Jump to content

Talk:1996 Atlantic hurricane season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hurricane Huron

[edit]

Should this "Hurricane" be included? It is a pretty unusual occurrence, and I see other seasons have unusual storms (2004 mentions Catarina, 1994 mentions December Subtropical Storm). I think the storm is fascinating, and it could be mentioned. Here are some links:

Hurricanehink 17:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While this storm is incredibly impressive, there is little meteorological evidence to support that this was a hurricane. For Catarina, we have compelling data to support that it was a hurricane, including analysis from NHC experts (Jack Beven). I haven't even found wind readings, so this storm may not have even had hurricane-force winds. It was probably an intense Arctic storm (known as a "Freshwater Fury") with abnormally cool cloud-tops (indications of a warmer core). Even in that incredible satillite photo, you can pick out signs of a cold core system. Note that the western half of the storm is completely open, the main convection only loosely wrapped around the center. Based on this, I would recommend against adding it. However, this storm may have briefly attained subtropical characteristics.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 22:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, sounds good. I hadn't thought of it too much, but you're right. Best to leave here at the talk pages. Hurricanehink 18:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. TimL 21:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look's good. It should be mentioned somewhere, though not necessarily in the storm section. It could fit in the intro. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to work it in if no one beats me to it. TimL 03:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the full article, to me the implication seems to be that the storm had features of a tropical cyclone, like a polar low. One sentence in particular "It is believed that the Huron system was akin to the cold-low class of polar lows". Therefore I don't think it belongs in this article, though with the information there it might be an idea to give it its own article (and not part of WPTC).--Nilfanion (talk) 09:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The abstract that Tim mentioned says it was warm core. It doesn't say anything about cold-core. I don't see why it shouldn't be mentioned. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hink, I was quoting from the full article, which is available there. Warm-core != tropical; polar lows are too. Just because it was warm-core doesn't make it a TC (read the full article before deciding).--Nilfanion (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How were you able to access the full article? TimL 20:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "Print version" link - if you right click and save it should download (its a 8MB pdf).--Nilfanion (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I always thought that button was for a print version of the abstract! (Man all the ams articles I would have read). That said, I don't agree with you that polar lows are warm core. An after reading the full article, the authors build a pretty solid case that the storm intensified do to the warmth from the waters of the great lakes. TimL 21:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, note that only some articles are freely available to download however :( I agree the authors make a solid case that that storm was associated with the lake, and changed in structure as it did so. However I do think polar lows are warm core, judging from what an appropriate Google search generates. The full article is certainly an interesting read though. I do not believe it belongs in this article any more than a Mediterranean tropical cyclone would (the Med is part of the Atlantic). That storm is certainly an interesting thing to write about but it doesn't belong here IMO.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, I agree with you, the whole article makes a strong case. Even if it wasn't fully tropical (unlikely), it still deserves a mention, along with a link to the article. The Mediterranean is far removed enough to not be part of this, and should be on its own as a basin, though the Great Lakes have never been encountered before. If it were to be mentioned anywhere, it should be here, though the article could possibly provide enough information for a full article. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After digesting the whole thing I'm undecided as if it should go in this article, actually leaning towards it not, because I think it falls just outside the scope of this article. I agree with Nilfanion that it should be written about somewhere. TimL 01:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, it could go in the Other Storms section. The other storm that's there wasn't a storm, but still had some info and deserved there. It could go like this. "From September 11 to the 15th, an intense, warm core cutoff low developed over Lake Huron, an area unseen by tropical cyclones. The low resembled a hurricane at times, with an eyewall, spiral bands of rain, relatively warm water temperatures beneath it, and little vertical shear above it. The system dropped moderate rainfall across southwestern Ontario and northeastern Michigan, peaking at 4.1 inches along the southern coast of the Georgian Bay. It is unknown if it was tropical or not." Something like that. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the logical thing is to have an article for the storm and a mention in other storms comparable to what is in tropical cyclone. I don't think a full in-depth summary has any point to it as the storm isn't relavant to 1996AHS but mentioning its existence seems sensible. "Other storms" as a section is potentially very useful; the storm in the article and the huroncane are obvious candidates for a mention. Perhaps we should consider what is appropriate for other storms centrally?--Nilfanion (talk) 11:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That works. There's plenty of information in that article, and that way we could get all of the discrepancies out. The question is, what would it be called? "Hurricane Huron" would be misleading, as there's not enough evidence for that. There were only TS winds with a pressure of 993 mb, not quite enough to claim hurricane status. Would it be part of the WPTC? Yea, Other storms could definetly become useful. OS could allow for notable tropical waves or other storms that have no other place. For example, 2004AHS's other storms, assuming we did it, could include the May wave in Haiti and Catarina. So should we add Huron into the OS section? Hurricanehink (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images for each storm

[edit]

Here we go again.

Will finish later. Hurricanehink 16:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couple more. Can't finish during school. Hurricanehink 17:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hurricanehink 20:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is a sweet picture of Lili! Love It! Cyclone1 02:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Theres gotta be somethin better that Gustav. I'm lookin for one now.—Cyclone1 14:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Ok i was wrong nothing better for Gustav, but i did find a few more. They're all from Goes, Noaa and Nasa.

They are all public domian. Cyclone1 14:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're all pretty good, but they all have words. It's fine if it has the NOAA logo on the top left with the storm's name, but those three have a lot of words on the top of the image, and it would look cluttered and weird with the big white letters. Hurricanehink 16:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I see like Hurricane Gordon. I don't like that picture for that exact reason. Cyclone1 16:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If a version exists with text, you will almost certainly be able to find one without the text if you look hard enough. For instance isn't it possible to see the original GOES imagery and cut that part of the image out? — jdorje (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean exactly? Editing the text out ourselves? If we have to for Edouard, let's please do. As Hink said in the 1998 discussion page, the eye pics are the golden ones, right Hink?—Cyclone1 21:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, you can't edit the text out (there's nothing to replace it with). What I'm saying is if you keep looking you'll probably find a version without the text. — jdorje (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could edit it out through photoshop. I know I shouldn't have, but I did this for Alex from 1998 (edited from here). A few changes in the clouds in the background really isn't going to make a difference, and provided the image is one of the best of the storm, I don't see the harm. Hurricanehink 22:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not that good at photoshoping stuff. I'll just keep looking, at least for Edouard. Cyclone1 00:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo! Awesome Eye shot of Ed!!! Check it out! No big words, Eye, Full hurricane can be seen, Great shot. →Cyclone1→ 23:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Feel free to upload it. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've just edited the words out of that picture.[1] How does it look? Can we use it even if I slightly edited it? -- RattleMan 23:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I've done that before. That looks great! Hurricanehink (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet! Consider it uploaded! →Cyclone1→ 00:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Much better! →Cyclone1→ 00:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found another Edouard pic, and I think this could be the best one we have. Here is the link. It is of the storm at peak intensity, and though it is a little far out, it shows the features of the fully-developed hurricane better than the existing image. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it a lot better. The one now is at category three strength. Nice find. →Cyclone1→ 02:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded it, but it's probably a little too far zoomed out. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see what you mean but I think the one we have now is a little too zoomed in. I like the new one better. →Cyclone1→ 05:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add the new one in? --Hurricanehink (talk) 12:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. →Cyclone1→ 20:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Due to a recent GIBBS miracle, I gave the old Gustav pic the axe and uploaded a new one. As you can see, I tried to find this picture before, and just found it now. →Cyclone1→ 16:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now, there's the little matter of Cesar and his current picture in omparison with this one. This one shows the true large size of Cesar. Better? And Kyle's pic isn't that great either. →Cyclone1→ 16:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a little better, but I personally like the existing Cesar. I think that the existing image shows the true size, while the GIBBS Infrared is a little misleading. However, Kyle would be great to re-do. --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the existing image is probably better for Cesar actually (or would be after a bit of photoshopping), the Kyle image could be replaced. GIBBS isn't that great when compared to other imagery as it is low-res. However it has ease of use, the other sources don't have that.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I uploaded the Isidore one Cyclone suggested. GIBBS does have its down sides, so we should try and use images that are already zoomed in whenever possible. --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. The only thing I dislike about the Ceasar image is that you can barley see the hurricane. But I'm a bit out-numbered so, oh well. Should I switch Kyle images? →Cyclone1→ 22:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The Cesar image can be fixed if anyone has photoshop. Anyone? --Hurricanehink (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not me. Sorry. →Cyclone1→ 22:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've got it, I can get it sorted soon. It just needs a bit of brightening doesn't it?--Nilfanion (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yea. Just a little... not too much. --Hurricanehink (talk) 23:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I might have overdone it actually, its at Image:Hurricane_Cesar_1996.jpg, what do you think?--Nilfanion (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's great. Maybe it's a tad too bright, but at least you can see the storm now. --Hurricanehink (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the vote of approval, lol. Still its much better than what there was before.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very nice image. Where is it from? TimL 18:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The original uploader didn't say unfortunately. I found it here, it was taken by DMSP satellites. I've updated the image to reference the original source.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the Kyle GIBBS image. →Cyclone1→ 21:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three NC Storms

[edit]

Two Hurricanes made a direct landfall in North Carolina; and T.S. Arthur nearly made landfall, and still affected the area. Could we add something to the summary about this? Weatherman90 15:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But Arthur did pass over the Outer Banks. It did make landfall, kinda. Cyclone1 14:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All done weatherman.Mitchazenia V3.0 21:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todo

[edit]

I think either this season should be downgraded to start class, or 97 should be upgraded to a B. This is just as great as 97, I think. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 21:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

[edit]

The season summary needs a cleanup, and badly. It should focus more on the season as a whole, not necessarily on the particular storms. Overall details, like the fact that three storms affect North Carolina, should be mentioned there. Any overall records (like the number of major hurricanes) or statistics should be mentioned there. However, details like which storm was in which month in order isn't that useful as a summary (that's what the storm summaries are for). Hurricanehink (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:1996 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TheAustinMan (talk · contribs) 22:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 12george1! I will be reviewing the article, 1996 Atlantic hurricane season. As is typical of my latest reviews, I will typically copy and paste a portion of the article in question, in italics, followed by my comments and qualms. By default the review is placed on hold for the week, and if problems cannot be fixed by then, the nomination will fail. Since this is a mid-importance season article of the tropical cyclones wikiproject, I will be spotchecking for consistency and precision. Good luck.

P.S. - Ignore the random non-spaces I have, my browser has a tendency to ignore spaces when I copy/paste the stuff from the article. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 22:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General Reminders

[edit]

Lead

[edit]
  • "The 1996 Atlantic hurricane season was the first Atlantic hurricane season since 1965 in which every tropical cyclone attained tropical storm intensity." → This should also be somewhere in the body of the article. As for now it is unsourced.
  • "Featuring a total of thirteen named storms, nine hurricanes, and six major hurricanes" → As is typical of WPTC's articles generally 'major hurricane' should be linked to tropical cyclone scales, or a note could be placed indicating what a major hurricane is.
  • "...while the final cyclone, Hurricane Marco dissipated on November 24." → HURDAT, and the storm's section and article, says November 26 as the dissipation date.
  • "The season featured four tropical cyclone landfalls,..." → What? Only four? I counted at least eight. (Bertha, Cesar, Dolly, Fran, just to name a few).
  • "...the highest number produced in a single season since 1961." → I'd also like to see this sourced and in the article as well.
  • "The four most notable tropical cyclone of the season were Hurricanes Bertha,..." → typically in plural form 'hurricanes' is not capitalized.
  • "...causing a total of 12 deaths and $335 million (1996 USD);..." → $335 million what? Bananas?
  • "The system produced severe wind and flooding damage, leading to 113 deaths and $202.96 million in damage." → You repeat 'damage' twice, so you can axe out the first instance of 'damage' in my opinion.

Season summary

[edit]

Pre-season forecasts

[edit]
  • According to the Reference #1 it would appear that the CSU forecasted 11 named storms, 7 hurricanes, and 3 major hurricanes, which goes against the table. Also, it never mentions 'December 1995' as the date or time of forecast. And where are you getting the other forecasts from that table? I only see one row for '1996'.
  • What does 'WRC' stand for? It's never stated in the article. Sure, we get 'Weather Research Center' but where's the '(WRC)' that should follow?
  • Lately we've had a source column as well in the season forecast table – perhaps you can try moving the references there instead of in the forecasting consortiums' column.
  • "A normal season as defined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has eleven named storms, of these six reach hurricane strength, and two major hurricanes,..." → Two things. First, add a comma after 'season' if you're going to also place a comma after '(NOAA)'. Issue two – Reference #3 says 12.1 named storms and 2.7 major hurricanes, and these numbers contradict what is stated in the article. Also, these are averages for 1981–2010, so 48.2% of that sample size were of storms occurring after 1996. You might want to find a better source.

Seasonal activity

[edit]
  • "...which was well above the 1950–2005 average of two per season." → Reference #3 has since been updated so that average is now 1981–2010, not 1950–2005.
  • I'm not sure if Reference #6 is the best source for relaying information that the year's waters were neither in an El Nino or La Nina state. After all, it is just a bunch of blue and red and black numbers, which only state 'warm' and 'cold' episodes for the Pacific. If possible find a better source, though I'm a bit lenient on this.
  • "Seven hurricanes and three tropical storms made landfall during the season..." → Lead says four, I said eight (I'm probably wrong, I just looked at maps), and this says ten total. One of them is wrong, :P
  • "Hurricane Edouard and Hurricane Marco also indirectly caused damage and fatalities, but neither storm made an official landfall." → The season effects table says Edouard caused two deaths and Marco caused 14, none of these were indirect according to that.
  • "Four tropical cyclones formed in October..." → Four? I count three. And if it was really four, then it should be included with August as the most active months of the season.

Storms

[edit]
  • The '1)' in 'Marco (C1)' in the timeline is clipped off.
  • Category 4 is from 130-156 mph, and Category 3 is from 111-129 mph, both of these ranges disagree with the table.

Tropical Storm Arthur

[edit]
  • "...Atlantic subtropical ridge." → I can assure you there are many subtropical ridges in the Atlantic, not only one. Also, link it.
  • "...North Carolina with winds of 45 mph (75 km)." → I never knew you could convert raw speed values into distance.
  • Cape Lookout is ambiguous per peer reviewer. That's the only ambiguous linkage in the article, also per that bot.
  • "As the center of Arthur passed 75 miles (120 km)..." → Be consistent with your conversions, it's either miles or mi. I understand you use miles in all cases, but then that would be you'd also have to use 'miles per hour' as well. One of these needs to be fixed. Also, since we're discussing this, you're missing non-breaking spaces here too.
  • "Reference #14 is dead, I suggest finding the updated link again and web-archiving it.
  • "In addition, Arthur also brought precipitation to Georgia and Virginia, though amounts rarely exceeded 3 inches (76 mm)." → Reference #13 says nothing about this.

Hurricane Bertha

[edit]
  • There's quite a few place names you can link to in the first paragraph of Bertha.
  • "...while located about 500 miles (800 km) east of Cape Verde." → More like 575 miles south of Cape Verde. And yeah, link Cape Verde.
  • "...the western periphery of the subtropical ridge..." → Again, what subtropical ridge?
  • "...towards the north-northeast and re-strengthening." → 'North-northeast' brings it away from North America and towards Atlantic Canada and beyond. I think you mean north-northwest.
  • "...moved up the Mid-Atlantic..." → Make sure you have 'states' after Mid-Atlantic. And yeah, link that too and all the place names in that first paragraph, I could list all of them if I wanted to but I don't want to.
  • "...of which 43 lost their roofs. Many boats were destroyed." → Reference #16 says nothing about these factoids.
  • "Reference #17 is dead. Again, web-archive these storm data links before they expire.
  • "The storm caused 3 deaths in Puerto Rico, 1 direct and 2 indirect." The problem with this is that Reference #16 doesn't explicitly state that they were indirect or direct deaths, just states broadly that there was an automobile incident, killing two, and a surfing incident, killing one. You never know, maybe the winds drove a 2x4 into the automobile and killed the occupants, which would be a direct death. Just saying.
  • "The storm caused numerous power outages and damage 10 homes in Antigua and Barbuda." → Past tense for damage please.
  • Again, Reference #17 is dead so I don't know how to confirm whether the information sourced by it is factually correct.
  • "...with at least 4 destroyed." → This factoid is not supported by Reference #16.

Hurricane Cesar

[edit]
  • Actually it does. "satellite images indicate that a tropical depression formed from the disturbed weather at 1800 UTC 24 July when the circulation center was moving just to the north of the island of Margarita along the north coast of Venezuela." --12george1 (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either you capitalize the 'the' in 'the Bahamas' or you don't. Be consistent.
  • "...2 of which were from a mudslide in Pueblo Bello." → That's up for grabs. The newspaper only says that it was an avalanche. It could also be a mudslide, landslide, or debris flow.
  • "Strong winds and significant amounts of precipitation lashed the Archipelago of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina, unroofing 60 homes, resulting in 11 fatalities,..." → Reference #25 says nothing about the unroofing of 60 homes. Also the sentence structure makes it seem like the unroofings caused the deaths per se. You should use 'and' instead of a comma for those factoids.
  • "...and resulting in 800 million COP ($440,00 USD)." → We faced this issue earlier. Again, 800 million in what, bananas? (Hint: It's damage).
  • "...and 40 km (25 mi) of road were destroyed." → What's with the sudden switch to metric first customary last? :P
  • "Costa Rica, river flooding damaged 51 houses and washed away 213 more; 72 bridges were also destroyed. The road network was significantly damaged." → Nothing about 51 damaged houses, nothing about 213 washed away houses, nothing about 72 bridges, and nothing about road networks from Reference #28. Pretty much wrong place wrong ref.
  • Connection timeout for Reference #29. Also, I'm not sure why you have |type=Report when the reference is using the {{cite report}} template. Sounds redundant.
  • "Additionally, 13 people drowned in El Salvador and 2 were killed in Mexico." → According to Reference #30 there's no entry for Cesar in Mexico and how do you know those in El Salvador drowned according to the source? Furthermore, the source states 12 dead in El Salvador, and not 13.
  • "Overall, Cesar caused 113 deaths and $202.96 million in damage." → Not a fan of the reference spam following this sentence. Perhaps you could do something similar to what you did with Reference #7.

That'll be it for now. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 22:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Dolly

[edit]
  • "...while located west-southwest of Jamaica." → Unsourced by Reference #31. That reference only specifies a "south to southwest" (SSW) location before it underwent cyclogenesis.
  • "It strengthened into Tropical Storm Dolly about twelve hours later." → General rule of thumb – never use 'it'.
  • "Later that day or early on August 22,..." → There's only one time that Dolly exits the Yucatan Peninsula so there definitely shouldn't be an 'or'.
  • "It deepened further and was upgraded to a hurricane again at 1200 UTC on August 23;" → Again, don't use 'it'.
  • "Around that time, it struck between Tuxpan, Veracruz and Tampico, Tamaulipas at the same intensity." → You already say that it was 'around that time' so 'at the same intensity' is redundant, after all, it was 'around that time'.
  • "The storm brought heavy rainfall to much of Mexico, peaking at 37.41 inches (950 mm)." → Not sourced by Reference #31.
  • "In Quintana Roo, flooding destroyed a large farm." → According to Dolly's TCR, a lot of farm land was lost. That does not mean it came from one farm.
  • "Throughout Mexico, there were fourteen fatalities reported, seven in Veracruz, three in Nuevo León, and one in Monterrey. " → Actually there were six in Veracruz, three in N.L., and one apiece in Monterrey and Pueblo Viejo.

Hurricane Edouard

[edit]
  • "The storm remained a major hurricane hurricane for nearly eight days, an unusual occurrence." → Sure, Reference #9 says it lasted for a major for eight days, but never says it was unusual.
  • "Strong waves in New Jersey drowned 2 surfers." → One was a surfer, the other was a boater. They were not both surfers.
  • "In Canada, the storm brought rainfall up to 5.5 inches (140 mm)..." → The reference states 136mm, so you can always be more specific and say 5.35 in (136 mm).

Hurricane Fran

[edit]
  • "...Tropical Storm Fran on August 27 while 1,036 miles (1,667 km) east of the Lesser Antilles." → Why the sudden specificity in distance here? You round to the nearest 100 in other conversion cases.
  • "However, Fran became less organized due to Hurricane Edouard and weakened back to a tropical storm." → Here's where you can get more specific. You should say Edouard disrupted inflow into Fran.
  • "After moving west-northwestward and then north-northwestward, the storm slowly strengthened." → Did Fran strengthen during this time or only after this time?
  • "At 0000 UTC, Fran peaked as a Category 3 hurricane..." → 0000 UTC on what date?
  • "Early on the following day, the storm made landfall near Cape Fear, North Carolina at the same intensity." → With no indication of date in the last sentence, 'the following day' becomes meaningless.
  • "In South Carolina, the outerbands..." → Space needed between 'outer' and 'bands'.

Tropical Storm Gustav

[edit]
  • "An area of disturbed weather, accompanied with a low-level cloud circulation,..." → Circulations and vorticities are the result of wind flow, not clouds. As such, 'low-level circulation', not 'low-level cloud circulation'.
  • "...while located about 150 miles (240 km) south of Cape Verde." → No distance is given in Reference #39.
  • "On August 28, the depression began a motion to its northwest due to an approaching trough." → That's one really strange way to say that a depression turned to the northwest. Find a simpler, more concise way to word a change in direction.
  • "At 1200 UTC on August 29, Gustav reached its peak intensity as a 45 mph (75 km/h) and a minimum barometric pressure of 1,005 mbar (29.7 inHg)." → It held the same intensity twelve hours earlier.
  • "Thereafter, the trough that had previously caused the storm's northwestward motion, transitioned into an upper-level low pressure, which increased shear across the region." → Allow me to suggest wording. 'Thereafter, the trough previously causing the storm's northwestward motion transitioned into an upper-level low, increasing shear across the region.']

Hurricane Hortense

[edit]
  • "On Guadeloupe, damage was most significant to crops, with over 90% of banana plantains destroyed." → It said 50% on the book listed at Reference 45. Couldn't find anything about '90%' on Reference 44 though.
  • "In Dominican Republic..." → Needs a 'the' before 'Dominican'.
  • "Flooding also forced the closure of several roads and impacted 90% of crops in Samaná Province." → Should be 80%, not 90%.
  • "Only minor impact was reported in the Bahamas,..." → The amount of damage on an island cannot be deduced from the recordings of a weather station over two days. Either find another source or change the sentence's desired meaning.

Hurricane Isidore

[edit]
  • Change 'quasi-stationary well-defined mid- upper-level low pressure area' to 'quasi-stationary mid- to upper-level low pressure area'.

Tropical Storm Josephine

[edit]
  • "Tropical Depression Ten developed from the remnants of a cold front in the southwestern Gulf of Mexico on October 6." → Not necessarily. The cold front only stalled at a longitude positioned over the Gulf of Mexico; the TCR never states that the front had degenerated into remnants.
  • Reference 53 is a dead link.
  • "...and in Louisiana, high tides flooded roads and stranded residents on Grand Isle." → The source for this, so you should place this later, in the impact paragraph or something, since it is noted that tropical storm intensity was breached after this sentence.

Tropical Storm Kyle

[edit]

Hurricane Lili

[edit]
  • "...it was first hurricane to hit the country since Kate in 1985." → Not supported by the Tropical Cyclone Report.
  • "...mostly due to the hurricane's heavy rainfall which totaled 29.41 inches (747 mm)." → It didn't just total, it peaked. Also, where?
  • "After 269,995 people were evacuated in advance of Lili, there were no deaths in the country." → You should state the evacuations beforehand. Then state that no deaths occurred as thanks to evacuations.
  • "...which contributed indirectly to a death when a man in Maine tried driving..." → 'tried driving' to 'tried to drive'.

Tropical Storm Marco

[edit]
  • "A cold front interacted with several tropical waves and developed into Tropical Depression Thirteen late on November 16," → This makes it sound like the cold front became a depression.
  • "It re-curved eastward and continued to strengthen, briefly became a hurricane on November 20." → Became should be 'becoming'.
  • "The storm turned northeastward toward Hispaniola, but later became nearly stationary and curve eastward, then doubled-back to the west." → 'The storm turned northeastward toward Hispanola, but later became stationary before curing eastward. Afterwards Marco doubled-back to the west. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 21:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Storm names

[edit]

Season effects

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on 1996 Atlantic hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 23:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on 1996 Atlantic hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 03:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 1996 Atlantic hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 15:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on 1996 Atlantic hurricane season. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on 1996 Atlantic hurricane season. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1996_Atlantic_hurricane_season&oldid=1196299179"