Talk:Hurricane Michael/Archives/2019/April

First Cat 5 to hit since Andrew in 1992?

The article states Michael as being the first Category 5 hurricane to hit the contiguous United States since Andrew in 1992. It should say it's the first Atlantic Cat 5 to hit since Andrew, seeing as how Hurricane Katrina was a Cat 5 and hit the contiguous US in 2005. Correct? Ekrose9 (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Katrina wasn't Cat 5 when it made landfall - it was a strong Cat 3. Andrew (although reclassified after landfall) and now Michael were Category 5 when they made landfall. – The Grid (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Michael a Cat 5

Just pointing out the NHC upgraded Michael to a Category 5 in its post analysis. [1] [2] [3] Please do not revert these edits like what was done before the official upgrade. funplussmart (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Here's NOAA's article on the upgrade: [4]. funplussmart (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Is there any clarification in the article with at least describing the post-storm analysis? I know Andrew was done in the same manner (albeit it took 10 years). – The Grid (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@The Grid: I added some in the meteorological history section since this is of most interest to those focused on Michael's meteorology. We shouldn't add too much so as to distract from the main story of the storm, but it's something that's gotten significant media attention. If controversy over it erupts, it could be worth its own section.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

"low-end"

"no such thing as "low-end Cat 5 because Cat 5 does not have a range" – sorry but this is a mathematically blatantly incorrect statement. The half-closed interval [157 mph, ∞) does have a low-end, namely 157 mph. It just doesn't have a high end. Multiple reliable sources use this terminology (the Weather Channel being just one example) and we also use this in Hurricane Rick (2009), where we use it to describe a weakened state after peak intensity. There is a material difference between 160 mph and 180 mph; otherwise, Yutu's damage survey could not conclude 170 mph instead of just "Category 5". We also speak of low-end EF5 damage even though EF5 too has no upper bound.

Whether we should include it is another matter. I think it is a useful distinction to make when reliable sources use it, and also because in a minimal Category 5 hurricane, hardly anyone is going to be affected by winds of that strength due to land friction, whereas a stronger storm will retain Category 5 winds further inland.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I think adding “low-end” is unnecessary. It doesn’t add anything, and could be confusing for readers. 160 mph is a Cat 5, fullstop. That’s the highest category. Now, you could be more specific by listing wind speeds, which usually comes elsewhere in the lead. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I think "low-end" is a technically accurate but ultimately unnecessary qualifier. I agree with Hurricanehink on the premise that specifying the lower end of the highest classification possible may be confusing; a simple number should be fine. In the case of Rick, that would be a useful descriptor because it distinguishes two different intensities that were both Category 5: a stronger peak state and a weaker "low-end" state. Given that Michael has no other point of comparison as a Category 5 hurricane, I'd rather describe its intensity in the lede as just that—a Category 5 hurricane—and there would be no meaningful loss of clarity to a reader. What 160 mph means in terms of thresholds or whatnot can be fleshed out in the later sections. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 17:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Typhoon Yutu

Why is Super Typhoon Yutu in the west Pacific basin listed as the third most intense US landfalling hurricane? Can we please get rid of that? Jayab314 (talk) 09:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

It is listed as such because it hit the Northern Mariana Islands. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 19:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Can't the label be changed to CONUS, or Continental US, or US (50 States) Landfalling Hurricanes? Northern Mariana Islands are a little out there. 67.177.112.196 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Michael's new image

@LightandDark2000: While I personally don't hate new the image, I think the coastline is extremely intrusive and is unnecessary, and blocks part of the image. Do you think that the coastline could be removed? Let me know your thoughts. Master0Garfield (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Master0Garfield: I don't have the ability to do so at the moment. Feel free to make the changes yourself and upload a new version. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@TheAustinMan: You might be able to remove it, but I don't think it should be removed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I personally support removing the borders. This will make a more appealing peak intensity image that will be well-suited for the article. By the way, the image in question is so far the only one that actually depicts the storm at its Category 5 landfall (during the storm's peak). The only other image that might show the storm as a Category 5 hurricane is the 1715Z image, but that image is a bit zoomed out and not as detailed. Here is the revision of the page with the new image used. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2019

It passed over western Cuba as a category 2 hurricane 86.5.171.126 (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done This is already mentioned. Also, next time, please be very specific about exactly what change you'd like made.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)