). Not only that, since we would be the only ones reporting seasonal activity that way, someone could make an argument that it constitues original research. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
      • We are doing that already by merging the northeast and north-central Pacific stats, so the possible OR ship has sailed. MWR counts don't match the Pacific hurricane articles as it stands now...you can't simply add the two numbers together when there is overlap between the two defined basins (even if that definition is mainly politically-driven). Sounds like a reason to change the name of the articles. That way, they are clearer and there is less ambiguity. This is a problem with short article titles which may not convey their full, or proper, meaning. I agree about this being a semantic argument, and that it's not worth getting into a significant lather over. However, that is the project's job...getting into a lather about fine points of policy. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Well, NE and NC Pacific are merged because that's how they're included in HURDAT, and they're not listed as a separate basin by the WMO. The South Pacific is clearly separated, and with the Fiji Meteorological Service as the official warning center there, we should defer to them. As they call their systems "tropical cyclones" (and not hurricanes), I don't think they should be included in a "Pacific hurricane" article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
          • The CPAC is not a basin according to WMO. Adding NE and NC Pacific stats (as well as SE and NE stats) are not WP:OR, they are WP:CALC as they are routine calculations. Furthermore, they are combined in HURDAT. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
          • To answer an earlier question from Tito: no, this southeast Pacific hurricane deal has been going on for decades. In reference to the CPAC, if the WMO does not recognize the central Pacific basin, then what area is Honolulu writing advisories for, or the RSMC of? People call it the north central Pacific, not the western part of the northeast Pacific. In the case of this article, it doesn't matter if the equator separates the two areas or if they form in different months of the year. If hurricanes are recognized by that name in both places by any nation's weather organization that has responsibility for the region, then they all get included into a Pacific hurricane article, as long as the article keeps that name. It's not like we're saying that Joe Bob's website is the only reference claiming they are called hurricanes in the southeast Pacific (the case of the now-deleted tornadocane article). It's in the TC FAQ, which this project references extensively. That FAQ has been around for 20 years in one form or another...RSMCs refer to and contribute to it...and it states hurricanes being recognized in the south Pacific east of 160W. NWS Weather Offices in American Samoa and Honolulu (which have marine forecast responsibility for the area per the WMO even if they are not the TC-related RSMC) abide by this stance, and could be the reason for it. I do find it interesting that for this article people are quoting the RSMC, yet we don't do this methodically in the northwest Pacific set of articles. This is a semantic argument, not a meteorology argument. It's wikipedia, not nupedia. Same with the Atlantic hurricane/North Atlantic tropical cyclone article: enough articles published during and just after the fact call Catarina/Aldonca a hurricane to add reasonable doubt there too. Same with Hurricane Zeta: which annual article: 2005, 2006, or both? I may be in the minority here, but I'm standing my ground. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
            • • • Well, the article is about tropical cyclones that form in the SPAC, not swirls of clouds that get marine forecasts, so the fact that get marine forecasts from paces the call them hurricanes in irrelevant IMO. Merging the EPAC with the SPAc is quite a pain, remember that season articles there don't go that far back. Also, what about records and the the facts that the SPAc uses 10-min sustained and the EPAC uses 1-min sustained. Not to mention there are in different hemispheres. In all, there is just too much that needs to be changed in order for this to work. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
                  • Hence the name change proposal. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
                    • Yeah, I'd prefer the name change than combing the basins, but leaving it as it is is my favorite. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
                      • That's why I changed my statement from neutral to strong support for the name change. It was clear that people didn't want to add more real estate to that article and the season articles. People do like to naturally cling to the status quo, so I understand. So far, despite the "vote", no one has disproven the original premise of the page move. It's imprecise. If you really want to keep the article at its current name, you need to argue that for the name is currently precise and not ambiguous, which is going to be very difficult per the content on that talk page. So far, that has not occurred. It's just a he-said she-said between a couple NWS offices & the TC FAQ (which we use as a significant resource for this project) and the TC-related RSMC for that area of the Pacific. Not to mention the books which support the name change proposal. Good luck. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
                      • Exactly, it is precise already. SPAC TC's are rarely called hurricanes. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
                        • SPac is the area of responsibility of the RSMC Fiji and they're calling those storms cyclones. But they classify them hurricane-force according to the Beaufort scale. That's one point. Another point is: local warnings for American Samoa are produced by the NWS which sticks to the U.S. terminology. And, the WSO Pago-Pago, though it is not stated on their tropical cyclone page certainly is doing it similar to the WFO Guam by "interpretating" the JTWC forecasts into plain text, as stated here. Since I saw those pages for the first time, I never had the possibility to take a view on any of those local warnings when a WPac typhoon or SPac cyclone was near the respective islands (any of the systems have been too weak at the time the were near), so I cannot state whether the use "NHC slang" or official "RSMC slang" for stronger systems. --Matthiasb (talk) 09:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
                          • What's interesting is that in Guam, the NWS uses the term typhoon, not hurricane, so no such gray/grey area exists in the northwest Pacific. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
                            • I suspect that the term hurricane would have been used in the past because the operation manual quoted the advisory A2 of "Hurricane Zena" issued at 170750 UTC December 1986 to illustrate the format of the advisory. Although that is a hypothetical advisory, I don't think they would write it that way if they didn't use that term in that era. Nevertheless, I am quite sure that the official term now is Severe Tropical Cyclone (previously just Tropical Cyclone). I have no idea when the term "hurricane" was disused.165.125.180.10 (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

2012 Russian floods

I think that 2012 Russian floods could be within the scope of the tropical cyclone project. Given the sat image and the up to 300 mm of rain which fall there within twelve hours or so and the synopsis published by Roshydmet here and here (both links in Russian, use Google Translate: [2], [3]) the storm perhaps had a somewhat tropical component. (I don't know it there was coined a term for such systems in the Black Sea).

Aside this (and even when the storm is not in the scope of this project) could one user who's familiar with retrieving NOAA-19 sat images please upload one or more images of the area for both the 6 and 7 July from its original source? (The linked image is a NOAA-19 image but we know how the Commons works...) Thanks. --Matthiasb (talk) 09:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Timelines

Can somebody use AWB and revise all timelines to account for the recent SSHS change? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Be bold and do it yourself. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

He might not have AWB. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

He told me on IRC he does. Either way, AWB is not /needed/ to make such as change, after all, we could do it the old fashion way (it would take MUCH longer though). YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 19:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Why should the timelines be revised? Only timelines from 2012 and forward should be changed because you would potentially be changing what some storms were rated. United States Man (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily - since the change is on a very minor scale, no storms would have their ratings changed. The changes are:

• Category 3 peaks at 129 mph (this has no affect, as no storms are classified with 130 mph)
• Category 4 peaks at 156 mph (also will have no affect)
• Category 5 is now 157 mph and above (will have no affect).

TheAustinMan^(Talk|Works) 23:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

USM, it will not change how any storms are rated. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew that. I'm not sure why I worded it that way. But I still don't think previous years should be changed. United States Man (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

How come? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Because if it was changed the timelines from previous years would not display the information about the categories that was accurate at that time. United States Man (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

We don't live in the past so that is not relevant nor consistent. After all, the SSHS was not used prior to 1973, and their articles with timeline graphs use SSHS. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

How about chucking it to the nearest 5 on all timelines and leaving it at that, especially as the exact windspeeds of the SSHS are disputed.Jason Rees (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be WP:OR. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Do not be ridiculous YE, it would not be OR to round the units of to the nearest 5 since that's what we do already with windspeeds.Jason Rees (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Either way, if we rounded it, 130 mph would be be a Cat 3. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

So what? We can always have two 130 mph, im pretty sure that people who read our articles arent dumb.Jason Rees (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I have begun to AWB the whole thing, EPAC and ATL.--TheAustinMan^(Talk|Works) 21:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that this issue has not been decided, and thus I stopped AWB for the moment. TheAustinMan^(Talk|Works) 22:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

@Jason Rees - We don't round the wind speeds, the NHC rounds the wind speeds. United States Man (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any need to change the previous timelines. The timelines should reflect the SSHS as it was when those hurricanes occurred. The only timeline that should reflect this change is 2012 and the future. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

If that were the case, we wouldn't include the SSHS before 1971. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, seriously... there's a large period of time in hurricane history where almost all information is based on contemporary scales, accounts, and models. Moreover, and more to the point, this is simply a procedural change by the NHC to make the conversions slightly less funky. Even if you tried, you couldn't come up with a case where a storm's rating is changed by the amendment. It's fine to update the timelines. Juliancolton (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Does the NHC consider the SSHS as applying to storms before 1971? Inks.LWC (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they do. That can be viewed here. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There ya go. Retroactive application of SSHS means we should use current wind speed. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Re-analysis is the reason we should include SSHS in our timelines prior to 1971, but I don't think the NHC will go through all their documents changing the tables prior to this year, so I'd argue we should follow what they do. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, re-analysis has not been done from 1943-1970, and I don't see why they would not do it. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

1926 and 1961 Other storms addenda

A reference has come to light to indicate Vera Cruz was impacted by a non-HURDAT documented hurricane in late September 1926 and a tropical depression in June 1961. Since they have this single reference, felt it appropriate to add an Other Storms section to those season articles with the little information that existed in the paper. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Tcclim

Template:Tcclim has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Ernesto/Hector, two articles or one?

Within the project, we've been inconsistent over the years regarding our maintenance of a low pressure system which causes the formation of two TCs as one article or two. Our more recent cases of this are TD-11E/Hermine of 2010 which became one article, and Alma/Arthur of 2008 which we maintain as two separate articles. It's best to get the discussion out of the way now, before Ernesto regenerates in the eastern Pacific tomorrow. Luckily, we still have 24 hours due to their synoptic scale criteria for TCs to discuss this. It may take that long for it to re-acquire a well-defined circulation anyhow. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

We'll treat it as one article as Hector will not likely be article worthy. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

You never know about its noteworthiness. Looks like NHC/HPC have it approaching central Baja California in 7 days. If I ever get Mexican rainfall data, it would be one graphic and one track. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It would likely be a remnant low by then. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I also agree. It is pretty much the same system (though not completely). United States Man (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

If you look at their positions for both, one begins where the other ends. The forward motion used for 94E follows directly from Ernesto. It is the only cloud pattern in the region. The only thing it is missing at the present time is the continuity of a well-defined surface circulation, which is why advisories on Ernesto ended...that singular issue. It's the same surface low, even by NHC's estimation. Our seasonal maps won't even be able to distinguish Ernesto from what tropical cyclone evolves from it. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

This is one very tricky issue to get right, for example should KVC be at Cyclone Katrina–Victor–Cindy? – i believe so since BoM distinctly say that VC developed out of K.Jason Rees (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Somewhere I have a track for a system in the southern Hemisphere which was around for two months...maybe it was this one. I see no reason why that article would need to be split. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to join this late, but is there a source that confirms 8E was the remnants of Ernesto? As for 11E/Hermine, the TCR said it was the same LPA and the same mid-level circulation. Arthur's TCR says Alma's remnants combined with a tropical wave to create a new surface low, like Katrina and 10L. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

This says that it is partially associated with the remnants of Ernesto, like Arthur-Alma. The wave was already given a good chance of developing before Ernesto even made its second landfall. So, I am not sure what to do with it at this point. United States Man (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I was bold and did not consider Hector to be a direct continuation of Ernesto. It's just weird seeing Ernesto as "still active". We should treat it like 11E/Hermine. If in post-season analysis the NHC combines their track, we should do it. As of now, the two tracks are a day apart. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I will just follow along with what is decided because, like I said, I am not sure what to do. United States Man (talk) 03:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Edits of 94.134.185.50

Please check http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/94.134.185.50 . He's been on another IP before, making tiny changes to miles (116 to 115, etc.) and I initially discarded it as subvandalism but their other edits appear valid and maybe they're just manipulating numbers to overcome a template shortcoming.

I mass-reverted the first IP, then the second IP, then myself because I wasn't sure. Please look into this, I don't have the time or inclination to investigate why they are doing this. Thanks. --Golbez (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I was thinking that too, how it wasn't vandalism at first because it was so minor, but yea, after seeing the switches from 116 to 115, I agree with your decision. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought we had to shove in 116 knots to get the proper NHC Conversion to mph and km/h.Jason Rees (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

NOAA Hurricane charts

I don't have a contact at NOAA, so I'll drop this here. File:08L_2012_5day.gif -- I wish I could post a link to the current one, Advisory 17, but there doesn't seem to be a permanent link for it -- seems badly centered. The entire cone is between 30W and 10W and 35N and 45N. So why is it scrunched down in one corner? The image shows everything from 80W to 5W and 35N to 65N; certainly area directly south of the hurricane's current position at 35N is more interesting and threatened then land 30° W or 30° N. Worse, the NOAA logo is covering Spain, which is where the remnants of the hurricane is currently plotted to end up. I'm guess they show the East Coast on fishspinners so we don't end up with a map that's just a dot in the water, but Gordon really needs a different focus.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

At a complete guess its probably to emphasise to the US customers where this system is in relation to them the uk etc. I also note that the met services of the region dont seem to be promoting the NHC.Jason Rees (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

1. A permanentlink to each of the advisory graphics can be found at Gordon's graphics archive.
2. It seems to be a bug in their software, since actually the wind speed probabilities maps are having the focus you're missing.
3. One could complain to the NHC, see their contact information page. --Matthiasb (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Strength of Hurricane Opal (1995)

I am somewhat confused since an editor in the DE:WP changed the pressure from 919 mb to 916 mb and did find this value here within the 1995 Atlantic hurricane season article as well as in the hurricane's article proper. However, both the from Max Mayfield written TCR and the HURDAT entry for that storm give the figure 919 mb, and it seems that the Weather Channell's page on that season is the only source supporting 916 mb. Could please another user double check with me. Thanks. --Matthiasb (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

916 is correct. That was in between six-hour positions. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

1909 Atlantic hurricane season season affects table

As I'm not that good with tables, especially the template-formed ones, I figured I'll bring it up here and let someone else deal with it : the season affects table for 1909 Atlantic hurricane season is a bit messed up. Thanks, "Pepper" @ 12:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Does list/category/template/etc. exist?

I was wondering, with Hurricane Isaac about to hit Louisiana on (or nearly on) the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, is there any list or category or template about areas that had at least one tropical cyclone hit the area on (or nearly on) the anniversary of a previous storm? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hurricane Rita

I was just reading the Hurricane Rita article, which seems well written and to definitely fit the criteria of a "good article". I am surprised to see it listed as "start class" by this WikiProject. Also there is a tag requesting help from in expert (since 2009!) but no explanation of it the talk page. If anyone is currently working on the article do you feel it's ready for reassessment? I do. --TimL (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thousands of articles on WP have tags, but I agree it is C class. Still more needed for GA though IMO. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 20:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Most landfalls

What hurricane/tropical storm made the most landfalls (especially in the eastern U.S.)? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

In the US, I believe the record is Tropical Storm Fay (2008), which made four landfalls in Florida. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I was looking at the Hurricane Isaac article, and it said that Isaac made 4 landfalls, only 3 of which were in the U.S.

But the 4 in Florida must be the most in one state, let alone in one country, huh? Is there any list on here for the most landfalls? What about for locations that were hit by at least 2 hurricanes/tropical storms? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, the most in the Atlantic is Hurricane Georges, I believe, which made seven landfalls. There is not a list, as "most landfalls" is a pretty trivial idea, IMO. The longest lasting tropical cyclone only made two landfalls, but a storm that lasted two days could've done the same. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Now, do you know what locations that were hit by at least 2 hurricanes/tropical storms? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

If you mean within say a month of each other i believe Cyclone Eric and Nigel 1985/86 both hit Vanautu/Fiji within 5 days of each other.Jason Rees (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

JR, I know you like to plug for your home country, but I think he's looking for US stats. :P In terms of multiple "hits" at the same location, I'm pretty sure that if you take any given coastal town between South Padre and Cape Cod (save perhaps the Emerald Coast of FL and between JAX and Charleston), you'll be able to find a multitude of storms that have passed over or within a short distance of it. The more impressive feat is when two or more tropical systems in the same year impact a location. Being more steeped in older TC history, I'd have to say an impressive example is Hurricanes 1 and 4 of the 1860 Atlantic hurricane season, which both passed very near to New Orleans and caused substantial damage there. Juliancolton (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, all, for your responses. I remember one year (I think it was 1996) where the Wilmington, North Carolina area was hit by at least 2 storms, and was threatened by at least one more (I think). The storms that hit were named Bertha and Fran. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Bertha and Fran were the two storms that hit close to Wilmington, NC in 1996. The third storm you are talking about may have been Tropical Storm Arthur, which struck Cape Lookout.--12george1 (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Search for actual page location

There's a problem with some links for Bret 2011. F.ex. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/text/TWDAT/TWDAT.201107150552.txt does not work anymore. Link title was Tropical Weather Discussion (however I am not sure if that was the "official" link text or some Wikipedian's selfmade description of the link). Does anyone have a clue where to recover those batch of seven links? --Matthiasb (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Just remove the urls since they refs should be in Template:Cite report. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 05:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The title is correct as i have stated numerous times it is a product issued by TAFB discussing the tropics. An archive of them is found here.Jason Rees (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Jason, hohepully I will find what I am searching.

@YE: The hint with the Template:Cite report won't help me, because we don't have that template in DE, so all of these had been twisted to Template:Cite web, and that's the issue. ;-) It came to surface since at the moment a bot is flagging some 300.000 DE-articles with broken links. --Matthiasb (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Then, City report should be added in DE :P YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

You won't show me your tongue if you knew what hard work others and me had for not getting deleted cite web/journal/news/book. :p However we're still on the first generation of those templates what means that our solution still is totally incompatible with Template:Citation (and therefore parameters firstx/lastx with x = 2 to 8 or so) --Matthiasb (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Jason, it did work, not only for that link above but basically for the other years as well, and also fr a bunch of other NHC products:

• http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/text/TWDAT/TWDAT.201107150552.txt gets
• http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/text/TWDAT/2011/TWDAT.201107150552.txt

In a similar way I could fix a lot of HPC links as well. --Matthiasb (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

NHEM Season Articles 2013

Normally at this time we start looking at creating the seasonal articles for next year, however id like to call a stop to the 2013 NIO being created yet since there is still a very big chance that the 2012 NIO will end up with no proper systems.Jason Rees (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Which Intensified Faster? Typhoon Forrest or Hurricane Wilma

I have been wondering over this question because it seems that the data now seems to be showing that Wlima might have intensified faster than Forrest. Could anyone help with proving which one is the fastest intensifying tropical cyclone? Playerstroke (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

According to JMA's best track, Forrest intensified from 975 mb to 885 mb, or 90 mbar, in 24 hours. According to Wilma's TCR, it intensified from 979 mb to 882 mb, or 97 mbar, in a 24 hour period. Wilma intensified faster than Forrest. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

So that means that Wilma is the fastest intensifying Tropical Cyclone recorded worldwide. I guess we need to edit the articles that mention Wilma's rapid deepening with this new record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Playerstroke (talk • contribs) 04:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I just updated the Rapid deepening article to include this new information on Wilma holding the record for the fastest intensifying Tropical Cyclone worldwide as a result of this talk Hurricanehink. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Playerstroke (talk • contribs) 04:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Well you need to clarify what you mean by fastest intensifying. Do you mean in 24 hours? Also, I'm not sure such a label is even appropriate, keeping in mind Wikipedia's policy on original research. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yea, that's only based on those two storms, and neither source says that either was the fastest intensifying worldwide. We can't add records unless the source is explicit. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the original research. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

WMO ASU states that the fastest intensifying TC was Forest, however it takes its data from the JTWC.Jason Rees (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

When it came to intensifying the fastest for both Super Typhoon Forrest and Hurricane Wilma it was sharpest pressure drop in a 24 hour time span.--Playerstroke (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I found the data for Super Typhoon Forrest on the JTWC here: http://www.usno.navy.mil/NOOC/nmfc-ph/RSS/jtwc/best_tracks/1983/1983s-bwp/bwp111983.txt The one thing it does not show though is the pressure in any form of measurement. The WMO Linked to an article from NOAA comparing Forrest and Wilma dated 2006. http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E2.html NOAA recorded Forrest's pressure dropping in 24 hours from 976 to 876 Millibars while JMA recorded Forrest's pressure dropping 975 to 885 millibars for the same 24 hour span. http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/jma-eng/jma-center/rsmc-hp-pub-eg/Besttracks/bst8089.txt Both NOAA and JMA are very credible sources however the JMA had a list of advisories for Forrest while NOAA had just a brief article with a personal account for Forrest. I think the JMA data is more credible because it has advisories from the actual time they were issued for Forrest while NOAA's Personal Account is retrospective meaning the information could have been skewed in the process.--Playerstroke (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

But unless a source specifically says that Forrest or Wilma holds the fastest pressure drop in 24 hours, we can't say that. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

So what does that mean for the Fastest intensification part of the List of tropical cyclone records page? Should we include both Forrest and Wilma in the Fastest intensification record due to the ambiguity of Forrest's intensity?--Playerstroke (talk) 03:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Inks we have a source - the WMO ASU account, however like i said it uses JTWC data. Playerstroke if you look on Page 15 of the JTWC ATCR for 1983, you will find a TCR on Forrest.Jason Rees (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, ok I didn't see that. Perhaps we could say something like "according to JTWC data, the fastest..." Inks.LWC (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I take a class from the professor who maintains the WMO records database. I'll ask him about this. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 16:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Lowest tropical cyclone pressures at landfall

I came across this stub and orphan, and I was wondering what others thought we should do about it. Landfalls are pretty arbitrary (see Hurricane Fabian, Hurricane Iwa, to name a few), and there isn't exactly great global consistency over landfall pressures. This is unlike the List of most intense tropical cyclones, which we can at least base off the best track. Most best tracks don't include the landfall pressures, so I don't even think this list *can* be sourced. Thoughts? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It's trivia and unsourced. I'd take it to AFD. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Either merge into List of tropical cyclone records it or delete it. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

As Hink said, it may be hard to get sources so just delete it. United States Man (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Just because it's hard does not make it impossible :P YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 20:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Whether it is hard, impossible, or so easy that a 2-day-old baby could do it, it is a stub and unless someone can add a bunch of content to that page, then it needs to be deleted. United States Man (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Why can't it be merged though? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, if someone can get sources and put all of it together then it should be merged, but otherwise it needs to be deleted completely. United States Man (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I deleted it, since after looking around, there is no way to source an article like that, or even expand it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

See the note below. At least for the Atlantic and northeast Pacific, landfall-specific information is/will be more readily available. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

New Atlantic/northeast Pacific HURDAT format unveiled

...here. It was well-advertised within the hurricane re-analysis community. It looks like a comma-delimited form of HURDAT, but with wind radii and landfall information included. In short, it looks a bit more like the extended best track format. The HURDAT format you're all used to won't be generated by NHC by spring 2013, when the 2012 information becomes available. It's quite possible someone else could produce the information in the old format, however. FYI. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow is that it? - It is exactly the same format as the JTWC uses bar a title line.Jason Rees (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

New Tropical Cyclone Website

NOAA along with several other agencies have created a new tropical cyclone website called cyclonecenter.org calling for citizen scientists to help with refining data on tropical cyclones world wide. I thought I would share this with the group since we are already doing it here on this website.Playerstroke (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Changes to a template

I am requesting for comments on a change to a template – please click here for more info.

–– Anonymouse321 (talk) 05:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

1959 Atlantic hurricane season

I was considering to translate this season's article into the German WP next, when the 2012 seasons are over but saw that the article has several issues. For most of the storms there's a lack of references and the descriptions of the particular storms are of very different length and quality. I do not want to flag almost every sentence in the article with "citation needed" but that's basically what is needed.

I also think that the season's overall trackmap should be redone (or replaced by the old weather bureau's map) since in the normal article view it shows a sea of blue only. (That's an issue with many similar track maps, that the symbols are too small to distinguish.) Greetings. Matthiasb (talk) 07:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Work needed

Hi ya'll - I've been (slowly) working on kicking some of the dead links out of featured articles, and have come across a couple of storm articles with a bunch of dead link tags that I'm hoping you can help me with. The articles that I've found so far are:

• 1933 Atlantic hurricane season
• 1941 Florida hurricane

There are some other ones out there with just one or two tags (I can get you a list of those, too, if you would like!), but these are the ones in the worst shape. The first one, especially, has 20 dead link tags!!! Any help is appreciated, Dana boomer (talk) 02:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Timeline of recent events section

There has been a recent argument, and edit war, on whether or not this section should exist in active hurricane season articles. It is meant as a brief overview of the last 15 days as opposed to the timeline page, which shows what happened in that particular season throughout the entire period. It has been the format for several years, and while consensus can change, I don't see any reason why it needs to be removed. One of the points brought up last night was that there is no need for it because we have the timeline page, but I disagree. That's like saying we don't need the Storm section because the storm's have articles or we don't need the season effects section because everything is already listed in their particular section. Thoughts? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there should be summary of timeline in the season article, However, I feel that is covered in the SE charts and/or the timeline graph. As for seasons with low activity, the timeline should be in the SS (possibly capped per the MOS). YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with YE. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

When to include landfalls in the Season effects section

Should landfalls of all storms be included or only tropical storms (or subtropical storms as well)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inks.LWC (talk • contribs)

I dont think they should be included at all since the majority of the time it is difficult to judge exactly where its made landfall or if it has at all.Jason Rees (talk) 11:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jason Rees. Why should a landfall on a very unpopulated island count if a storm caused significant impacts while only passing near a different landmass? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Well it's included in the past few years' Season effects sections. I have no problem removing this. Is that what you're advocating? Inks.LWC (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with removing it as well. United States Man (talk) 02:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Should we hold something more formal to get consensus from the whole project? Inks.LWC (talk) 03:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, prior to 2000 (at least in the Atlantic basin), the table had a specific column for landfall but did not have an "Areas affected" column. Should this be removed as well? Inks.LWC (talk) 03:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hold on, I object in the EPAC as over there landfalls are rare and the state where it made landfalls should be in parenthesis IMO. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Why should that basin be any different from another basin? Iwa in 1982 didn't make landfall, but it caused significant damage in Hawaii. The exact landfall isn't important. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Well if you're going to put it in parentheses, shouldn't you indicate somewhere in the section that that's what the text in parentheses means? The Atlantic articles do that (although for their articles, landfalls are in bold). I also disagree that landfalls in EPAC are rare. Going back through the past 3 season, there have been multiple landfalls per season. There are some years with just as many landfalls in the Pacific as the Atlantic. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, though they should not been bolded. 2-3 landfalls a year is certainly rare! What if a doctor only noticed an illness 2 to 3 times a year. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Some are bolded and some are not. We should come up with a uniform way of showing landfall (if we decide to keep it in the section), and that method should be clearly explained in the text before the table, otherwise it's pointless to include it, as the only people who know what it means is people in the project. And I guess rare is relative. Doctors see a whole lot more than ~20 patients a year, but there aren't hundreds of hurricanes a year. My only point in saying that was that landfalls in EPAC are not much rarer than landfalls in the Atlantic for many seasons. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It should not be bolded IMO per the MOS and yea it should be explained via note. Yea, rare is relative. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think EPAC's landfalls should be highlighted. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

So we never answered the original question. If we're going to include landfalls, should this be for landfalls only when the storm is tropical? Or also when it is subtropical? Extratropical? Inks.LWC (talk) 09:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I answered it by staying we shouldn't be listing landfalls at all. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, with only one against (I had misread the discussion and thought two were opposed), and three in favor, I'm not sure I'm comfortable calling that consensus. Personally, I don't care one way or another, but until we can establish some consensus on the matter, I'm just trying to figure out what we should be including, since we include it now. If we want to change that, that's fine, but that's a bit of a more contentious issue apparently. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)