The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Too soon for such a thing. Potential tropical cyclones do not warrant draft articles, and PTC-One is no exception. Until and unless Tropical Storm Alex, which PTC-One is likely to soon become, becomes more than a just a gusty rainmaker, a storm article isn't warranted. For now, I would suggest building the summary section on the season page, and when/if it becomes too large, start a storm article. Drdpw (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
as per Wikipedia:Notability (weather)For storms expected to impact land, a draft should be made instead while the storm is not yet notable. The draft should only be moved to article space when information about the storm's impact begins to roll in, which is usually around the time of landfall or closest approach to land.HurricaneEdgar02:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
I second that creating the draft currently is premature. Sure it's quite certain that PTC One will form into Tropical Storm Alex, as shown by the NHC, but without it even forming there's nothing much of substance you could add within the draft except about how it formed from the remnants of Hurricane Agatha, and even then this is already noted enough from the article currently. Once it has a name and/or has made landfall in Florida, I think a draft is warranted and then possible considerations of an article if necessary once the storm has dissipated or caused significant damage. Kaiser Jaguar (talk) 03:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
There is no minimum number of casualties or amount of damage required to make a storm notable. However, some amount of either helps establish notability.HurricaneEdgar10:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Yeah there is Potential tropical cyclone article which become GA. anyway could someone help to expands this draft? HurricaneEdgar13:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What more is there to say? According to the NWS, global models "do not develop the system significantly before landfall". [1] Unless this created a substantial impact, it will be more likely be summarized in the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Well no, Danny had an very large article on it, if the tropical cyclone becomes an tropical storm, and does little to no impact, it shouldn't have an article on it. Response to 2601:Cb:2:2. PopularGames (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
This short-lived system may not warrant an article of its own. Not every tropical cyclone needs a stand-alone article to have its story well-told (WP:NOPAGE). Drdpw (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. (WP:GNG) HurricaneEdgar01:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
According to the NHC, PTC 4 might cause some isolated flash flooding from heavy rains in NE Mexico and S Texas. Therefore, unless that forecast pans out otherwise over the next couple of days, this disturbance's story can probably be fully told (under the header Other systems) in this article. Drdpw (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since CSU updated their extended range forecast for the 2022 Atlantic Hurricane Season, should their cited forecast in April 2022 be removed from the source? And simply have their June forecast leading the 2nd paragraph for the Pre-Season forecast section? ~ Kaiser Jaguar {talk · contribs} 01:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
@HurricaneEdgar: You have, so far, not provided a valid reason on why the article is notable, besides its possible impact to land as a tropical storm and its minimal damages in Trinidad and Tobago. You must prove that the storm will cause (or has caused) significant impacts in the region in its track to keep the article, or merge its contents into the season article. See WP:AVOIDSPLIT for advice. In addition, you copied content from a userspace draft and left a link back to the userspace draft. You must attribute the user directly in your edit summary, or else the userspace draft cannot be deleted or else attribution will be lost. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#List of authors for more information.
I see no reason to delete, redirect, merger as the storm has been named Bonnie. also they clearly the storm will impact Nicaragua. (per the NHC track) HurricaneEdgar14:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
@Hurricane Chandler: I see no reason for this storm to have a separate page. All that needs to be said about Colin 2022 can be stated here in the season article. Not every tropical cyclone needs a stand-alone article to have its story well-told (WP:NOPAGE). Drdpw (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Colin's image
So guys I noticed users are engaging in a little image war going with Colin's image please pick one 1, 2, or 3 so we can have a consensus, personally, I'm Neutral on all 3 images since Colin's all three images Colin's intensity is pretty much identical between the time of its formation to 21:00 UTC on July 3 and according to the WPTC/IMG guidelines we can use any image within 5% in Knots of the storm's peak intensity hence "at peak" or "near peak", and I don't see too much difference between the structure of the storm except in Image 3 it does indeed look like its weakening but then again it was taken around 5 hours before it was declared a depression and it is still within that 5%, I brought up these points so users can stop these wars over images remember 5% of the peak of the storm we can use that image as long as its colored and the quality is of a high standard we are one brilliant team here we shouldn't be having these wars here thank you.
Also another thing that I didn't brought up in my last message Daytime images are perferred over IR Images and IR Images should be used in a last resort type of situation if the storm's peak is more than 5% of its intensity after sunset and before sunrise which Colin intensity was pretty much the same the whole time so there wasn't really a point uploading IR images really for an example Grace's intensity was 110 MPH (95 KTS) at sunset and its peak was 120 MPH (105 KTS) at nigh hence why we are using an IR image for Grace that's more than 5% in knots. Cyclonetracker7586 (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I concur with your statement that Colin's intensity was basically the same for all these images, and that daytime images are preferred over IR images.. The only difference is that the 3rd image is closer to 18Z, which has Colin's pressure at 1014 hPa instead of 1012 hPa, and this is insignificant as a minor pressure fluctuation does not take precedent over the image guidelines. Akbermamps14:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Pinging @ChessEric: here since he restored the second image: Please read the above discussion and the image guidelines for WPTC. It clearly states that "Near peak intensity" refers to any point where a storm has winds roughly within 5 percent of peak intensity (in knots). However, clarity of the storm image and its context should be prioritized over its exact time close to its peak intensity; pressure does not factor into this, and Colin was at 35kt for all the above images. Additionally, the pressure at 18Z was only a few millibars higher than previous hours, and a minor pressure change does not take precedent over the image guidelines stating that visible imagery is preferred to infrared imagery if available. Akbermamps03:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm aware that I'm reiterating a lot of what I've already said, but again, a pressure change of 2 hPa does not take precedence over the very clear image guidelines, especially when the 16Z image isn't even at 18Z where the pressure's at 1014 hPa. This isn't a matter of "not agreeing" with people or opinions when the image guidelines explicitly state that High-resolution true-color visible imagery is preferred over Infrared imagery overlaid on a true-color basemap. If you disagree with them, then get consensus to change it, but until then, the consensus is that Visible images are preferred to infrared images, and that the 16Z image meets that criteria and the "within 5 percent of peak intensity (in knots)" criteria, while the 0715Z image does not meet the first criteria.
To reiterate more of the image guidelines, clarity of the storm image and its context should be prioritized over its exact time close to its peak intensity, and it should be noted that images should still be somewhat close to that of the storm's peak, however it never has to be exact and is more depending on how "good" the image is considered by our readers/users. Visible is better because it's a snapshot of how exactly the storm looked at that time without approximation and overlaying. Additionally, infrared images do not have the detailed low-level clouds that help provide context to a storm's structure.
@Akbermamps: I'm sorry for reverting you yesterday. I was having problems with two other editors on separate pages and took it out on you. I'll revert back to the previous image, which looks better. ChessEric (talk·contribs) 17:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
I believe that in the section "Seasonal summary" the current ACE index is 2.9 units as you have to add all the ACE units from each storm to get the total ACE index. This is because of the "Observed" line of the graph in ref and all the basins' values in the time TC stats are of 2001's ACE index. For example, only highlighting the "Observed" line will show that the ACE index went up on Jun 3, despite no storms on that day. Furthermore, the dates of the data points are of 2001. So, you must add the values of each of the storms together to get 2.9. Purplemountainmantalkcontribs21:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
There is precedent for the application of operational best track data. It is currently in use for the 2022 Pacific typhoon season. However, this is an uncommon case where operational intensity in the b-decks surpasses that of advisories. As the b-decks are official I see no fault in following accordingly here. Ubuntwo (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
The operational best track is not used for the Atlantic, Eastern Pacific, and Central Pacific as this information is not readily provided to the public. You need to dig through ftp files that aren't easy to access for most people without knowing the links. It would take me some time to dig up, but I tweeted Eric Blake about it and he said they're not to be considered definitive assessments for the NHC. They're primarily meant for internal usage. In the case of the JTWC, they readily provide the operational best track in their public advisories. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
@Cyclonebiskit: To be clear, you're saying that stats from public advisories (or other reliable secondary sources) should be used in this and in the timeline article until the TCRs comes out – correct? Drdpw (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
@Drdpw: yes, the public advisories are the main source for intensity statistics in the NHC AoR until the TCR is released. No secondary sources override the public advisories but they can be used to supplement the information. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
I think so. It is likely to become a major and impact Bermuda. Plus it has already affected Puerto Rico and Hispaniola. I think you can start a draft if you want Hurricane Su (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
If Earl's history cannot be adequately told, or, if it makes a big impact somewhere, it will then warrant an article of its own. I believe there is information on the project page concerning when / when-not to start an article on a storm. Drdpw (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Danielle page?
Danielle is projected to affect Portugal and Spain. If it were to, would a page be necessary? Considering that Hurricane Lorenzo got a page and it affect the British Isles. Plenty other storms have affected Portugal and Spain and most of them have pages. So I believe a page could be necessary EVENTUALLY. It hasn’t affected Iberia yet and it may dissipate before reaching there. Just wanted to ask. 2600:4041:474:D00:CC7B:F9A5:83D8:1314 (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't think a page would be necessary unless it affects Portugal and Spain. If it does not, the only information on impacts are minor ones in the Azores. So at this time, a page is not necessary but later one could be. 2600:4041:474:D00:90DE:3BCC:B7FE:4AD0 (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
The book is closed on Danielle and an article is not warranted. And given that the extratropical cyclone that was Danielle will likely degenerate further as it moves toward Portugal & Spain, I doubt that will change. If there is some impact, it can easily be noted in this article. Drdpw (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Danielle
Hello, I have risen from my one year inactivity, so my editing may be a little rusty. Although the National Hurricane Center stopped posting advisories on Danielle, it's a extropical storm with winds up to 45 mph, or 72 kph. I'm just saying this because as again, my editing is rusty. Also, quick reminder, live info on Earl states its a C2, tho its about a 90 mph.
Thanks, LuigiIsSuppreme989🌀 (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Tropical Depression Seven after five storms?
Isn't the newest storm that formed earlier today supposed to be named "Tropical Depression Six" since only five storms have formed prior to it? DENBRO1995 (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Hurricane Danielle, the season's fourth tropical cyclone was designated Tropical Depression Five. Earl, the season's fifth tropical cyclone, was never designated as a depression, but had it been, it would have would have been Tropical Depression Six. The reason is because a potential tropical cyclone had previously been designated Potential Tropical Cyclone Four but it never became a tropical cyclone. They didn't (by policy) reuse the number. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
I would suggest building-up the Fiona section in this article first, and then, if need be, due to section size or significant storm impact along the way, develop and publish the draft. This does look like a potentially intense storm (but then again, so did Earl).Drdpw (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Addition of this image into Seasonal summary
Hey, this image has four tropical cyclones active at the same time, and I was wondering if it could be added to the summary area.
Fiona, Gaston, Hermine and Tropical Depression Nine on September 23, 2022
The graphic shows the various storms (Alex, Bonnie, Colin, etc.) with a colour legend showing Tropical Depression, Tropical Storm, and Categories 1 to 5. Showing "Fiona (C4)" when the red band means "Category 4" seems superfluous. Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Invest 95L has not been declared a tropical storm. However, it has a 70% chance of becoming one in the next 3 days. CK1218 (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Invest 98L (short for Investigation 98L) marked the first reconnaissance flights into developing storm system. I had never seen this nomenclature before it began cropping on Twitter, and I don't follow hurricanes. I've seen named tropical storms, but never anything at the previous, wave front stage. (Several meteorologists had tweeted about it because the conditions ideal for it to be an extremely destructive hurricane.) All of which is to say, it gained historic prominence at a uniquely early stage. kencf0618 (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Actually PopularGames, that draft does not pass much of the requirements of WP:NWEATHER for a tropical cyclone to have a unique article. It hasn’t caused really much of any impacts yet, so it should not be moved into mainspace yet. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Diff? Also, WP:NWEATHER was created after Hurricane Ida and various editors and different discussions occurred to create it the notability guidelines for weather articles. So it should not be moved yet. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
If it causes numerous or severe damages and multiple fatalities associated with Ian, yes. However, if it does not cause enough damage, we will have to wait until it makes landfall in Florida, but it is too early to tell what the impacts are for the Florida Panhandle. Sarrail (talk) 23:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I imagine the draft will be ready for moving to main space when editors have put sufficient content into it other than what's been cut and pasted from the storm section of this article. One thing you could be doing right now to enhance the draft would be to build a solid "preparations" section. Looking at the page history, pretty much the only work done on the draft over the past few days has been to update the Current storm information. How can it be "good enough for a article" if no one is putting in the effort to make it so? Drdpw (talk) 23:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
In my opinion making it an official article would give it more publicity resulting in more people editing it. Many pages start with a lot less than the draft currently has. Koiramainen (talk) 10:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Ian, being arguably the most impactful hurricane thus far for this season, surely deserves an article. It is a relevant topic in most of the Southeast coast. This is reflected by the page views, being the highest so far this season. We are long overdue. Meteorologist200 (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, given the unfolding circumstances, moving the draft to main space over the current Hurricane Ian ought to happen. Drdpw (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
It is already nearing the end of September, and although there has been a bit of tropical disturbances going on in the Atlantic basin this late into the season, a typical above average hurricane season should have at least some hurricane activity throughout much of July and August. Since this August was one of the least active months of tropical activity, it only makes since to predict that this year will be a below average hurricane season. What do you all think? Williamwang363 (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
My guess is that it is too early to predict if it is a below average Atlantic hurricane season. In 1961, there was no storms in August. However, more storms formed in September and October and remained an average hurricane season. But with September ending, there could still be an existing chance that storms may develop in October. IMO, I think we should wait until at least mid to late October. Sarrail (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
This is quite a bit of an overreaction, considering we have already nearly reached an ACE that would be considered "average". And with Ian currently active, I would expect that benchmark to be reached soon. In terms of number of storms, what is traditionally considered below average is fewer than 10 named storms and 4 or less hurricanes. Meaning we are one hurricane away from reaching average, with two months left in the season. Mvhcmaniac (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
And one named system away from an average hurricane season. After looking at it, we may still be looking for a slightly below average hurricane season. considering the fact that there needs to be at least 10 hurricanes and 15 named storms for it to be an average hurricane season. Williamwang363 (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
What's considered "below average", "average", and "above average" are all ranges, not one value where if it's not exactly that it's below or above average. Again, what is traditionally considered "below average activity" is fewer than 10 named storms / 4 hurricanes. Mvhcmaniac (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
From NOAA – Regarding what constitutes an "average" season, NOAA's Climate Prediction Center (CPC) uses 1991–2020 as the 30-year period of record. The averages for the Atlantic hurricane season are, 14 named storms, 7 hurricanes and 3 major hurricanes. Drdpw (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
This thread isn't talking about whether to call it above average, it's talking about calling it below average. We're very near or already past the threshold for what's considered near average according to various metrics. Mvhcmaniac (talk) 13:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is suggesting that we call 2022 an above average season. The NHC and other reliable secondary sources have consistently been pointing out how this season has been, at every turn to date, "behind" or "below" average. In the end, those words will probably define the general activity of the 2022 AHS; and when those sources start labeling the entire season as such, so will we. Drdpw (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I realize the tropical depression that became Ian formed before the one that became Hermine, but Hermine became a tropical storm first, which is why it has the earlier name. It's confusing to have Ian listed first. Tad Lincoln (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
This has also happened other times, like Tropical storm Omar and Hurricane Nana in 2020. Omar formed first, but it was Nana which got the name first. Sarrail (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, like Sarail said, even though TS Ian formed first as TD 9, it was TD 10 then was declared a tropical storm first, allowing it to become a named storm before TD 9, hence why "I" is happening before "H". It's not unusual for this happen, and the confusion is warranted, but the table always lists storms by their number, rather than by their name, first. Gumballs678talk17:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
@Tad Lincoln: It is confusing to have the names listed out of order. One way to think about it is that if one of these systems had failed to become a tropical storm and remained a tropical depression, the listing order would be the same. I have added hidden notes to the sections for Ian and Hermine, since this issue has caused confusion in previous hurricane seasons. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
While confusing at first glance, tropical cyclones are (following common practice) listed in the systems section and in the summary table in order of formation regardless of name or designation. Drdpw (talk) 12:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
As a clarification, TD 9 was formed before TD 10 was. And when TD 10 strengthened, it was enlisted the name Hermine. The name Ian was classified on TD 9. Yes, many thought TD 9 would strengthen into Hermine, but the National Hurricane Center declared that TD 10 formed first and attained the name Hermine, but in far eastern Atlantic. Sarrail (talk) 12:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
I would also like to point out, the practice isn't a wikipedia policy. It's one the NHC practices that we adopted. While it is confusing to see the letter I come before H when G formed before I, but the practice isn't by name, but by number. Ian is 10L, despite being the 9th named storm because 04L was potential tropical cyclone four, which failed to develop. That practice is similar to that used with a tropical depression that fails to strengthen to tropical storm intensity and be assigned a name. Gumballs678talk02:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree it’s confusing and I keep correcting it, but you can’t seriously think the national weather service would go with I before H. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.23.84.26 (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
And this is why TD 10 attained the "H" name first. TD 9 strengthened later, and attained the name Ian. This has happened in 2020. TD 16 formed first, but TD 17 strengthened first, attaining the name Nana. TD 16 strengthened later, attaining the name Omar. Sarrail (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
But it doesn't answer why they're listed out of order. Both stormed were named on the same day and theirfor ought to be listed in order and that is why im disputing. --Anonymous 07:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.238.98 (talk)
They formed on the same day but not at the same time. The timeline of events is as follows:
0900 UTC, September 23: Tropical Depression Nine forms
1500 UTC, September 23: Tropical Depression Ten forms
2100 UTC, September 23: Tropical Depression Ten strengthens to Tropical Storm Hermine
0300 UTC, September 24: Tropical Depression Nine strengthens to Tropical Storm Ian.
Regardless of when they were named, Ian is still 09L and Hermine is still 10L. For a period of six hours, we had TD 9 listed before TS Hermine. That order remains the same, and would remain whether or not 09L had become a named storm. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
According to the National Hurricane Center's 2022 Atlantic Hurricane Season summary (through the end of September), Hurricane Ian is listed before Tropical Storm Hermine. So, it appears that listing Ian before Hermine in this entry is correct, even though it does look odd. Source: https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/tws/Mateo Tembo (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Season Total Cost
The entire cost of the season > $75.3 billion not > $12.1 billion. That’s only the cost for Fiona. Please fix this. 2601:247:C500:43E0:5926:D1AF:7E19:EFE9 (talk) 17:57,figure 2 October 2022 (UTC)
What dollar do you suggest we use? CoreLogic estimated that insured damage from Ian in Florida alone would range between $28 to $47 billion; Fitch Ratings estimated insured losses of $25 to $40 billion. Total damage typically ends up a factor of two higher than insured damage, so the total price tag might be in the $50 – 100 billion range.(Yale Climate Connections article) Drdpw (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
12.1 is the "total cost" currently because Ian's estimates range anywhere from 25-100 billion, which is too far of a stretch between the estimates to put a price down. Once we get more definitive costs on Ian, it will be updated accordingly. Gumballs678talk15:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but let's wait until the storm weakens, thus showing the highest wind speed was during Ian. It could strengthen into a Category 5 hurricane briefly, but let's wait until it makes landfall or it weakens. Sarrail (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
The strongest storms are measured by Millibars (pressure) not by wind speed, seems silly I agree but Fiona had a lower pressure than Ian. BrisJanner (talk) 10:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
According to the National Weather Service, hurricane intensity is determined by the Saffir-Simpson Scale. And, that is based on the storm's wind speed (sources: [1] and [2]). As well, doing a Google search for "how is hurricane strength determined" gives NOAA's explanation of the Saffir-Simpson Wind Scale as the instant answer, with the other top 50 results indicating that that scale is used to determine how strong a hurricane is. So, based on that, Hurricane Ian is this season's strongest storm so far--even though Hurricane Fiona had a slightly lower pressure. Mateo Tembo (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
I’m not sure what you’ve seen on Google, but the NHC determines storm intensity by lower central pressure and not by wind speed. That’s it. It’s not going to be changed here. End of story. United States Man (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Also, as you might have seen from the URLs I included, the two sources I used were both from the National Hurricane Center. One of them, which went over the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale, said nothing about central pressure. You can see it again here: https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsshws.php . Also, this four page document which I listed above explains this in more detail (which I listed above): https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/sshws.pdf
On top of that, the National Hurricane Center's summary of the 2022 Atlantic Hurricane Season (which can be found at https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/tws/) only lists wind speeds. And, Hurricane Ian is the strongest one there.
As well, when doing web search, one way of quickly evaluating websites is to look at the URLs, the titles, and the snippets that are there. And, if you include the search term I provided (search term: how is hurricane strength determined) and do that on Google, you will see that the results given are from the National Hurricane Center, reputable news outlets, and universities. If you modify the search to only include results from the National Hurricane Center (search term: how is hurricane strength determined site:nhc.noaa.gov), you will see that results indicates that hurricane intensity is based on the Saffir-Simpson Scale, which is based on wind speed.
In short, based on the above, Hurricane Ian was the strongest storm of the 2022 Atlantic Hurricane Season so far, and the Wikipedia entry on this should be updated accordingly.
You are welcome to check the sources I listed and to do the searches that I did (I included the search terms), to verify this. Or, if you have information that states that the NHC determines hurricane intensity based on central pressure rather than wind speed, kindly provide references (including URLs), so that others can see this for themselves. Mateo Tembo (talk) 23:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
The Saffir-Simpson Scale is used to basically categorize the wind-speeds and damage by category that the storm may cause. It is a very good indicator for the strength of the storm for wind, but it does not take into account other factors that are usually involved within the tropical cyclone when it makes landfall. It should also be noted that just because the windspeeds are at a certain speed, does not necessarily correlate to the overall strength of the storm. Same goes for air pressure. However, it is much easier to determine the strongest storm in a season based on the lowest pressure, because the measurements are easier, and there is not as much hassle of finding the strongest storm across different basins, and since most basins have their own RMSC, they are likely to have different classifications for cyclones. Thus, air pressure should continue to be used to determine the most intense storm. It is also worth mentioning that if we decided to change the strongest storm of the season to the one with the strongest windspeed, it would possibly cause confusion among readers, as some will inevitably be from other areas of the world who measure and categorize storms in a different way than the NHC does. Having the storm with the lowest pressure be the strongest really minimizes confusion as millibars are very commonly used by many. Just because a storm has the strongest windspeeds does not mean that it is the strongest altogether, or that it caused the most damage. Please see the article List of the most intense tropical cyclones. As a last thing of note, it is standard for the storm to be listed on Wikipedia based on which one had the lowest air pressure. Look at the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season, the 2011 Atlantic Hurricane Season, and the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season . Thanks. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox04:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Interesting explanation. And, I looked at the Wikipedia entry you linked to, along with the article it cited [3], which discussed the relationship between pressure and wind speed. Too, it sounds like the way you categorize their strength is by pressure. Is that correct?
Having written that, I did more looking into and learned the following about how their intensity is categorized:
World Meteorological Organization[4]: They are classified based on wind speed (either 10-minute mean speed, 3-minute mean speed, or 1-minute mean speed), plus pressure is not listed.
National Institute of Informatics, Japan [5]: It goes over how Japan categorizes typhoons, along with the Saffir-Simpson scale. That said, though there are differences, they are both based on wind speed.
Encyclopaedia Britannica[6]: It states that tropical cyclone intensity and strength are based on wind speed, with both the Saffir-Simpson scale and Australia using numerical rankings for this.
Penn State University[7]: Goes over the Saffir-Simpson scale in terms of wind speed and storm surge, and how it is related to the storm's strength.
Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology[8]: Tropical cyclone severity is based on mean wind speeds and wind gusts.
Hong Kong Observatory[9]: Tropical cyclone intensity is determined by measuring wind speeds near the storm's center, which is measured by surface observations, satellite images, radar, and aircraft.
Japan Meteorological Agency[10]: A tropical cyclone's intensity is based on its wind speed.
All of these indicate that wind speed is how tropical cyclone intensity is measured; none indicate that it's determined by pressure. As well, though the Saffir-Simpson scale once included such factors as central pressure and storm surge, it was simplified to only include wind speed
Now, it is true that, in the past, hurricane intensity has been measured by pressure, as this 2001 paper from NOAA (which looked at 20th century hurricanes) indicates[11]. And, it's also true that there does appear to be a relationship between pressure and wind speed, as this University of Arizona page indicates[12]. (Yes, it also states that hurricane intensity is based on pressure. But, the reference it lists is the 2001 NOAA paper I just cited.) That said, the four-page NHC paper I cited earlier[13] indicated that, though the Saffir-Simpson scale had once used central pressure and storm surge, with the former being a proxy for wind speeds (since it wasn't until 1990 when aircraft were able to accurately measure them). But, owing to public confusion stemming from their use (the examples given were Hurricane Ike [2008], which had a 20-foot storm surge even though it was a category 2 storm, and Hurricane Charley [2004], which was a category 4 storm but with a storm surge of just seven feet), they simplified it in 2009 to just list peak wind speed.
So, having researched all of this, here are my thoughts on what should be done about this:
1) Though there appears to be a fairly close relationship between wind speed and central pressure, the fact is that, at present, the storm with the lowest barometric pressure (Fiona) was different from the one with the strongest winds (Ian). So, in light of this, I would suggest modifying the part listing strongest storm to show that Fiona had the lowest pressure, while Ian had the strongest winds. And, hopefully, it would not need to be changed.
2) If one does not exist, it might not be a bad idea to have a Wikipedia entry on tropical cyclone intensity, to go over different ways of measuring it over time, along with how it is measured today. And, it could also include mention of an intriguing paper that appeared in Nature in 2017, and which suggested that central pressure deficit (that is, the difference between the storm's central pressure and the atmospheric pressure outside of it) was a better predictor of hurricane damage than wind speed. And, its authors argued that storm intensity should be measured by its central pressure deficit rather than its wind speed[14][15]. While it was merely one study (which suggests possibility rather than probability), it was intriguing nonetheless. Mateo Tembo (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
We already mention that Fiona has the lowest pressure, but Ian has the strongest winds, that's what the note is for when looking at the strongest storm of the season. It seems you only reiterated the fact why we use pressure to dictate a season's strongest storm and not wind speed.Gumballs678talk15:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
The editor raises a broader issue here, that being, as most media and official sources apparently use maximum sustained wind speeds to determine what storms are the strongest, why is it standard for strongest storm to be determined on Wikipedia based on lowest air pressure? Perhaps this discussion should be moved and continued on the project talk page. I would also note that this same situation exists this season in the EP between Darby and Orlene. Drdpw (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
In my two posts, I laid out the fact that various meteorological agencies around the world (including the NHC and the WMO) determine tropical cyclone strength by wind speed (and I provided evidence backing that up). As well, I also provided a source that explains both why the NHC once used central pressure for hurricane strength and why it now relies on wind speeds for that. In short, I showed that, by determining tropical cyclone intensity by central pressure rather than wind speed, Wikipedia is an outlier.
(It also goes into the question Drdpw asked in their post, namely why Wikipedia evaluates tropical cyclone strength based on lowest air pressure rather than wind speed.)
So, in light of what others had said and how standard practice here has been label tropical cyclone strength by pressure, I suggested a compromise: To explicitly indicate (on the top, in the box that goes over the 2022 Atlantic hurricane season summary) that Fiona had the lowest pressure while Ian had the strongest winds. And, rather than using a note like what is there at present (since it's easy to miss if you're not looking for it), it would look something like this:
Strongest storm
Maximum winds
Name: Ian - 155 mph (250 kph) (1-minute sustained)
Lowest pressure
Name: Fiona - 932 mbar (hPa; 27.52 inHg)
It would be accurate and informative, and it would be easy for visitors to the page to see. As well, given what Drdpw brought up about how two east Pacific hurricanes (Darby and Orlene) have the same situation as Fiona and Ian in the Atlantic, it could also be done for that. Mateo Tembo (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
You could also include a note with "strongest storm" saying something like this: To enable comparison with past tropical cyclones, Wikipedia considers the season's strongest hurricane to be the one with the lowest pressure. Thus, because Hurricane Fiona had the lowest pressure, it is considered the strongest storm of the 2022 Atlantic hurricane season. However, as Hurricane Ian had the strongest winds of any hurricane this season, it is listed as such. Mateo Tembo (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
The project talk page is a more apropos place for this discussion, as your issue goes beyond the scope of this article. Drdpw (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I think the project page should be Hurricane Ian, which is, the discussion about what the strongest storm is. Just type in Hurricane Ian in the search box at the top of the page. Sarrail (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Well then Mateo, as you know better than every single organisation out there, feel free to go and edit every know Hurrican/Typhoon/cyclone season page on Wiki as I promise you now, all of the strongest storms are based on the intensity, not the wind speed... BrisJanner (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
@Sarrail: This isn’t exactly something with a source. It’s to remove a damage total, as the $12.1 billion was removed from the Hurricane Fiona for being from AccuWeather, not reliable for damage estimates. 75.99.68.66 (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
TS Julia is set to impact land very soon. Do I start working on the article now so that by the time Julia does hit land, it can be published? Or should I wait a bit, since it's planned to become a hurricane later and impact land twice. Charzuchi (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
That is my usual position. This storm has the likelihood of significant Central America impact based upon the 5-day cone, with possible East Pacific crossover in its future (or the outside possibility of Gulf of Mexico regeneration). Then again, I could just be jumping to the other extreme after suggesting "wait" so often this season. Drdpw (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't hurt to make an article for a storm that's going to bring impacts to land. If it meets the notability requirements and has detail that needs to be covered more in depth than in just the storm summary, then it'll be published to main space. If not, the draft is never published. Gumballs678talk23:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Ignore my stupid edit on Tropical Storm Karl, Do we have any information on what to put on the page so we can atleast have some information on the new storm? Hurricanestudier123 (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
There are two things that people need to understand about hurricanes.
First, contrary to popular belief, the strongest hurricane of a season is NOT measured by wind speed. It is measured by the minimum barometric pressure. The lower the pressure is, the stronger the storm is. As of October 12, Fiona is the strongest storm of the season with a barometric pressure of 932 mbar. Ian did have higher winds, peaking at 155 mph while Fiona only reached 130 mph, but Ian’s barometric pressure reached a minimum of 936 mbar.
Second, there has been people trying to change the name of Gaston to Gavin because of Beauty and the Beast. The names of hurricanes are never meant to mock characters from movies or TV shows. The name Gaston is not related to the main villain of the 1991 Disney classic and was chosen to replace Georges after 1998. The name Gavin is not on any of the hurricane lists and has never been used as a hurricane name.
And this, is why the page is being semi-protected due to disruption from WP:NOTHERE editors and IPs. And those two things have contributed to a reasonable amount of reverts over the past month. Sarrail (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I know right. What’s next? People are gonna change the name Elsa from last year to like Emma or something? Because it shares the name with the character from Frozen? DENBRO1995 (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Please reduce the $52.89 billion season total to $51.89 billion, as PR’s damage total from Fiona was reduced from $2 billion to $1 billion. 108.170.68.186 (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Hey, are we going back to the old colors for tropical cyclones? As someone who is colorblind and had difficulty telling the old colors apart, would it be okay to stick with the new ones? (see WP:COLOR) WhittleMario (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I've noticed with all the basins that the old color scheme was brought back in. Either its one of the largest vandalisms I've seen or there's miscommunication somewhere within the project that we've reverted back to the old colors. Gumballs678talk02:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense. I did think it was odd that the tracks didn't match everything else. If it's temporary until we can get everything moved over in one change I'll use the text for now. Thank you for clarifying! WhittleMario (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I have looked on the info on the Atlantic Hurricane season infobox for 2022 and I see that it states the strongest storm is Fiona, with 130 mph winds. That is incorrect. Isn’t Ian strongest. Ian got to 155 mph! I recommend the infobox get updated. Edit: I look at a earlier post and figured out that wind speeds don’t count for strongest storms, pressure does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLBFanAdrien (talk • contribs) 21:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Is it the same person messing with Gaston's name, I have seen two accounts and an IP doing it? If so should we do anything besides just reverting his edits? Mitch199811 (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
I would not do those storms as they were not notable enough to have one (Earl might have it). The same issue occurred with Karl, it had to be scrapped due to lack of notability. Also, Im not sure on wiki policy, but could you link where the drafts are so I can check them out? Mitch199811 (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
notable storms as storms well-known/historic. like hurricane ida, ian, or fiona. but it still dosen’t have to have their names retired just to be notable Rainbow Galaxy POC (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Im aware, cause there is one for Hermine due to how far east it formed. However, Colin and Earl just dont seem notable if they only did "minimal" damage and killed 4 people all together. Mitch199811 (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Given the circumstances—remained at sea (Earl), short-lived (Colin), minimal impact (both), low death toll (both), little more to say beyond what is said in the season article (both)—I think that the best way to present both of these storms to readers is in the 'Systems' section of this article rather than through separate articles. (WP:NOPAGE). Drdpw (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
This is a WP:OSE argument, please prove how EARL was notable enough for an article. I oppose the creation of this article as right now the information can be summed up in the main article here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, however nearly all of the names storm of this season are articles (except for Danielle and Gaston.) But still, Karl may be created if it meets the WP:GNG criteria. Sarrail (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
1) There has been multiple storms named Karl; there should be (2022) after the draft title. 2) There is a draft here, but it was redirected. Sarrail (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Just an FYI that most of the storms in this Atlantic Hurricane season are included in articles. Only one, Gaston, does not have one. Karl is currently a draft. Sarrail (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi there! There have been multiple discussions about this since the two storms reached their respective peak intensities! NOAA and other agencies recognize a season's strongest storm by its minimum pressure, rather than its maximum wind speed. While Fiona reached winds of 130 and Ian 155, Fiona's minimum pressure was 932 hPa and Ian's was 936, hence why Fiona is listed as the strongest. There is a note listed by Fiona's name on the main article with the season's info of "strongest storm", "damages" "deaths", etc, that explains this. :) Gumballs678talk16:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Even though Ian has a higher wind speed, it has 936 mbar pressure, with 155 mph wind speeds, so Ian wind fastest wind speeds, and Fiona wins lowest pressure. Jakewastaken3145 (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
As someone who worked on it, I strangely agree. Next time someone makes a Danielle page, they should probably expand it bit more. The impacts do fit into this article, though someone could create a good article for Danielle if they wanted to. Hurricane Chandler (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
The same can be said for Colin, Earl and Karl, yet there has been a rush to publish small articles that do little more than repeat information from this article. Drdpw (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry but these WP:WAX arguments are weak. Danielle caused no damage, nobody died from it, and the storm broke no records. These storms should be judged by their individual merit as WP:WAX will not hold weight at an WP:AfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
True. Out of all the articles for this season (Ex. Earl, Colin), Danielle was the shortest article and doesn’t need an article. Hurricane Su (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
If Danielle had made landfall in Portugal and caused damages and fatalities, then Danielle would've had an article. Instead, it struck Portugal as an extratropical storm and caused basically no damage and fatalities. Only heavy rains fell. Impacts fit inside the section. The only "thing" notable was the state of emergency of Portugal. Danielle isn't enough to warrant an article. Sarrail (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
User:Hurricane Chandler - I am confused. You appear to be saying here that you agree with the redirection. You asked me on my talk page if I would reverse the redirection:
Is there a Special Notability Guide for when stand-alone articles are in order for tropical storms, as opposed to redirection to the paragraphs in the season article. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: I have been under the impression that cyclones whose story could be fully told within the (size confines of the) season-article systems section usually, unless there was something notable about the storm/hurricane itself, or about its course or land impacts, didn't "get" (warrant) a separate article. This all mirroring the spirit of WP:NOPAGE. This season however, it seems like any land-falling or people-impacting storm is presumed to be worthy of its own article. This all mirroring the spirit of WP:GNG. Here's what the project page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#Article guidelines) states (in part) concerning when stand-alone articles are in order for tropical storms:
Articles can be created on any storm that passes the notability guideline, provided they are reasonably well-written, comprehensive, and generally have several paragraphs of information on it in the body of the article. Articles may be merged by consensus, however.
Hurricanes, typhoons etc should only receive a separate article if they are notable and long enough not to be considered a stub. If a storm isn't notable and/or there isn't enough to write about, the text can go inside the article for the season or country list.
When creating a new article for an active storm when it may or may not be appropriate (i.e. a major hurricane currently threatening land), it is generally best to put a request up in the discussion for that hurricane season (e.g. Talk:2017 Atlantic hurricane season) and discuss it with others. However, we would also encourage you to be bold and make the article if you think it is notable or is very likely to become notable within 72 hours.
User:Knowledgekid87 - I am also puzzled about your edit summary in your redirect of Hurricane Danielle. You wrote: Redirected page, not notable enough for a stand alone article, I recommend working on it as a draft more first. Do you mean that you think it is not notable, or that you think that it needs to be expanded before being ready for a stand-alone article? What should be done in draft, and when should it be resubmitted? Please explain. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
After thinking this over, I take back my previous comment. Danielle is just as notable as Colin or Earl. State of emergency issued in Portugal, and legitimately all of a town was damaged. Danielle is notable, making landfall in an area not prone to storms. This redirect should be undone. Hurricane Chandler (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I'll also take back my previous comment. Floods and mudslides, state of emergency, 644 accidents, landfall in Portugal? 8 times in 3 months. If there are enough reliable sources and the article meets WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY guidelines, then Danielle can certainly have an article. Sarrail (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
When I originally made the article, I did have many references and every think I stated was backed up, but since then, I have found a few more. We could have a Hurricane Earl situation where we fix the references and add some as well. Hurricane Chandler (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I have restored the last full version of the article, reverting the redirection. I will comment that if we can't reach a local consensus here as to whether to have a stand-alone article, then AFD is the way to resolve the disagreement. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
The article does need more sourced content not copied from this article and greater depth overall to stand on its own. Drdpw (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Generally speaking, drafts should not be created for PTCs. As in this case, where the disturbance is now a named storm, the draft title is (most often) quickly rendered obsolete and of little value as redirect search term. Drdpw (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I believe there should be an article on Tropical Storm Lisa as it is projected to strike Central America as a Category 1, and we hopefully all know that most hurricanes in Central America are deadly, like Nate, Eta, Iota, and Julia. I will link the draft once I begin it. CyclonicStormYutu (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
idk if we should make this right now, what happens if it becomes a hurricane (because its likely) and have to change the title to "Hurricane Lisa (2022)" which needed to make a brand new draft for that. maybe after it makes landfall and weakens we can start making it. Rainbow Galaxy POC (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
As the draft page has already been created, the page will simply be moved to "Hurricane Lisa (2022)" when the storm strengthens to Category 1, probably overnight tonight. Drdpw (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Since the first image is just the extra-tropical extension of the path of TS Alex, there should be a merge into "File:Alex 2022 track.png" as the final track. Pierre cb (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I was curious why we are no longer tracking the current storm information for Martin, even though the NHC is still releasing advisories. Do we not post information for storms after they go post-tropical? Just curious! CK1218 (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Not done: Strongest storm is based on barometric pressure. Fiona had a lower minimum pressure than Ian, and that's why Fiona's data is listed in the infobox. —C.Fred (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Now that Lisa has dissipated and Martin has gone for a long time as Extratropical, the individual tracks of Lisa and Martin, as well as the combined track map should get updated soon. Wikieditorperson1 (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
We already have our 15th tropical cyclone already, so I am only asking if it is too soon to tell, or should I mention that it is widely expected to be an above average hurricane season? Williamwang363 (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
The problem with doing as you propose is that it would be both original research and inaccurate. Consider this: "Lisa’s formation comes almost two weeks after the average development date of the Atlantic’s 12th named storm of the year, October 11. This season’s activity now stands at 12 named storms, five hurricanes, and two major hurricanes, with an Accumulated Cyclone Energy index only 73% of average for the date. The 1991-2020 averages for October 31 are 13.4 named storms, 6.6 hurricanes, and three major hurricanes. So despite the catastrophic rampage of Hurricane Ian, the Atlantic as a whole is having a less active season than usual by most metrics." (Tropical Storm Lisa forms in the central Caribbean, Jeff Masters, Eye on the Storm, October 31, 2022.) Drdpw (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
One note, it’s not our fifteenth tropical cyclone. PTC4 screwed up some stuff pushing back the numbers. Therefore, even if we count 11 and 12, we have a decently average to below average season. Also, while I am not normally in the tropical storms field, I don't think 1 storm should be considered above average. Mitch199811 (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
The season is currently at the low end of near average activity, and it would take the most active November on record to push it above average. Mvhcmaniac (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
At this point I would suggest leaving it as is until it becomes a hurricane (or until it becomes clear that it will not). Drdpw (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Not done Ian formed before Hermine as Tropical Depression Nine, but reached topical storm strength after Hermine did. They are listed in order of formation, rather than order of naming. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2022 (2)
Yes, this is the first time since Michelle and Noel that two hurricanes overlapped (active at the same time). I have noted this in the season summary section. Drdpw (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Are you proposing that we change images? FYI: the 0640z image is Fiona upon attaining peak wind speed, not at lowest barometric pressure. The 1750z image is a few hours before Fiona, still at peak wind speed, reached its lowest barometric pressure. Drdpw (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Currently there are three storms with a draft, Karl, Lisa, and Nicole. Karl and Lisa seem to have been abandoned on the basis of lack notability. Are we going to abandon those two or what? I was thinking of submitting them for review and seeing what happens. Nicole is currently active so I do not expect it to have an article. Mitch199811 (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Nicole will most probably have an article. I have redirected the Lisa draft. Its impact and aftermath are insufficiently notable for a standalone article, and its story can and is fully told in the season section of this article. The Karl draft was declined a couple weeks ago because it contains little information beyond what's in the storm summary of this article, which is still the case. As with the Lisa draft, I can find no additional substantive details to add. If its story can be fully told in the season article, it might not need a standalone article. Drdpw (talk) 03:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
It's looking like Tropical Storm maybe Hurricane Nicole will make a significant impact on Florida. Should we write a standalone article about it? CrownKing0wl (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
This comes up each season at about this time. Go ahead and work on it, but don't be surprised if it gets redirected a few times between now and next spring for being WP:TOOSOON. Drdpw (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Lisa and Martin have a two-sentence mention and Nicole has a brief one-sentence mention. You can add a sentence about its impact if you'd like. Drdpw (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Potential Tropical Cyclone Four (listed under "Other systems") took number four on the list, even though it never became a tropical cyclone. So then Danielle took number five, even though it was only the fourth cyclone, and so on for the rest of the season. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Potential Tropical Cyclone Four
To avoid spreading this into WP:3RR, Unar64P is constantly reverting my edits on Potential Tropical Cyclone Four, when we do not need an infobox. Four only moved onshore near Mexico and caused minor damages. An infobox on this is not necessary. Sarrail (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Regardless if it is a low, an infobox is therefore not needed. This has also occured with several other articles on "Other systems". There may be an infobox on TDs, (e.g. TD 11, 12) but on Potential Tropical Cyclones it is not needed. Sarrail(talk)14:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
@DENBRO1995: The totals come from the CEO Joel Myers whose educational background is in meteorology, not economics. AccuWeather's totals have a history of being wildly overblown, especially when compared to government assessments and insurance companies. For example, he estimated $8–12 billion for Henri 2021 when in reality the damage was $700 million. His estimate of $180–210 billion for Hurricane Ian is incredibly inconsistent from the majority of reliable sources thus AccuWeather continues to be judged as unreliable for damage assessments. Their general reporting, however, is reliable. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
@Cyclonebiskit: Oh, so what Myers is saying is that Ian was more costly than Katrina and Harvey, and Henri was the costliest storm to not have its name retired, beating Sally. Now I understand. DENBRO1995 (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Actually, it states in the Henri link that the CEO had been studying tropical impact for 50 years, so honestly, it could be accurate. Don’t get me wrong though, Ian did not cause 210 billion, but the 8 billion estimate for Henri (while a bit of a stretch) could be semi-accurate Hurricane Su (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
But the $210 billion for Hurricane Ian... this is why AccuWeather is generally not a reliable source. A bit too off... Sarrail (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
And to recap, Ian remains one of the costliest on record but not the overall costliest. It is behind Sandy and five other storms in terms of cost of damage. DENBRO1995 (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Seasonal Summary
Why are we even using the NHCs? Those ones aren’t easy to update nor update unless there’s a TCR change. Using the existing summary with BT data makes it easier to update since we only need to use the brand new updated data to generate the map HavocPlayz (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
The BT data is provided by the NHC. Using the maps they provide makes it harder to keep up to date cause that one is manually drawn and not created for the North Indian or West Pacific basins nor all of SHEM. That’s why using. Best track data is more favorable and common place since you only need to change out the old data with the revised data once its public without issues. HavocPlayz (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Again, why create a map when the experts produce a map… No revisions would be necessary. Just a simple image we add that NHC produces. No need to go through all these extra steps. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
The NHC takes longer to update theirs and tends to be outdated once they produce TCRs at a high right. And again i say this. These maps aren’t created for non NHC basins ruining any consistency they have. On top of that, the BT generated map is more pleasant to the eyes HavocPlayz (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
I hate that you really think NHC “tends to be outdated” when it is coming from the TCRs. Either way, I won’t argue about this seasonal article, but I plan to start an RfC if necessary to add the images to any tropical cyclone article in NHC basins (like Hurricane Ian once the TCR is complete for it). Elijahandskip (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
No point in doing an RFC if you want to split the community. Your gonna drag people into a months long issue this way if its not shot down early on HavocPlayz (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
And we are still recovering from what was the SSHWS color debate. No one has ever had an issue with BT data until you decided to, without telling anyone, swap the track images. This level of a change requires others thoughts and opinions, not just your own @ElijahandskipHavocPlayz (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
I will point out that it was a WP:BOLD change, so technically I could switch it without requiring discussion. Once you (hopefully good faith) reverted both different bold edits, I came here without further additions/challenges. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well I started the first discussion on Talk:Tropical Storm Alex (2022) and I proposed keeping the Wikipedia editor made tracks for the seasonal article (this one) and any tracks in infoboxes, but switching the tracks that are just images in a “meteorological history” section to the official NHC ones that are released with the TCR. One perk of using the NHC track from the TCR is the legend built into the map. That actually makes it easier to understand and read, rather than having the legend in the description of the image (like the Wikipedia editor made ones). That seems like a good compromise & that also allows both tracks to exist on Wikipedia in their respective spots. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
By now most people know what the SSHWS colors mean given how often they are seen. The NHC track maps are best left unused at all as the biggest issue is they don’t go later then 95 nor are seen in other non NHC basins ruining consistency between seasonal articles. The NHC ones also hold the disadvantage that you can’t see the precursor track of the system and its post TC phase nor can they be changed rapidly on a seasonal summary map cause well, its not BT data where we just change the old data with the new one and just generate it. HavocPlayz (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
That first sentence is a huge generalized statement. (Original research comment: I’m a part of a huge weather discord server and you would be surprised at how many people do not know what the icons or colors mean.) Also, all the issued you just described wouldn’t be that big of a deal since both images would still be on Wikipedia. All it would do is allow the readers an easier-to-understand image of the track. Sure, there are limitations to the NHC track vs Wikipedia editor made tracks, but there is also the fact that the Wikipedia editor made tracks do not have a legend on the image nor can the legend be downloaded by a reader. So having the NHC image on a tropical cyclone article is better while having the full tracks is best on the seasonal articles. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Again the NHC tracks have more drawbacks then the BT ones. BT data can be found from basically every RSMC in some form. NHC style maps is only the NHC. They can’t be adjusted or modified unless the NHC does so. The BT ones can have dot sizes adjusted, the colors changed (once the inevitable new colors debate comes back) and be generated in a few seconds. They legend sure is an advantage but the SSHWS description (along with the RSMC scales) are given the subtle link in the description. The NHC also doesn’t go back to the very start of HURDAT with these track maps, hence why we have always used BT track data.
Ok. Well based on some original research I conducted, I am withdrawing this specific discussion idea, however, that does lead into the idea of adding a legend that can be downloaded by the reader when the image is downloaded. For that, I will start an RfC in a day or so because people seem to like the feel of the Wikipedia editor made tracks, but I personally feel like the legend needs to be on the map, so it can be downloaded when a reader downloads the image. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Employing such would be difficult if im dead honest. None of the existing track generators used (Trackgen nor WPTC) have such a system and would require discussion with the projects coders. Once you make the RFC, i would like to be made aware to monitor it HavocPlayz (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
The legend that you are referring to is on the articles. If you click the show button, I can see the legend or map key of what you are looking for. If you want the map key on the image itself, then maybe but that's a large can of worms to crack open. Flasty Jam (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, that’s what I’m saying. It isn’t on the image nor can it be downloaded if someone saves the track. It’s a large can of worms, and I doubt it could be done, which was why I was suggesting using the NHC images as they had the legend/map key built into the image. I haven’t fully decided on if I wanted to do the RfC, since the most likely outcome would be “It would be useful to have the key in the image, but we can’t do it”. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I think a key would be nice, but I do not think it is a dire change. Even when I was new to Wikipedia, I still could infer blue is weak and red is strong. The shapes are probably the hardest thing to understand as its not really common sense for a triangle to mean extratropical and a square subtropical. For the lateness issue, the map being one storm off does not really concern me, a bit annoying, but not horrible. A fix I can think of is having more than two aging editors that can work on it while the elders are out. Mitch199811 (talk) 12:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Is there a daytime version of when Nicole was a hurricane, or was Nicole only a hurricane in the night? I'm asking because I would rather have Nicole look nicer like the other images, as well as have a visible eye. Wikieditorperson1 (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately when Hurricane Nicole peaked in intensity the Suomi-NPP satellite didn't pass over the storm directly that's why the image Original Nighttime image is of Nicole is off-center. It's likely I'm going to change it back to the 0620Z image (the Original Image) not all Tropical Cyclone images have to be centered for an example the image of Typhoon Talim of 2017, Typhoon Ma-on of 2011, Hurricane Irene or even a recent example Tropical Storm Megi back in April are all off-centered, yes it's preferred they're centered but there's no other image that shows Nicole's peak other the current image we're using which is a Infrared image the 0620Z image (the Original Image) is a visible image or a visible-esque image, Rule 4 of "WPTC/IMG" says and I quote "Overlaid visible imagery is almost always preferred over overlaid infrared imagery".
Yes I'll be honest also I did contradict myself because under Earl's discussion I did say if the Suomi-NPP satellite doesn't directly pass over a storm during its peak then we should use a Infrared image, but Nicole's Infrared imagery didn't look to impressive so this is an exception it'll be better if we used the orginal image which I did switch back a few minutes ago on the both the 2022 Atlantic hurricane season's page and Nicole's page. Cyclonetracker7586 (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Image 1
Image 2
Image 3
Image 4
Good Evening Everyone, the current image of Earl (which was taken on 09/09 12Z) isn't when the storm peaked in intensity. Earl attained its peak between 18Z 09/09 to 06Z 09/10 according to Best Track which is this reference here [2] and according to the NHC website, which is this reference here [3], Earl began its peak at the 5pm AST advisory which is 21Z and ended at 5am AST advisory which is 09Z on the next day, so it will be better if we use one of these four images. Still, we need a consensus on which images to use in Earl's article and the overall season's article. Me personally I would go for Image 4 because it has a clearer eye compared to Images 1 and 2 so personally I eliminate those images. There's nothing wrong with Image 3 it's just that IR images should be used if there isn't a Full Moon or if Suomi-NPP (the satellite that processes these "visible night time satellite images") doesn't directly pass over the storm during the full moon, and also according to the "WPTC/IMG" policy visible images are preferred over IR Images so that's why I personally eliminate Image 3. At the time Earl peaked it was near a full moon and the satellite passed over the storm, so that's how we were able to obtain "visible imagery" at night (aka Image 4). But those previous sentences is my opinion, everyone else's maybe different this is why I started this discussion to get a consensus on which image we should use. Cyclonetracker7586 (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Personally i would go for Image 4 it generally looks nicer. Image 2 and 3 don't show eyes eye fully cleared and Image 2 itself just looks off. Image 1 just doesn't sit well either HavocPlayz (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I would go with Image 1 or Image 4. 1 has a rather nice view of Earl, while 4 has a great view of the eye. If I had to choose one, I'd go with 4, just because it has a better view of Earl's eye. Like @HavocPlayz said above, 2 and 3 don't show the eyes clearly, so I'd go with 4, but 1 would be another good option. Hurricane Chandler (talk) 02:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I'd go with Image 3 or Image 4. Earl reached peak intensity on Image 3 (Although I do not know if it is the barometric pressure or wind speed) and Image 4 has "visible imagery". Sarrail(talk)02:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Not sure, but I believe it is the rotation? Not positive though, so don't take my word for it. It also may be due to the organization of the clouds, revealing Lorenzo and Earl's eyes much clearer. Hurricane Chandler (talk) 02:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I change my mind. Either Image 1 or Image 4 since Image 1 looks better in terms of structure, however I also like Image 4 since the eye seems more better-defined, but it it transitioning into an extratropical cyclone, because of the comma-shape, however Image 1 still seems fully tropical. (Image 2 is blurry and Image 3 is at night, so no.) Wikieditorperson1 (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Image 4 Both image 1 and 4 looks good. but i would go with the 4th one since is better since it has a better eye. image 2 is blurry and image 3 was taken at night which didnt look as good Rainbow Galaxy POC (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Image 4 is likely the best one of the four. Although Image 1 is also nice in terms of structure, the eye isn't that very clear comparing it to Image 4.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Near-Average?
hey, so the season atleast is near average. Can I put it as "There has been near-average activity in the North Atlantic Basin so far" like in the Eastern Pacific? Refsrdr (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
It already met the criteria for Above Average and the basin doesn't have 'Extremely Active' categorization so it is obvious it will be above average in the end. Cabociano (talk) 05:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Fiona's winds then held steady for a couple of days while its central pressure dropped to 932 mbar (27.52 inHg) at 00:00 UTC on September 22, the hurricane's peak intensity as a tropical cyclone. Fiona's wind field also began to grow in size and tropical storm-strength winds impacted Bermuda for several hours on September 23, despite Fiona passing well west of the island.
GRAMMAR ERROR RIGHT HERE! Fiona, weakened to a Category 3 hurricane that morning,
There shouldn't be a comma after "Fiona". It should just say, "Fiona weakened to a Category 3 hurricane that morning,"
END OF GRAMMAR ERROR!
(the sentence with the grammar error continues)
but briefly rebounded to Category 4 strength several hours later as it moved northeastward at about 35 mph (56 km/h), before weakening once more to a Category 3 strength late that same day. Shortly thereafter, Fiona weakened again before turning northward and quickly transitioning into a large and powerful post-tropical cyclone as it approached the coast of Nova Scotia at 03:00 UTC on September 24. Soon thereafter, the system made landfall in eastern Nova Scotia 07:00 UTC with 100 mph (160 km/h) winds and a pressure of 931 mbar (27.49 inHg), slowing rapidly as it did so. It then moved over Cape Breton Island with hurricane strength winds, although it continued to weaken as it moved northward. When the NHC issued its final advisory on Fiona at 21:00 UTC that same day, it was centered about 80 mi (130 km) northwest of Port aux Basques, Newfoundland, and had maximum sustained winds of 70 mph (110 km/h). Fiona would continue to weaken as it moved erratically northward into the northwestern Atlantic before dissipating west of Greenland over Baffin Bay on September 28. 24.115.255.37 (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Edit: Thanks to @PlannedZero17 for fixing the grammar error!
Fiona Canada landfall intensity
I just wanted to point out that the landfall intensity for Fiona in Canada is listed as 100mph in the season article but 105mph in the storm article. Either one or both of these values should be corrected to have matching values. Firefrogs (talk) 05:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Draft:Tropical Disturbance 40L (2022) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 29#Draft:Tropical Disturbance 40L (2022) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Drdpw (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sarrail (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Done, however another editor has gone with $2.68 billion as a low-end damage assessment. Sarrail (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Draft:Tropical Storm Nicole (2022) Sarrail (talk) 14:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Not done Ian formed before Hermine as Tropical Depression Nine, but reached topical storm strength after Hermine did. They are listed in order of formation, rather than order of naming. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Cyclonetracker7586 (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg)