Talk:2010 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 3

Record for October

I don't know if there is a good link for Tomas's formation, but we have had 5 storms form in October of 2010, which I believe is a record for the Atlantic basin, or it may have tied one season in the 1940's, I think. This should also be mentioned in the Pacific hurricane season as the first season since 1995 with no storms to exist in October. I can't find a reliable link to support this, but if the NHC mentions it in 3 days, or if a link can be found prior to that, both facts should be mentioned. Rye998 (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_Atlantic_hurricane_records says both 1950 and 2005 had six.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, I corrected that list, the record is actually seven, 2005 had Stan, Tammy, an unnamed subtropical storm, Vince, Wilma, Alpha and Beta. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that particular list is of named storms, which means your unnamed subtropical storm doesn't count.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a broad sense, named storm refers to a system with winds of at least 39 mph (i.e. a sub/tropical storm). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, that's wrong, I guess. However, the Pacific inactivity record should be mentioned(sorry for coming off topic), first time since 1995 with no storms active in October, if the next two days are quiet. Rye998 (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Pacific basin is quiet so far...no vigorous tropical waves around. Rosalina2427 (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no off-topic conversation please. Darren 23^Edits|Mail 02:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it can't be made official until it's possibly mentioned in the NHC's monthly review for October, but could 2010 tie a record with 1950 for the most hurricanes in October? We've had five this month (Otto, Paula, Richard, Shary, and Tomas), while 1950 also had five (George, Item, Jig, King, and Love; note that George formed in September, but it became a hurricane on October 1 so I consider it an October hurricane). --Dylan 620 (contribs, logs) 19:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1870 Atlantic hurricane season has 6 hurricanes, and they're consecutive too. Darren 23^Edits|Mail 19:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tomas track

There was a discussion brought up earlier about keeping the image names consistent, however, for Tropical Storm Tomas, we cannot use: File:[storm name here] 2010 track.png, since the image File:Tomas 2010 track.png is being used for Severe Tropical Cyclone Tomas in the south Pacific ocean back in March. See the Severe Tropical Cyclone Tomas for more details.--12george1 (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about uploading the Atlantic image at Hurricane Tomas 2010 track or Tomas Atlantic 2010?Jason Rees (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a discrepancy, we usually use the basin after the name (Like Beni Indian 2003.png) — Iune (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tomas_Atlantic_2010_track.png problem solved. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately neither of them peaked as tropical storms, or we would have a naming issue between Tropical Storm Tomas (2010 South Pacific storm) and Tropical Storm Tomas (2010 Atlantic storm). CrazyC83 (talk) 02:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, if that was the case, we wouldn't have any issues with the article name. The storm in the south pacific would be referred to as Tropical Cyclone Tomas (according to the Australian intensity scale). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tomas is reupgraded with the 1700 EDT advisory. 173.14.179.73 (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major edit tag

Should be taken down, it has been there for hours. 71.174.20.106 (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Darren 23^Edits|Mail 00:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Record for hurricanes

There were 12 hurricanes thus far this year, which ties for the second highest ever recorded, with 1969 and behind only 2005. Should this record also be mentioned? Rye998 (talk) 00:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ACE table

In the table for ACE, the values ranked 5-10 are pushed over one space versus the rest of the table. Does anyone know why? How should this be normalized? TDI19 (talk) 02:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is to keep the decimal places lined up. CrazyC83 (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many significant digits should be expressed for the total ACE of the season? The individual storms have 3, but the total has 4 (1 decimal place). 147.174.61.41 (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One decimal place. Since it is unlikely any storm will ever have an ACE greater than 99.9, it best shows the strongest storms. CrazyC83 (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Recent Events Conflict

There is a bit of a conflict with the Timeline of Recent Events for the 2010 Atlantic Hurricane Season. It shows that at 8:00 PM AST on November 6, Tomas restrengthened to a hurricane.

However, 8:00 PM AST is 00:00 UTC, which is considered November 7...So do I put it on November 6, or on November 7???

TropicalAnalystwx13 20:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Look at whats been done previously and follow that standard.Jason Rees (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The local time (AST in this case) is always used first for determining date in the Atlantic and East Pacific. Other basins generally use UTC. — Iune (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The end or not?

Will this be the end of the season? Considering there's only about 2 weeks until the season ends. But there is is a tropical disturbance out in the Carribean, 40% chance for now. Rosalina2427 (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The conventional delimiting dates are not as important as the NHC reports. This means the season is potentially active until the circulation associated with the last tropical depression forming before December 31st dissipates. The article will need updates at least until the official reports on storms are released and storm names, if any, are retired. Perhaps longer if notable research is done on any of the storms. 74.104.210.154 (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalina, you are not allowed to do this. Wikipedia is not a forum and you do not have your right your opinion on here, there are two rights on Wikipedia, the right to leave and the right to come back. Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although YE is right in saying that this is not a forum, I have to mention that his statement "you do not have your right your opinion on here" is one, rude, two incorrect and lastly, to YE, why did you even make that statement? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember Rosalina saying that he she the right to your opinion after a discussion like. Legally, he does have the right, but it did so to avoid she saying that again. To prevent a heated debate, let's drop the subject and this is my fault as usual. This is why I should abandon this project for another 8 months or so :P. Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an okay question as it does fit here, Rosalina the season officially ends on November 30 however that does not mean that activity ends on that date. In 2007 Tropical storm Olga occured in December and as the NHC follows it so do editors on wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say to YE is...Wow... TropicalAnalystwx13 00:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalina2427: This isn't a forum, but you're welcome to go on Hurricane Wiki, and also, the day which Atlantic hurricane seasons officially ends is on November 30, but activity can still occur, and YE, what do you mean by he she? - HurricaneSpin Talk to me 01:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Rosalina's question here rises at least one problem in the wording of the article which says: The season officially started on June 1 and will end on November 30, dates which conventionally delimit the period of each year when most tropical systems form in the basin. but indeed does not really state what happens if a storm forms on the last days of December like e.g. 1954 or, more lately, 2005. Given that, the question indeed was on topic here. --Matthiasb (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should wait until December comes around and, unless a storm does do a post-season formation, we should end this discussion. Rosalina, assuming there will be a December storm is a violation of WP:FORUM and isn't allowed on here. One thing that definitely should be mentioned is, despite the immense activity in 2010, it is the second AHS in a row without a single U.S. landfalling hurricane... it's the first two-year streak with no U.S. hurricanes since 2000-2001. And Matthiasb, and everyone else on post season storms, yes, the season does officialy end on November 30. Post-season storms are rather rare and don't happen very often. There have been only a handfull of years with post-season storms, out of a historical record of more than a century and a half. If a storm does indeed form in December, then we will remark that fact in the main article, as it is rather unusual. Rye998 (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only 2nd time

Looking at the activity in this year, the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season is only the second season on record to have more storms than the Western Pacific basin; 2005 was the first one. Should this record be mentioned in the article? Rye998 (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once January rolls around and the final numbers are in, I think it could be mentioned in the seasonal summary section. Although, it should also be noted that the Pacific was at record low values throughout the Northern Hemisphere this year. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...And it should be noted that the 2005 AHS was the most active on record in that year, so in either year it isn't surprising the WPac was behind, but by that time it also should be mentioned that records before 1944 are incomplete, so it might have not been the 2nd time that happened(possibly 1933, 1887). Assuming the WPac remains as is, it would be the least active on record there. These facts will not be mentioned until January 1, 2011, however. Nothing else should be added here now. Rye998 (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, BTW, there are a ton of records mentioned here Darren 23^Edits|Mail 14:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any record in there mentioning the relationship of Atlantic activity in correlation to the Pacific activity; we need another source by Jan. 1st saying this year was more active than the WPac. Rye998 (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard

Has the TCR came out on this storm today? Is it a post-storm review? Because I need a new reference to support this change in intensity; otherwise, it's vandalism, i'm assuming. Rye998 (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The KMZ track was updated today by the NHC. See here. I've updated its track to match the new data. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it matters, I'll try to come up with rainfall graphics for this system (as well as Matthew and Paula), either within the next week, or during the latter half of December. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hermine Cape Verde????

A Cape Verde-type hurricane is an Atlantic hurricane that develops near the Cape Verde islands. Hermine formed out of the remnants of the 2010 Pacific hurricane season's Tropical Depression Eleven-E in the Bay of Campeche. So, hermine formed miles away from the Cape Verde islands. Why does the section mention "Following a series of Cape Verde-type storms........."?? --Anirudh Emani (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It occured after Colin, Danielle, Earl, Fiona, and Gaston, all of which were Cape Verde type storms. atomic 77 32 04:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anikingos's point has been lost because he used the phrase "miles" instead of "thousands of miles." Hermine was in no way, shape, or form a Cape Verde tropical cyclone. I'm removing it now. Using that phrase is misleading (implying Hermine was also a Cape Verde tropical cyclone) without additional qualification. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Even though it traveled in a particular path usually preferred by a cape Verde storm, the place where the storm formed makes it a usual Atlantic cyclone. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 05:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Tomas's impact

I feel that the 1000 indirect should be dropped. The 2010 Haiti cholera outbreak began late October and the hurricane did not strike haiti until November 5th and while that may be a short time the source ^[1] stated that "Cholera has killed 501 people and sickened more than 7,000 others since the first cases were confirmed in Haiti about two weeks ago" that means that 501 people were already dead before the hurricane hit. Another issue is the reference to the people who died as a result of the hurricane, there is none. People are still dying in Haiti from Cholera, now can that be from Hurricane Tomas still or from other causes? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tomas is blamed for worsening the outbreak; following its passage more than 1,100 more people perished due to Cholera and the likely cause for this was the passage of Tomas. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Edited) Sorry for the whole reference thing but even after finding the 1,100 bit ^[2] it does not state that all 1,100 were from tomas. The reference states that the cholera outbreak (not tomas) in Haiti had now killed more than 1,100 people, it fails to say if those deaths were from tomas or from the total deaths of the whole event thus far though. I am not saying Tomas did not make things worse where did it come into the picture though and finding out an estimate of how many died will be a challenge. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I listed them as indirect with a rough number. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a rough number? The reference of 1,100 people was plopped in the lead of Hurricane Tomas (2010) it is mentioned no place else in that article or in 2010 Haiti cholera outbreak. The reference only states that more than 1,100 have died so far due to Cholera you are willing to count all 1,100 since the outbreak started (late October) and pin it on Tomas as all indirect deaths?

Eh, Cyclonebiskit, Knowledgekid87 is making a really good point here -- Tomas didn't come anywhere close to causing the 1,100 deaths -- the seperate Cholera disease did, and Tomas didn't cause the disease to worsen either. Only 20 or so deaths are blamed on Tomas's flooding and mudslides in Haiti. This was not a Gordon - like storm for the country. They really prepared themselves from this storm. The 1,100 deaths are flat-out not related to Tomas and should be removed from the article. Merging the Cholera article and Tomas's article isn't a good idea at all, because Tomas didn't cause hardly any effect on the disease. The disease spread on its own, not with help from Tomas. Deaths from disease are not connected to the main storm; they are two seperate catastrophes. In the same way, you can't say Hurricane Stan in 2005 was entirely responsible for the 2,000 deaths in Guatemala because Stan got help from a non-tropical low to cause the damage. Without it, there would be nothing attributed to it. You have to seperate the two disasters seperately, and Tomas didn't kill 1,100 people from flash floods and mudslides in Haiti, a seperate disaster did. Should Tomas be blamed on those deaths? No. It didn't turn out to be so bad for Haiti on it's own, but the disease outbreak was and still is, and it's a completly different disaster to sort out. Rye998 (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/11/2010117113247951990.html

[2] ttp://gofbw.com/news.asp?ID=12381

[1]

[2]