Talk:2010 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 2

Gaston's remnants

Hi. The article states that the remnants disappeared on September 9, but the NHC does not do regular updates on the identity of remnants. Satellite imagery shows that the remnants moved past the Leeward Islands, south of the Dominican Republic, then over southern Haiti before re-organizing to its southwest, fading south of Jamaica, then moving as a disorganized mass just north of Honduras, over Guatemala, then into the Bay of Campeche where it is now starting to decline after a sudden burst of convection. Here are the 00z satellite imagery loops from September 8-10, and September 10-12. I'm not sure exactly where Wikipedia gets its coordinates for the track of precursor systems and remnants of tropical cyclones in the absence of Best track/Hurdat data, so I'm not able to provide a specific citation. On this note, the precursor system for Hurricane Alex developed in the mid-Atlantic in mid-June, which could have been a possible TD, then degenerated and fused into another wave in the SE Caribbean. Also, the precursor system to TD Five seems to have formed over the Gulf Stream east of Florida before moving over the Keys and not directly over the State. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

According to surface analysis, it is over Honduras about to enter the EPAC about now. HurricaneSpin Talk 23:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Soorry, but this is OR. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait until the TCR comes out, by then it might be confirmed. This discussion is finished. Rye998 (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

All information in regards to the track maps come from the Running Best Track supplied by the National Hurricane Center. Gaston's respective file is located here Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What does the DB stand for? --Matthiasb (talk) 08:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Tropical Disturbance.Jason Rees (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Julia?

Where is there a reference that supports this? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Heres the ref that supports it intensifying into a tropical storm but after last nights incident it shouldn't off been added yet.Jason Rees (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There is way too much warring going on over this, The NHC will post a report in about an hour, unless the cyclone is over land the exact time it upgrades doesnt need to be stated. In addition as was pointed out before the NHC can issue a statement on the upgrade as well. I agree this info should not have been added yet. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

As with before, do not change the article until official, which is when the advisory comes out. --Hurricanehink (talk) 01:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Next time if something like this happens, should I revert, or should I fix the way it is? HurricaneSpin Talk 02:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If its inside NHC's NHEM AOR then RV it. Outside NHC's AOR check it but generally leave it alone.Jason Rees (talk) 02:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is no need for Julia to have its own page. It is a bit weak, compared to Danielle, Earl, and Igor. It weakened into a Category 2 24 hours after being a Category 4. Rosalina2427 (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I really think Julia needs its own article. The storm broke many records, both in combination with Igor and the season as well as on its own (farthest east cat. 4 on record). Hurricane Fred (2009) has an article, and it's even a GA, so Julia should as well. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I've already started working on an article for Julia; however, can we PLEASE stop doing this?!?! I've seriously had enough of this stupid question "Should we make an article?" If you think it can have one MAKE IT, worst comes to worst...it's merged and nothing bad happens. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Karl, the record breaker?

As of the debut advisory, tropical storm-force winds extend only 10 miles outward from the center of TS Karl. As of yesterday, the world record for smallest tropical cyclone was held by 2008's Tropical Storm Marco, which had a TS-force wind radius of 11.5 miles. Should it be mentioned in the article that Karl has indeed broken the record for the world's smallest tropical cyclone? --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 21:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait for Karl to peak before comparing it to Marco, as Marco's record was at Peak and i suspect Tracy's one was as well.Jason Rees (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, the numbers in advisories should not be taken as gospel, as they are generally made, well, in the last few hours, rather than having weeks of analysis behind them. Any discussion of breaking a record should be reserved for when the TCR comes out. Til then, at most, you should say "comparable to" Marco. --Golbez (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Is Karl the smallest hurricane on record, not a tropical storm? If so, shouldn't that be mentioned, and should Karl have its own page or something??? Rosalina2427 (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It does now. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone}

True. Rosalina2427 (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Record

Hurricanes Igor and Julia were both active today, September 15. Both of them reached category 4 strength, and this marks only the second time that two category 4 hurricanes were active in the open Atlantic ocean at the same time, the other time, ironically, being on this same day in 1999, with Floyd and Gert. Should this be mentioned? (It's supported in the best track). Rye998 (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do you specify "open" ocean? Is that just a flourish on your part, or a caveat to fit a record in? --Golbez (talk) 10:18 pm, Today (UTC+1)

Theres a better record that might be able to be mentioned, according to Max Mayfield's blog this is the first time since 1926 that two category 4 hurricanes have existed simultaneously in the Atlantic Basin.Jason Rees (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

But... doesn't that conflict with Rye998's assertion that Floyd and Gert were both Cat 4 at the same time? --Golbez (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Floyd and Gert were Cat 4 on the same day but 12 hours apart according to HURDAT.Jason Rees (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see. I don't really consider that a major record, personally, had they been 10 hours later they'd've been on separate calendar days. (Now, Charlie and Bonnie hitting Florida on the same day matters because that actually had a human impact, I figure) --Golbez (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, then is this the first time two category 4's were active at the same time in the Atlantic ocean? Golbez, I need to specify "open Atlantic ocean" because if I say "the Atlantic basin" this isn't the first time that happened. I think it's somewhat unique, but there needs to be a majority opinion on this to put it in the main article. Either the first time since 1926, or the only time in the open Atlantic, it probrably should bear mentioning. 2010 is also one of only 7 seasons to have 4 or more category 4 storms, the others being 1926, 1961, 1999, 2004, 2005, and 2008. Rye998 (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so you were saying it to differentiate from, say, one in the Atlantic and one in the Caribbean, or the Gulf? --Golbez (talk) 01:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Another record I'm seeing is that Julia is the earliest formed 4th category four hurricane in a season, just three hours sooner than Gert of 1999. Gert was observed as a category 4 at 1200 UTC on 9/15/99, and Julia was observed as a category 4 at 0900 UTC on 09/15/10. It may be more of a minor detail, but since Julia has already broken another record being the strongest hurricane east of 35W I think it's worth mentioning this as well. Rbsmit5k (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Can we have some references for any "records", to prove that they are of some notability and not contrived, and also that they are not original research. The "earliest formed 4th Category 4 storm in a season" sounds rather contrived, and how have you found this out? Halsteadk (talk) 11:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This was likely obtained through the best track data supplied by the National Hurricane Center. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It is also mentioned by Jeff Masters --Matthiasb (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Stu Ostro's blog mentioned the possibility, and research on Gert's archive and forecasts from Julia confirmed this. Matthiasb's link also shows a record of four category 4's in twenty days, which also beats the previous record of 24 in 1999.

The easternmost Cat 4 record is based on the Fred TCR showing Fred as the strongest storm east of 35°W, and it was 105 kt. Julia was 115 kt east of there. CrazyC83 (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The "earliest 4th category 4 is somewhat reasonable, even though, as I mentioned above, 2010 is one of only 7 seasons to have 4 or more category 4's. I mean, in 2005, Rita is mentioned as having the fastest one-hour pressure drop in the Atlantic and the strongest hurricane on record in the Gulf of Mexico. Also, Wilma is mentioned as having the greatest 24 hour drop and strongest Atlantic storm on record, both supported in the Best track and HURDAT. Rye998 (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Another near-record: the strengthening of Karl has made three hurricanes simultaneously active for only the ninth time this century. If Karl becomes a major and thereby all three storms were major hurricanes at one point, then that will be the first occurrence of this since 1961. Now if we could have three simultaneous cat. 4 or even just major hurricanes, or to have a SECOND occurrence of two simultaneous cat. 4s, that would really be something. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Source? Or is this WP:OR? Darren23^Edits|Mail 01:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Check Max Mayfields blog hes got it on their. (link above).Jason Rees (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• The article states making these the most recent three simultaneous hurricanes in any Atlantic season since the 1998 season. I believe that actually it should read sind September 8th, 2005 since Ophelia was upgraded to a hurricane that day, Nate was upgrade to a hurricane the day before and Maria, though operationally downgraded to a TS, still was a hurricane, as post-season analysis showed, IIRC. Please could one double-check. --Matthiasb (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • No, in 2005, three hurricanes weren't simultaneously active. Maria was downgraded to a TS at 9/00, at which time Ophelia was upgraded. --Hurricanehink (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Seems I got confused by Timeline of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season since there the dates refer to local time and not to UTC. --Matthiasb (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Karl article

Working on it here. Hopefully it will be done tonight, feel free to add to it. CrazyC83 (talk) 03:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible that Karl's remnants can develop into another tropical storm in the Eastern Pacific? Rosalina2427 (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Any non 2010 AHS article related discussion should be avoided. Thank you. Darren23^Edits|Mail 19:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hurricane Alex intensity

The National Climatic Data Center recently released their reports for storm events in June 2010. In them, I found a few related to Hurricane Alex; however, it included new information. According to the reports, Alex was slightly stronger than currently stated; they stated the winds as having reached 109 mph and the pressure bottoming out at 946mb (which would tie the record for most intense June hurricane). Source Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, as a side note, an impressive rainfall total between 50 and 70 inches is mentioned as a result of Alex and TD Two. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting....TA13 23:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This has now been confirmed by the National Hurricane Center. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Source? TA13 00:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering the same thing. I reverted them since the running best track has not changed and the TCR is not out yet (although the RBT would not show it as it was at around 0200Z), but I am not sure what is official or not? CrazyC83 (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The NHC has a link to the KMZ files for the BT, which is updated, but the ATCF is not. The updated BT is located here Darren23^Edits|Mail 21:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned this when I first came to Wikipedia, and I have checked the best track on this fact; should it be mentioned in the article that Alex was the strongest Atlantic hurricane that never reached category 3 strength? I find that somewhat notable. If no one agrees with this, check the best track yourselves; I didn't find anyone else who was stronger and not a major hurricane. Rye998 (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Igor is the largest hurricane in terms of gale force winds

as of the 11:00 pm advisory (number 40) on September 17, 2010, Igor is the largest Atlantic hurricane on record. The advisory says
"IGOR IS A PARTICULARLY LARGE HURRICANE. HURRICANE-FORCE WINDS EXTEND
OUTWARD UP TO 105 MILES...165 KM...FROM THE CENTER...AND TROPICAL-
STORM-FORCE WINDS EXTEND OUTWARD UP TO 345 MILES...555 KM."

Gale force winds are 39 mph, and 345 miles in each direction makes a diameter of 690 miles.

Here's the direct link: Hurricane IGOR Public Advisory #40 --Peanut.pookie (talk) 02:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

No where in that link does it say Igor is largest. You're assuming it is perfectly symmetrical, too. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, it says outward up to 345 miles. It is clearly not 345 in every direction. --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Still if one side is 50 miles smaller, it would still be 640 miles across--Peanut.pookie (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the diameter is based off the distance in two opposite directions. The forecast advisory says the winds go 300nm to the SW, and 200 nm to the northeast. That's 500 nm total, or 545 miles. --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

As was said above "the numbers in advisories should not be taken as gospel, as they are generally made, in a couple of hours, rather than having weeks of analysis behind them. Any discussion of breaking a record should be reserved for when the TCR comes out.".Jason Rees (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

isnt 500 NM = 575 miles http://www.trueknowledge.com/q/500_nautical_miles_to_miles Cwachal (talk) 04:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be a mass atlantic-hurricane related vandalism

As i remember: clearly, two days ago, hurricane igor was declared the largest atlantic hurricane ever observed (totaling 633 miles across). mysteriously, it has moved to ninth with a tiny hurricane olga (2001) holding the record. This may be because of a new criteria or am i going crazy! why would a massive hurricane igor be smaller than tiny hurricane olga. can i have some answers (plus, sorry for the grammar) The chart can be seen on Hurricane Igor (2010) and Hurricane Olga (2001). --Peanut.pookie (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Olga's gale force diameter is larger than Igor, look at this. HurricaneSpin (talk · contribs) 22:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you think that might have been a glitch, because it just doesn't seem to be realistic. before two days ago, the largest atlantic hurricane was igor, but now, all of a sudden it dropped to eighth.--Peanut.pookie (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well the best track supports Olga to be a storm with massive wind field, and also Olga had extratropical origins so it is very possible. HurricaneSpin (talk · contribs) 23:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Subtropical cyclones shouldn't count in the largest ever recorded, because subtropical storms generally have a larger wind field. only fully tropical cyclones should count.--Peanut.pookie (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not vandalism, a user miscalculated information. Olga was not a subtropical storm. 23:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

At the time, it was a subtropical storm--Peanut.pookie (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It became tropical by the time of advisory 7. HurricaneSpin (talk · contribs) 23:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I appologize for the confusion this has caused; however, the changes made were correct. When I made the first major update to that template, I improperly converted units and misread others, leading to a false dataset. Recently, I was made aware of this and I quickly made amends to these errors, significantly altering the list. As for Olga, it was a very large system shortly after becoming tropical, thus allowing it to be on the list. Many of these storms were on the verge of becoming extratropical, although still technically tropical (as is the case now with Igor). I hope this clears things up. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Reguarding recent vandalism it appears that Igor is now misplaced in the hurricane box as tied for 1st (With Olga) as the largest hurricane ever now. Is there a fix for that? I would even suggest a semi protection here - 205.172.21.157 (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no vandalism going on. I've corrected my previous mistakes and verified the information that is now on the template. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh okay it does look like a mistake, I am talking about though the template: "Largest Atlantic hurricanes by gale diameter" Igor is still tied with Olga as #1. - 205.172.21.157 (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That's because it is tied with Olga. There is no concrete information available to state that Igor was larger than Olga. According to the National Hurricane Center, both had a maximum gale diameter of 750 nautical miles (863 statute miles). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Matthew article

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/15L - in case someone gets antsy and is wondering why it doesn't have an article, here's a sandbox. I don't think it should be published yet. True, there are TS warnings, but it's only just been classified, and there isn't much info yet. I'm thinking at 11pm EDT I will publish it, unless something significant happens between now and then. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Considering hurricane warnings are posted, and landfall will occur within a day or so, I posted it to mainspace at Tropical Storm Matthew (2010). Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 09:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Keeping track images consistent

Can we keep the track images consistent? There seems to be a de-facto standard, but there's a lot of people uploading incorrect images or to bad names. The standard as established is to upload tracks to names like File:14L 2010 5day.gif, with the number varying on the storm. The large, 5-day image with track (and all of those features are important) is uploaded to that article. The image description is

== Summary ==
{{Information
|Description={{en|1=TS Lisa 5-day forecast track.}}
|Source=http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at4+shtml/143613.shtml?5day?large
|Author=NHC/NOAA
|Date=2010-09
|Permission=
|other_versions=
}}

[[Category:Tropical cyclone forecast tracks]]
[[Category:2010 Atlantic hurricane season]]

== Licensing ==
{{PD-USGov-NOAA}}

with the source link pointing to the page showing the large 5-day image with track, and the category being updated to the storm category when that's created. Any disagreements as to the history, or beliefs that it should be changed going forward? Should this specification be put permanently somewhere?--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the main problem is that nobody knows what the spec is, so we should definitely write it down somewhere. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

TS Nicole is named in the next advisory. 71.174.16.216 (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Another Record

With newly-named Tropical Storm Nicole, 8 storms formed during September of this year, which is a 3-way tie with 2002 and 2007 as the most active September on record. Should this be mentioned, if there is any source for this fact? Rye998 (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

There will be a monthly report coming out in two days by the NHC, in which such a record will be mentioned. I believe we should wait until then. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Another thing that would bear mentioning is ten storms(counting Fiona and Earl) existed in September, an all-time Atlantic record; not even 2002 or 2007 acomplished that feat. Rye998 (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Source?, and I would wait for any September activity records other than the obvious one (most storms) until tomorrow, when the monthly summary comes out. Darren23^Edits|Mail 23:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Haven't you checked the best track, Darren? If the NHC doesn't mention it in their report today, then it shouldn't be included, but I have checked their best track and I haven't seen any season with 10 storms to exist in September, exept this one. The closest runner-up was 2002, with 9 storms active in the month. However, I agree that the NHC has to mention that for it to be official. Rye998 (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The report was sent out via the GTS @ 1200z

EIGHT TROPICAL STORMS FORMED IN THE ATLANTIC BASIN DURING THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER. THREE OF THESE STORMS...IGOR...JULIA...AND KARL... BECAME MAJOR HURRICANES...AND LISA REACHED HURRICANE STATUS. THESE NUMBERS ARE WELL ABOVE THE LONG-TERM (1944-2009) AVERAGES OF 4 TROPICAL STORMS...2 HURRICANES...AND ABOUT 1 MAJOR HURRICANE FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER. ALSO...THE FORMATION OF EIGHT NAMED STORMS TIES 2002 FOR THE RECORD NUMBER OF NAMED STORMS FORMING IN THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER. IN TERMS OF ACCUMULATED CYCLONE ENERGY... ACE...WHICH MEASURES THE COMBINED STRENGTH AND DURATION OF TROPICAL STORMS AND HURRICANES...TROPICAL CYCLONE ACTIVITY IN SEPTEMBER WAS ABOUT 78 PERCENT ABOVE AVERAGE. SO FAR THIS SEASON...OVERALL TROPICAL CYCLONE ACTIVITY TO DATE IS ABOUT 53 PERCENT ABOVE THE LONG-TERM MEDIAN. Jason Rees (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The NHC didn't mention the ten storms to exist in September record that I caught in their summary, so it probrably should not be mentioned in the main article... Rye998 (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Bonnie and Danielle Wikipage

I made Tropical Storm Bonnie and Hurricane Danielle a Wikipage, but it needs a lot of work. I was also going to make Julia a page, but someone else already started it. Once its finished, we can move the two pages, so then they will have their own pages. We need to do things like add references, and make the sentences more 'fluent'.

Hurricane Danielle Tropical Storm Bonnie

Thanks,

  TropicalAnalystwx13 18:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you should wait for the TCR's of both Bonnie and Danielle before post to mainspace. Also, in the Bonnie sandbox, I don't think you should use the phrase "a healthy looking wave", but instead replace that with a "vigorous tropical wave" or a "very organized tropical wave", because the term "healthy" shouldn't because associated with non living things such as weather. It is just like how people use the term lifespan or lifetime when they could instead use the word duration. Anyway, I would be happy to help improve these two sandboxes before they are on the mainspace. --12george1 (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I changed the sentence on Bonnie's wikipage to "a very strong tropical wave" from "a healthy looking wave". Also, I'd really appreciate it if you helped me with those two. I also have more :D

Sandbox #2 (Danielle) | Sandbox #3 (Bonnie) | Sandbox #4 (Lisa)

Igor Category 5 According to NHC

I was looking up Igor's path on the NHC website and I noticed this: link, now I think this is a prediction, because there is no official report at 0000 UTC Sept 15 2010 (the earliest report is 0300 UTC that day). You can download it yourself here: link (the KMZ file). -yqt1001 (talk - I'm new here so I dont quite understand everything, so please dont kill me if I did something wrong) 17:33 UTC October 5 2010

It's a numerical error in the dataset that creates those tracks. It's understandable for most people to mistake Igor for being a Category 5 based on the images alone. In actuality, the storm peaked as a high-end Category 4 with winds of 155mph (all wind speeds are rounded to the nearest 5). The threshold for a Category 5 is 156mph or higher; 135kts, when converted to miles per hour is 155.355225 mph, so it is likely that the program misread this as 156 mph and listed Igor as a Category 5. I hope this clears things up. Also, no one will kill you here for asking questions, it's better that you do this than immediately change the information in the article. Cheers, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast response (that also makes sense), also thanks for not killing me! -yqt1001 (talk) 17:48 October 5 2010

Updates

Just about now, I saw some changes to Karl's damage and Matthew's death toll, too. Are there new, more reliable references to support these changes? I thought Matthew was indirectly responsible for the deaths in the mudslide in Oaxaca. Is this true information? Like an update or something like that? Or is this not true information? Rye998 (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is more recent data that I've added into the articles. All the information is verifiable and yes, can be considered an update since I do this type of thing regularly. Also, the mudslides in Oaxaca were directly related to Matthew according to meteorologists, thus the fatalities are added into the storm. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, there is a typo I caught in the article; it says Nicole did 13 billion in USD damage. That is flat out incorrect; I guess whoever put that in there mistoke Jamacia's 13 billion in their dollars for USD, but, in reality, it only did 151 million in USD. That I know should be changed. Rye998 (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I fixed that in Nicole's article not long after it was put up, I missed that it made it to the season article as well. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Question re: Otto

How would it be treated on here if it gets upgraded to winds of 65 kt or higher (hurricane intensity) yet remains subtropical? I would use "Subtropical storm" (the official term) while showing it in Category 1 colors if that is the case personally. CrazyC83 (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Since it is still subtropical if that happens, it would be treated as subtropical just like any other subtropical storm, regardless of intensity, unless the NHC creates a new designation or something. Darren23^Edits|Mail 21:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thats the thing though - you cant have a Subtropical hurricane. If the storm acquires hurricane-force winds, that means that it is fully tropical. TropicalAnalystwx13 23:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't - Joel earlier this year had hurricane force winds but was only called a Subtropical Depression by Reunion.Jason Rees (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

A subtropical storm with hurricane force winds has happened before in ATL, but anyway, if a subtropical cyclone does have hurricane force winds, which is certainly possible, it would still be considered a subtropical storm, regardless of intensity until it transitions into a tropical cyclone, unless somehow the NHC says otherwise. Darren23^Edits|Mail 00:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter much, because it is forecast to become a tropical storm, then a hurricane. And the definition of subtropical storms are here :

Subtropical Storm: A subtropical cyclone in which the maximum sustained surface wind speed (using the U.S. 1-minute average) is 34 kt (39 mph or 63 km/hr) or more. --Weatherlover819 (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Otto declared tropical in the 11 EDT advisory.

Julia peak intensity

Per ATCF best track, Julia is now measured to have peaked at 120 knots vs 115 it was operationally assessed at. AL, 12, 2010091512, , BEST, 0, 177N, 322W, 120, 950, HU —Preceding unsigned comment added by EndeavourLaunch (talk • contribs) 21:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

He means the NRL RBT, as opposed to the NHC RBT files. So the question that occurs to me is which do we believe?Jason Rees (talk) 03:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

If all else fails, ask yourself who the primary source for such information in the Atlantic basin is. The answer will come to you quickly. I would imagine this would be a rare event, since all that NRL stuff is driven by NHC information, at least I thought it was. Thegreatdr (talk) 05:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Paula

A broad low pressure trough formed in the southwestern Caribbean on October 7. The system started to organize itself as it slowly moved northwestward toward Central America. On October 11, it met the criteria to be classified as a tropical cyclone while around the northeastern tip of Honduras. Tropical storm force winds were found, and the National Hurricane Center initiated advisories on "Paula" later that day. With Paula's formation, the season tied 2008 in total activity. The "P" name has now been used five times, and the only P name that remains unused is "Patty."

Proof from the NHC that Paula is here: [1]. Look at Atlantic Floater 2. TDI19 (talk) 19:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If it were here, they'd have released a special tropical disturbance report, as they did when sending the hurricane hunter. 96.233.0.122 (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep it hidden until the 5 pm advisory. However, a sandbox article could be justified as Paula will likely require an article very quickly. CrazyC83 (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! Where do I start a sandbox article for trop. cyclones? Haven't done one of those before. TDI19 (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCDAT3+shtml/112032.shtml Paula is here. 96.233.0.122 (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Does it need an article? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It depends on if impact is found. CrazyC83 (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

TS Paula will need its own article...Making it now. Link

Damages from Karl

On a segment about the 2010 season on the Weather Channel, it was stated that Karl caused 70 billion dollars in damages. Any thoughts on this number?? It seems strange that the numbers are so far off here vs. there. TDI19 (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It could possibly be either:

1. Actually 70 billion US dollars
2. Or it could be 70 billion Mexican pesos

However, it could also just be an error on part of the Weather Channel...

— Iune(talk) 02:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The Karl article indeed says 70 billion pesos. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Nicole

This shows that Nicole was a Tropical Storm for 7 advisories instead of 1. That means that her ACE was higher than originally thought.

AL, 16, 2010092812, , BEST, 0, 204N, 830W, 35, 1001, TS, 34, NEQ, 0, 300, 0, 0, 1006, 360, 180, 40, 0, L, 0, , 0, 0, SIXTEEN, D,
AL, 16, 2010092818, , BEST, 0, 212N, 826W, 35, 1000, TS, 34, NEQ, 0, 300, 0, 0, 1005, 375, 180, 40, 0, L, 0, , 0, 0, SIXTEEN, D,
AL, 16, 2010092900, , BEST, 0, 215N, 821W, 35, 997, TS, 34, NEQ, 0, 300, 0, 0, 1003, 375, 180, 40, 0, L, 0, , 0, 0, SIXTEEN, D,
AL, 16, 2010092906, , BEST, 0, 217N, 815W, 35, 997, TD, 34, NEQ, 0, 300, 300, 0, 1003, 375, 150, 40, 0, L, 0, , 0, 0, SIXTEEN, D,
AL, 16, 2010092912, , BEST, 0, 219N, 809W, 35, 996, TS, 34, NEQ, 0, 300, 300, 0, 1003, 360, 150, 40, 0, L, 0, , 0, 0, SIXTEEN, D,
AL, 16, 2010092918, , BEST, 0, 235N, 806W, 35, 996, TS, 34, NEQ, 0, 300, 0, 0, 1003, 360, 150, 45, 0, L, 0, , 0, 0, NICOLE, D,
AL, 16, 2010093000, , BEST, 0, 250N, 802W, 35, 995, TS, 34, NEQ, 0, 300, 0, 0,
AL, 16, 2010093006, , BEST, 0, 264N, 796W, 35, 995, TS, 34, NEQ, 0, 300, 0, 0, 1003, 360, 150, 0, 0, L, 0, , 0, 0, NICOLE, D, 

TropicalAnalystwx13 00:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this has been known for a while. However, if I recall correctly, ACE can't be changed until the TCR is out, as the RBT can change a lot. Darren23^Edits|Mail 00:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Update on Igor?

In the article, it says Igor was found to be a category 5 in reanalysis. I can't find the reference that would prove this, and Igor doesn't need such a long summary in the article. Is it true that Igor was a category 5? Or is this vandalism? Rye998 (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I am agreeing with Rye998. In the article, it says that "post-analysis revealed that Igor is a Category 5 hurricane". But I can't find any source for this. Can somebody give me a link that proves it right? --Weatherlover819 (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted all the vandalism and every vandal which was involved was warned. So yeah, it was vandalism and nothing suggested it was upgraded. Phew! What a long morning. Darren23^Edits|Mail 14:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

How annoying... I hate vandals... Rye998 (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

No evidence in the BT at the moment. It does show a "5" in the KMZ file, but the details show it as being incorrect since it is also listed at 135 kt there (high-end Cat 4). CrazyC83 (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

2010 Atlantic Hurricane Season Summary Map

We need a new Summary Map for the ATL to include (Otto, I believe) and (Paula). I have no clue how to do it so.... TropicalAnalystwx13 17:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This was the first time since...

I can not tell you how much I see this in the articles. While it is exciting to have new records being made about certin storms, per WP:V unless it has a source I feel it should not be added. Wikipedia can not be a source for records. Any thoughts on this? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Where exactly does this appear on this page? Can you please provide quotes for my and other people's convenience? Darren23^Edits|Mail 01:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Some examples of what I mean reguarding claimes: "the first time since the 1998 season that there were at least three simultaneous hurricanes in the North Atlantic:", "the first set being Danielle, Earl, and Fiona co-existing on August 30-31", "the longest period since the 2002 Atlantic hurricane season", "It formed farther to the east than the previous tropical cyclones in 2010", "The rapid intensification of Karl marked the first time that a major hurricane was in the Bay of Campeche", "This made it the first major hurricane to make landfall anywhere in the Atlantic basin since Hurricane Ike in 2008", "and the first major hurricane to make landfall anywhere on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico since Hurricane Wilma in 2005". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe could fix some of those problems? Darren23^Edits|Mail 02:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I have two solution that come to mind, one: keep the most notable records (like the most named storm in Sept. or the three co-existing hurricanes). Some of the statements made shouldn't be notable unless a record is actually broken (I don't see why we should mention four category 4 hurricanes since it has not even tied 1999). Option number 2: start a season summary section (even though the season is not yet over) where we can put these records instead of stuffing it all in the lead (now has 4 paragraphs).--12george1 (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Isn't a season article supposed to act as a time-line for that year, and give details of the season as a whole? We would be doing an injustice if we didn't add additional details, of course we should mention that there were four category 4 storms this year. Should we make it sound like a record event, probably not, but nonetheless that still tells the reader something about the season (it had many more major hurricanes then average). My message; keep the information, but unless it is a legitimate record, don't portray it as such. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree, I guess we could mention about the four category 4 storms and not really treat it as a broken record. Also my statement I made at the end of the lead: "Hurricane Alex and Tropical Storm Matthew both made landfall in Belize, the most recent season to have more than one tropical cyclone make landfall in that country since Chantal and Iris..." is not necessarily "legitimate" since there were only two, but if Richard makes landfall in Belize it will to raised to three. With the a record of three, that would be the highest since 1931, which had four making landfall in Belize.--12george1 (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Richard?

For some reason, the infobox for Richard won't show... instead, the regular code is visible. I don't see any coding flaws, nor did I change anything but the usual updatable information (time, location, wind speeds, etc). Help? Hylian Auree (talk) 01:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed now. I don't know what I did, but it helped lol. Sorry for the waste of space. Hylian Auree (talk) 01:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Direct hit vs. landfall

I'm not sure when the trend started, but why do we include direct hits in the season effects table? They're much harder to verify than landfalls. Look at Earl. There's no need to include that many direct hits. At the same time, limiting it to landfalls would restrict it too much, since Earl's impact in the Caribbean wouldn't be included. I think it should be a simpler "areas affected" column, since it already goes next to the deaths and damage section. Thoughts Hurricanehink (talk) 04:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Or we can just limit direct hits by using the true definition of direct hits, which I don't have the luxury of looking up right now. Darren23^Edits|Mail 04:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I support the proposal since it gets ridiculous trying to work out D/hs at times. Darrens proposal wouldn't work since most of us are using the true definition of a direct hit.Jason Rees (talk) 04:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

From NHC.

For locations on the left-hand side of a tropical cyclone's track (looking in the direction of motion), a direct hit occurs when the cyclone passes to within a distance equal to the cyclone's radius of maximum wind. For locations on the right-hand side of the track, a direct hit occurs when the cyclone passes to within a distance equal to twice the radius of maximum wind.

That's really difficult, if not impossible to verify for most locations. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I generally define a "direct hit" as when a hurricane impacts land with it's highest winds and surge, but because it's center doesn't pass over land, it isn't technically a landfall. This all began with 2003's Hurricane Fabian. It's eyewall hit Bermuda, delivering the highest winds and surge there, but because it's eye didn't pass over the island itself, it did not make a "landfall". Typhoon Ioke of 2006 is another example; it gave a direct hit to Wake island because it's eyewall hit the island, so it's highest winds and surge were felt there, but because it's eye didn't pass over the island, it did not "make landfall". With Hurricane Earl, i'm not sure if that one island in the British Virgin islands got 135 mph winds from this storm, because 37.3 milion seems rather low for that kind of "direct hit". IMO, a direct hit is when the eyewall hits land, so the storm's full force hits the area, but it doesn't make landfall because its eye remains over water. If the NHC says otherwise, then I guess we may need to just follow that... Rye998 (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can't use your own definition for something when the NHC already has a definition. And technically, the eyes of both Fabian and Ioke crossed those islands; it was only the center of the eye that did not cross. That's why, I think, it's just easier to put areas affected, and not wonder/worry if it actually made landfall/direct hit. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is a preview of what I was talking about. It removes the excessive landfalls and direct hit locations and replaces it with a broader areas affected, like the hurricane infobox. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to say I "was right", but I personally like the current way of doing the chart, because it includes specific landfall locations and intensities at those landfalls, dates of each landfall, and impacts there. I just don't think we need all of the direct hits there unless we need them. Earlier this year with Alex, in the article it was mentioned that it technically made 6 direct hits on the Belize coastline, but we only need the important one(near Belize City, Belize). Hurricane Frances in 2004 hit almost every island in the Bahamas, but we are not going to put down 700 islands in the impacts table, because it isn't very clean and impacts on the small islands can just be put down as "the Bahamas". The only important landfalls in the Bahamas that should be mentioned are the ones on the big islands, like Andros Island, as was the case with Bonnie earlier this year, the Abaco Islands, or the Turks/Caicos. Hurricane Hanna technically made several landfals as it tracked up the eaast coast, but they are not worth mentioning as several other hurricanes in the past, such as 1996's Bertha and 1999's Floyd also did that. Tropical Storm Fay, on the other hand, actually did make 4 U.S. landfalls as it criss-crossed Florida in August of 2008, a feat no other storm has done until then. I think direct hits should be mentioned, and I currently do like the type of chart we have, but we shouldn't "overdo" direct hits unless it is nessecary by all means(by that, I mean a Fay-like storm that closely approaches 4 land masses and doesn't make landfall on any of them, but causes enough impact for a direct hit on each). Rye998 (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, we either include direct hits or we don't. There is a definition for what a direct hit is, and we have to make a decision. Why should we include some island but not another? My primary issue with the current way of doing the chart is that it under-emphasizes the impact outside of the landfall area. Remember, a TC is not a point. Look at Isabel in 2003. In the 2003 season chart, Isabel is only listed as hitting Drum Inlet, North Carolina, and yet it caused $3.4 billion, particularly in neighboring Virginia. Is Isabel's impact in Virginia that much less important than any of Earl's direct hits, or Matthew's second official landfall? A landfall is where the center of the tropical cyclone happens to move across land. That isn't the important part. Its the overall impact that is important. What about Hurricane Fifi? The 1974 chart would only include its Belize landfall, yet its 8000 death toll occurred in a country it didn't even hit. Something isn't right. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Areas affected does no good for the Pacific as Mexico is pretty darn big. Even then, what if a storm hit a major city (I used Boston for my example). What's more important? It affected the East Coast or that hurricane Z slammed into Boston as a 110 mph Cat 2. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) First off, the United States is bigger than Mexico, and second, if you'll notice in my preview example, I included some states under areas affected. Gustav, for example, should have Louisiana listed separately from the rest of the south-central US. In your hypothetical example, sure, it'd say Massachusetts. Look at Katrina, though. Its landfall location is "Buras, Louisiana". Where the heck is that? How does that help anyone with anything? Hurricanehink (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Like what Hurricanehink said, I think we should use "areas affected", since it would be able to include landfalls or "direct hits". I was wondering though, you meant the areas affect while tropical while, right? Even if you weren't, let's say its like 2004 or 2005, you would end up naming like at least 20 U.S. states, every country in North America, and Spain and Portugal (Vince 2005). Also, I think we might want to move this discuss because it is probably going to get much longer, and the scope of this decision isn't only for improvements on the 2010 AHS, it's nearly every season with season effects table.--12george1 (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, just the major areas affected. You wouldn't have to include every last state. Just the broader areas, like "New England", "Southeastern United States", etc. Just like what's in the infobox. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Why can't we list both? YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm just saying we don't need to include every indirect landfall there. As I mentioned with the Bahama islands, we only need to include the important islands that are/were hit. The hundreds of small islands have been hit numerous times before. Hurricane Celia hit Clipperton island in the Pacific this year, but I highly doubt any people even know what or where the heck that island is. With Katrina, yes it did officialy make landfall in Buras, and I know it may not be known well by readers on Wikipedia, but if readers want to find out more about the storm's affects in New Orleans, or elsewhere on the Mississippi coastline than in Pearlington, like Gulfport or Pass Christian, then they can go to the main article for that type of information. A hurricane's landfall location does not always have correlation to their main impacts in any areas. The media was largely in New Orleans with Hurricane Gustav in 2008, but although it made landfall in Cocodrie, Louisiana, and missed New Orleans by a close shot, most of it's damage was from inland flooding in Baton Rouge, not New Orleans, even though it didn't make landfall there. Hurricane Agnes in 1972 caused the majority of it's damages in Pensylvania and inland New York, but it only hit NYC as a strong TS, with little damage in that area alone. And 12George1, I agree with you completly. This discussion would be better suited to WPTC's talk page than this one alone, because it would be improving every article known about Tropical Cyclones. Rye998 (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I want to raise another question on those tables as well: Where we do take the impact from? I don't see any refs concerning damage and casualities, neither in most of the sections to a storm. --Matthiasb (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I believe the reflist below the table could solve most of those problems? And if you look at the NHC best track, they support how strong hurricanes were at their landfall(s). But it doesn't refer to all of the direct hits, technically, just the landfalls in general. And as I mentioned before, this talk is better suited to WPTC's talk page than here, because it will improve all articles on TC's, not just this page alone. Rye998 (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well the reflist below the article is long and is changing as well (if the refs are removed) so how one can actually verify an entry? By reading all umphfhundred refs? You're considering this seriously? Actually those tables are unreferenced data lists and, unless the TCR is not published yet, may be a mix of inaccurateness and original research. And for that reason the article's infobox on the top lacks on verifiable data if talking about season's total damage and casualities. --Matthiasb (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the references in the list aren't really put in the table, but the impacts from the table are reflections of what are mentioned in the main articles. With storms that don't have articles, impacts and landfall locations are mentioned in the description next to the track of the storm and its image. I do agree that some of the references are dead links and others aren't mentioned in the table, but this discussion, the third time i've mentioned it, must be put on WPTC's talk page. Why not copy-paste this discussion there? Are we not allowed to do that? I know we can't do that with articles because it destroys the edit histories, but does that same thing apply to parts(fragments) of pages? I'm not entirely sure of that, but IMO, the impact table is just a mirror image of the main articles of storms or the summary of those storms themselves in the main 2010 AHS article, so it isn't really OR, as there are references in the article(s) themself. Rye998 (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The only reason I put the discussion on here is because many more people use this talk page. The project is basically dead, but nonetheless I put a notice directing people to this discussion. Back to the discussion, most of the table has the data from either the storm articles or the sections (dates, peak strength, damage, deaths). The one exception seems to be landfalls/direct hits. The individual articles do mention the significant landfalls, but if there are multiple (several islands in an archipelago, perhaps) then it doesn't bother to list each and every one. More significantly, I don't think any article includes every direct hit. We're making up the direct hit for... what purpose? The meteorological history is fine in mentioning where the storm affected ("it moved parallel to Honduras", for example, not that it had a direct hit on Random City), and the impact section reflects every location affected. Everywhere else other than the impact table, it focus on the broader effects, not random landfall points. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should put the direct hit on the impact section, but make it a full landfall. You know, getting hit with a direct hit isn't much different than a landfall right? Except the other eyewall doesn't hit you. P.S: Why do they call it a direct hit? Shouldn't it be a indirect hit? A Direct hit sounds kind of like a bullseye or strike, like you're directly on target. TheAustinMan (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, a direct hit has a strict meteorological definition, one that is hard to prove (which we haven't been doing). A direct hit is almost a landfall. For hurricanes, it's when the eye crosses over a portion of land, but the center doesn't, and for tropical storms, it's when the area of maximum winds crosses over (if that happens not to be the center). An indirect hit is more what we have been doing (posting areas where the circulation passed close to). That's why I want to remove the landfalls and direct hits and replace with the areas affected. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

This is my opinion:

Landfall - Eye or center of circulation crosses land. Location should be, if possible, the exact location the center comes ashore. In a test version I am about to experiment with, those will be bolded.

Direct hit - Either the eyewall crosses land while the center of the eye comes ashore, or winds within 1 category of the actual intensity at the time (for Cat 2 or stronger) or 50 kt+ winds (for Cat 1 storms and strong tropical storms) or the maximum winds (for storms <50 kt) come ashore.

Indirect hit - Any hurricane-force wind impact that does not satisfy the direct hit criteria, or if the main cloud deck comes ashore without winds to hurricane force (for weaker storms mainly).

Brush - Any areas hit only by outer bands (not the main cloud deck) producing rain and winds no stronger than tropical storm-force. Areas only impacted by dry clouds at the very edge should not be included.

CrazyC83 (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Since this is a worldwide discussion, what about Land depressions which do not make landfalls, (in) direct hits, and brush by, they just affect areas. If we use areas affected we wouldnt have to worry about that.Jason Rees (talk) 23:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Tomas article

Since it will likely be needed soon, I made a sandbox for Tomas, which is set to be classified at 5 pm (AST).

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Tomas - located here. Not much more can be added now (unless someone has a good link describing how rare it is for a storm to be that far south in late October).

Hurricanehink (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you mind if I edit that sandbox page about Tomas? Rosalina2427 (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Heres a link for the records: http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1677 User:Itfc+canes=me ^Talk Sign me! Its good to be back! 09:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)