Talk:List of tropical cyclones/Archive 1

Katrina damage

Quick note reguarding Katrina damage estimate. $100-200 billion IS just the damage/clean up estimate to rebuild everything. This is not an economic impact estimate. -- 72.240.238.243 23:45 September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Should we group the hurricanse by year? Or just all of them alphabetically? (I'd like to see them in reverse chrono order, myself. Y'know, most recent one at the top of the page.) --Ed Poor

No real preference but another question: there have been hurricanes of the same name in different years (eg. Lili in 1984, 1990 and 1996 - see [[1]]). How do we disambiguate? Guy

How about naming the article "Hurricane Lili (2002)" -- assuming we actually write more than one article. --Ed Poor

Fine by me, Ed. That's how the hurricane site mentioned above does it anyway. On the other hand, I tend to be in favour of an alphabetical list. Suppose you're searching for a particular hurricane, but don't know the year. It's probably not a good idea to force people to follow the list until they found what they're looking for. Guy

Well, the convention here is that whoever is willing to do the heavy lifting gets their way. So, start writing about hurricanes, and we will all follow whatever rules or conventions you think best! --Ed Poor

Hm, that's a heavy burden to carry, Ed ;-) There must be some meteorologist here who can write about this subject far better than I can. I don't really know much about hurricanes. I saw your entry in the recent changes list and thought about 2 other hurricanes. I also knew there were much more of them, so on impulse I decided to create a list. If there are people who want to organise this list in a completely different way, please go ahead. I just gave my thoughts (worth about 2 cents...) Guy

I really prefer names in alphabetical order, because I think it's more common for someone to want to look up a storm by name rather than year. DavidH 02:39, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

They actually repeat often enough that I think we should pre-emptively add the year--it also provides some historical context. "Hurricane Camille (1969)" (which I happened to live through, BTW) already gives the reader an impression that this was before fancy warning systems, for example. --LDC

---

! Just to clarify how the naming conventions work here, hurricane names do regularly repeat, about every five years or so. (In fact, want information on this? See hurricane, and the 'naming' section. The issue is that only some hurricanes are, to be honest, noteworthy. Many spiral off into the Atlantic and noone cares about them because they never make landfall.

The only way to be absolutely, completely unique, as a groundrule, is to organize the hurricanes WITH the year in the name (as someone said, 'Hurricane Andrew (1992)' ). But considering that in the listing of the retired Atlantic hurricanes from 1950 when naming began, that on 16 September 2002, only six actually have articles written, we should probably worry about that when all the notable storms have been written about, and well. We're a long way from that at this point.

If, eventually, someone wants to write about the year 2000 incarnation of Hurricane Alberto (unique mostly because of the length of time it existed, nearly three weeks), we can crack that egg when we come to it, or simply say that retired hurricanes don't need year designations, because those are implicit anyway - and names that haven't been retired do.

On the other hand, if we're GOING to make that change, a serious naming restructuring of the existing articles will need to be done that's beyond my general abilities to do, and should be done sooner than later. But...whatever works for people.

Okay, okay. I'm just considering it really unlikely at this point that we're needing for articles on the storms that were never retired. Yet.

-65.200.x

Every six years the names are recycled. Past 1979 atleast. I dont know what they did in the 50's - 70's Cyclone1 15:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Individual entries for each tropical storm?

I hope Wikipedians aren't going to make tiny entry stubs for every tropical storm, simply because the formula Hurricame Name (Year) exists, instead of grouping them by season. Tropical storms whose names are retired are a different matter of course and deserve separate entries. Keep the reader in mind, and focus on information and context, rather than trivial minutiae. Always a good idea. Wetman 20:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Now it's official

http://www.abc-7.com/articles/readnews.asp?articleid=2101&z=2&p=

It was quite obvious that Charley, Frances, Ivan and Jeanne going to be retired; any thoughts of replacement names? (Note it is the fourth straight year the "I" storm has been retired, I wonder if Irene will be 2005's monster?)

Any other names that should be retired? By storm, here is what I think:

No land effects - obviously no retirement: Danielle, Earl, Karl (although fish would make a case if they could), Lisa, Otto
No significant damage - no retirement: Alex, Bonnie, Hermine, Matthew, Nicole
Significant but not warranting retirement: Gaston
Should (and will) be retired: Charley, Frances, Ivan, Jeanne

My replacement name ideas: Charley ---> Clyde (a no-brainer!), Frances ---> Felicia, Ivan ---> Igor, Jeanne ---> Julia

They still haven't been officially retired, although the big 4 are obvious choices. Especially Jeanne. I doubt the WMO has the collective sense of humor to substitute Clyde for Charley. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:39, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have some suggestions...

Charley to Clyde (is it not an obvious choice)
Other possible 'C' replacements: Chad, Chas, Carlo
Frances to Fiona (the East Pacific is already using Felicia aren't they?)
Other possible 'F' replacements: Fern, Frieda
Ivan to Irwin (Igor sounds hokey)
Other possible 'I' replacements: Ian, Igor (I won't throw it out)
Jeanne to Jane (I thought of Julia too but it comes off the tongue weird)
Other possible 'J' replacements: Jill, Jan, Jenny

-E.Brown Hurricane enthusiast

Igor may sound hokey, but so did Hugo, and look what happened with that one. :) --Golbez 23:38, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Hugo doesn't sound that hokey actually, to me, it may to you. Igor sounds much hokier (is that a word?).

Hugo, Ivan, (Igor?), etc... Not too come off as insenstive, but is there some sort of quota for storms that sound like they were named for farmers in former Soviet republics? Hugo and Ivan don't sound very hokey if you think about it. After 50 years of being scared of 'big mean, Russkies from the Evil Empire', I think names like that scare people more than "Jeanne" and "Ophelia", which sound like names for soccer moms. --Refugee621 01:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast

I wonder if they read this site to get ideas - 3 of the 4 official replacement names were suggested by at least one of us! http://www.cura.net/~fcapello/html/Hurricane_names.htm shows Colin, Fiona, Igor and Julia replacing Charley, Frances, Ivan and Jeanne. I wonder what will happen with 2005? (Note the last 4 'I' storms have been retired - I wonder if Irene will see her last appearance in 2005?)

Maybe it was written by someone here, cuz it wasn't written by anyone who matters. --Golbez 15:02, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Despite Irene was about to be killed, she could survive and could become a category 2 hurricane. But she couldn't become a monster like Isabel or Ivan and she will never be retired in 2005. I think the name Irene is too modest to be a intense storm: "Irene" means "goddess" and I wonder if the name is suitable for a storm. In 1947, Tropical Storm Irene occurred, but Japan Meteorological Agency analyzed her as a tropical depression, not as a tropical storm: she couln't become "Taifuu". So I thought Irene couldn't become a notable storm... I think Ingrid or Ida will be able to become a stronger storm than Irene: Cyclone Ingrid in 2005 and Typhoon Ida in 1958 are very famous storms. (Super Typhoon Ivan in 1997 (Narsing) was also a very strong storm: he was one of the strongest storm in 1997.) By the way, how about Isaac ? Issac in 1988 was very weak but the one in 2000 could become a category 4... And I wonder if the strength of 'I' storms from 2001 to 2004 is true or false. --HERB 16:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see if Irene was an aberration and Isaac will get back up there is 2006...yes 2000's Isaac was a Cat 4 (and the strongest storm of the season) but it was a fish-spinner. CrazyC83 02:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Keith was the strogest storm of 2000.Jake52

South Atlantic

The South Atlantic isn't really a basin (yet), is it?

P.S: I developed a naming list for tropical cyclones in the South Atlantic.

-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast

Um...did you just make that list up? -- Cyrius|✎ 04:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, according to google it seems a complete fabrication. --Golbez 21:05, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

This does not make me happy-happy. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:36, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Guys, I said in the message that I made it up. Note the use of the words "I developed". Not to be rude, but read the message before you rumage through Google trying to find a list that is scribbled on a sheet of notebook paper sitting in my home office. I never tried to pass it off as official. I guess the confusion lies in the introduction, which is (or was) almost a direct copy from the introduction to the list of Central Pacific names on the NHC website because that's what I modeled it after. I understand the possible confusion, but oi! The main focus of the message was the simple question at the top that I guess nobody bothered to read.

-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast 3 February 2005

You placed fabricated material in the article namespace. Don't do that! The article namespace is for factual material only. Tagged for speedy deletion by Alexwcovington and deleted by Curps, thankfully. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, by putting it in a wikipedia article (as opposed to a talk or user page), you did try to pass it off as official. --Golbez 19:19, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Guys, listen. I disagree, but I'm not going to sit here and argue about it with my main question still unanswered. So forget the names list. I just wanted to share my creative ideas with anybody interested (I mean, Cyrius, you did it in the header above) which I thought was perfectly legal but aparently not. Now, back to the question: The South Atlantic technically isn't a basin is it?

-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast

I'm not going to sit here and let you change the subject. You put non-factual material into the article namespace, which makes all your edits look suspect. Do you not understand why this is a problem? Wikipedia's article namespace is not a place for publishing fiction. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What!, I'll have you know that ALL my information comes direct from UNISYS and the NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER. Now I did not create an account in Wikipeda to be accused of lying, stealing information, and broadcasting falsehoods! That could not be less true and if you continued accusing me of these terrible crimes, I will leave for good, and I have alread contributed nearly three decades worth of hurricane data. I always try to make sure that every detail I post is truthful. That is why, when I shared my names list, I went out of my way to make sure that it was understood that I made it up and it should not be presented as true. I was going to post it and once you guys had read it, I would remove it (delete the info and erase the link). This has infuriated me to a point beyond comprehension. If you wish to get into a screaming match with me, that can be aranged on my talk page. But for the sake of everyone reading this discussion page, I would like my question to be heard and the names list topic dropped.

-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast

I'll answer your question. (If you even care anymore) No, it is not. There have not been enough storms. Only three storms have been confirmed in history, only one of which (Catarina) named. Cyclone1 15:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation

Should this list be adjusted for inflation? --Golbez 15:42, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, otherwise recent hurricanes stack the list over more destructive storms of the past...

I find the "adjusted for inflation, wealth, and population" numbers to be rather ridiculous. Basically this figure shows what would happen if a similar hurricane happened today with a similar impact. For instance, if a hurricane were to hit Miami today and destroy the whole city; or if a hurricane were to hit Galveston and kill 20% of the population; or if a hurricane were to overflow Lake Okeechobee and destroy every building for hundreds of square miles. All of these things don't really seem possible. And even if they are, it doesn't mean the old hurricane should be ranked as if they were. To show the craziness of this notion, consider the hurricane that struck Florida in the 1500's destroying the only Spanish settlement in the state; or the 1700 Cascadia earthquake that destroyed every single (nonexistent) city on the US west coast. Should these also be adjusted for increased population? ... That said, adjusting for inflation absolutely makes sense. Since any adjusted value will eventually become outdated all listed monetary values should say what year they refer to. Jdorje 03:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

These were real events. They really happened. The figures listed there are not ridiculous, they merely give people an idea of the impact that the disasters had back then. In other words, it is saying that if the hurricane had hit the exact same spot at the exact same intensity, this is what the bill would come to. I don't see what's ridiculous about that. These disasters are not nearly as old as the examples you gave and I doubt any reliable estimates exist for those. The Great Miami Hurricane happened in 1926 and caused $100 million in damage there. Simply adjusting that for inflation doesn't give you an idea of the impact that had on the city of Miami. The figure given in the list is $98 billion. That lists the likly damage figure if the hurricane had hit today. This system is meant to equalize everything, not just wealth.

-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast (Squawk Box) 8 May, 2005

It is useful to look at the "adjusted for wealth, inflation, and population" numbers to see what damage a hurricane could potentially do. But treating these numbers as the canonical damage is ridiculous, for several reasons. One, it's not just putting things on the same scale it's adjusting them for the present-day situation. The 1928 Miami hurricane is not made any more or less destructive because of the growth of Miami since that time. If it struck again today it might do $100 billion dollars of damage, but that doesn't make it any more destructive in 1928. If Miami were wiped off the face of the Earth tomorrow, it wouldn't make the 1928 hurricane go away (although the "adjusted value" would drop to zero). We don't need to get an idea of the impact it had on the city of Miami because Miami was a *town* at the time. Second, its calculation is an approximation that (although it isn't explained at all) is made by comparison of damage done to area growth. But this doesn't account for improved infrastructure in the areas. For instance, it's easy to look at the 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane and see that it did $25 million in damages across the interior of Florida, then calculate that since that area has grown 1000x bigger since then that this number should just be multiplied by 1000 to give final damages of $25 billion (numbers approximate). But this assumes that a similar hurricane today would do a similar portion of damage. This is simply not the case because of the 30-foot-high dike around the lake today, improved construction (brick versus wood), etc. My point isn't that this list isn't useful, or that it should be removed from this page. But we have to be careful (more careful than NOAA is) in using these numbers lest people get the wrong idea. For instance, someone recently changed the official damages on the Great Miami Hurricane to $100 billion, no doubt from looking at these numbers, and this is simply and obviously not right. Jdorje 04:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I curse NOAA for ever making that damned list. Absolutely moronic. --Golbez 09:58, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I agree 100% with that assessment, and I have thought that for some time too. I know there's a list somewhere that adjusts the most powerful hurricane damage figures just for inflation. Shouldn't that be put in here instead? bob rulz 03:33, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Weird Tracks and Forgotten Hurricanes

I've been looking at some tracks in UNISYS and I was just curious if anyone else had noticed how monumentally weird some of them are. Take Tropical Storm Olaf of 1997 for example.[2]. That's just one of the weirdest ones. There are plenty of other hurricanes, most in the Eastern Pacific, that can't seem to make up their minds.

Also, I've added a section on significant hurricanes that no one seems to have heard of. It's a wonder to think how some of them are not more well known. (By the way, that reminds me, I think I need to change the designation of one of the unnamed storms. I think the factual accuracy of it is a bit off).

-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast

I Agree, User E. Brown. I love UNISYS. It's on my favorites list. Anyway, I had noticed Olaf's path and how completly weird it was! My favorite hurricane track to date is and always has been Hurricane Gordon! We all remember that stubborn hurricane, dont we? [3] And Hurricane John? The longest laster? I have seen at least two cyclones in the South Indian Ocean that matched, or even surpassed that record. [4] (click that link and look for Cyclone #19)

-Cyclone1, Hopeful Meteorologist (only 14 years old-can you beleive it?)

(Ahh, my first edit to a talk page... good memories... →Cyclone1→ 14:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Indian ocean cyclones?

Indian ocean cyclones are just cyclones (as opposed to hurricanes or typhoones). They also aren't given names. Probably because of this, I've found records on the internet are pretty sketchy and on wikipedia there's even less information. But obviously these should be included as well. All of the deadliest cyclones are Indian Ocean ones (for instance the so-called 1970 Bhola Cyclone).

I guess the biggest question is what to name them. There was a huge 1991 cyclone that hit Bangladesh but I can find no entry for this one anywhere. What could it be called? The same sort of convention as applied to other cyclones should be used (year + name) but in this case the name has to be made up.

For the moment I'll just add a new section as a stub.

Jdorje 09:49, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Use the same naming convention we do for every other unnamed disaster - Year, location, type. 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, 1970 Bhola cyclone, so it would probably be 1991 Bangladesh cyclone. (Or perhaps a more specific location, like we did for Bhola or Galveston) We definitely need more info on Indian Ocean storms. --Golbez 10:04, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Links (Jdorje 10:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)):

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/images/global.pdf
http://www.met-office.gov.uk/sec2/sec2cyclone/tcbulletins/05b.html
- and also Data on Bangladesh disasters from NIRAPAD disaster response organisation.

Deadliest world cyclones

At List of wars and disasters by death toll there is a (very inaccurate) list of the globally deadliest cyclones. This is odd since this article itself doesn't have such a list. Should that list be moved over? Should a section be added saying that such a list isn't possible? Assembling such a list seems very difficult since there are no sources that track data worldwide, but as long as someone's going to make a list it might as well be in this article. Jdorje 03:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Uh, not to be rude, but what you just said made a grand total of no sense. 'This article has a very inaccurate list of the deadliest tropical cyclones. But the article itself doesn't have such a list'. Huh? You go from saying that it has a very inaccurate list to saying that it doesn't have one at all. Which is it?

-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast (Squawk Box) 8 May, 2005

List of wars and disasters by death toll has a very inaccurate list. This article doesn't have a list at all. Jdorje 18:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Now that makes more sense.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 20:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're right it was inaccurate. I fixed it.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 18:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category 5's

Guys I've just come up with a figure for Western Pacific category 5's. Get this: since 1945, 151 typhoons have reached Category 5 strength! In that same period of time, the Atlantic saw just 21. That's unbelievable! Trust me, I'm not making this up. I counted them myself. The monsoons of Asia fuel monsters of unimaginable intensity. Tip, Nancy, Vera, Karen...geezz

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 19:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fortunately, most Pacific storms churn out without reaching land, whereas most Atlantic storms seem to end their lives in the Ohio Valley. --Golbez 20:26, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

The people of the Philippines, Taiwan and Japan might disagree with that. In 2000, Super Typhoon Bilis creamed Taiwan as a Category 5. Vera killed hundreds in Japan and the Philippines have been hit by a score of Fives in the past half century. Nida grazed them as one just last year. Japan's typhoon history goes back centuries (ever wonder where the term 'Kamakaze' came from). Yes many storms do vent their fury over the open Pacific, there's a lot of water out there, but the Asian shorelines are a typhoon-battered bunch. They get their fair share of bad ones.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 21:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but none of the ones you mentioned - Tip, Vera, Nancy, Karen - struck land at strength, I don't believe. If they did, we don't have articles on any but Tip, which was notable only for its size and intensity. Meanwhile, if I had to pick the 4 strongest named Atlantic storms - Camille, Mitch, Gilbert, Andrew are the first four that come to mind - all four struck land at intensity, killing thousands and causing billions in damage. But there may have been others that reached cat 5 but never hit land, and it's easy to forget those. --Golbez 22:23, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure the number of category 5's that have done damage in the Pacific is higher than in the Atlantic, but the percentage that do so is lower. Note that most category 5's that make landfall, even in the Atlantic, don't do so as category 5's but can still do a vast amount of damage. Mitch (2), Allen (2/4), Floyd (2), Ivan (3), and Hugo (4) are all examples of this. Jdorje 01:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just a nit pick, Mitch actually made landfall as a Category 1, but that point is renedered moot by the fact that it stalled off the coast as a Category 5, killing nearly 20,000 people. Typhoon Vera still killed thousands in Japan, as mentioned earlier. Typhoons Nanmadol and Muifa killed hundreds in the Philippines last year and they weren't even 5's. The Filipinos however, don't have million-dollar estates packed like sardines along the oceanfront.

Jdorje, Allen hit Texas as a three, not a two.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 22:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Remember that Mitch killed people not primarily through wind and waves, but with heavy rainfall, much of it coming after landfall. Its effects on land had more in common with Tropical Storm Allison than Hurricane Camille. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Another thing - Super Typhoons start at 130 knots (150 mph or 240 km/h), which is a high-end Category 4. IIRC Mitch made initial landfall as a low-end Category 2, but then moved back offshore, and did most of its devastation while a tropical depression. Allison is an excellent comparison, it was also a TD when most of the damage was done.

Only nine hurricanes since 1900 in the Atlantic have made landfall while a Category 5: Lake Okeechobee Hurricane of 1928 (in Puerto Rico), Bahamas Hurricane of 1932, Labor Day Hurricane of 1935, Fort Lauderdale Hurricane of 1947 (in the Bahamas), Hurricane Janet (1955), Hurricane Camille (1969), Hurricane Edith (1971) (strangely not retired), Hurricane Gilbert (1988) and Hurricane Andrew (1992). CrazyC83 6 July 2005 23:00 (UTC)

I beg to differ with some of those. The '47 storm hit as a strong Category 4. The Bahamas Hurricane only affected the Bahamas. I don't think that qualifies as a landfall. My list counts ten, and that includes many you failed to list: Lake Okeechobee Hurricane (1928), Labor Day Hurricane (1935), Hurricane Janet (1955), Hurricane Beulah (1967), Hurricane Camille (1969), Hurricane Edith (1971), Hurricane Anita (1977), Hurricane David (1979), Hurricane Gilbert (1988), Hurricane Andrew (1992). Hurricane Beulah hit Mexico and Texas as a 5. That's blatantly obvious on the UNISYS track. Anita hit Mexico in the rural La Plata area as a 5. And David obliterated Hispaniola as a 5, killing over 2,000 people. Jdorje, there isn't alot of information about what the Lake Okeechobee hurricane did in Puerto Rico. It killed between 1,000 and 2,000 people there. According to the best track, it struck PR as a 5.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 18:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This site has a listing of the "Category 5 monsters" as of 1998 (minus Andrew, which was still deemed a Cat 4 at that point). It shows that only eight (nine with Andrew) storms made landfall while a Cat 5. That was the list I used. Some of those you had may not have been direct landfalls (the eye may have stayed offshore) but they still caused enormous destruction.[5] CrazyC83 16:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It may look like from the Unisys tracks that Beulah made landfall as a Category 5 in Texas, but it was only a cat 3. The Unisys tracks aren't ENTIRELY accurate. bob rulz 17:56, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Beulah basically fell apart just before landfall. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, this is agrivating. Look at the Unisys best track [6].Beulah is clearly shown making landfall as a Category 5. All the sites that I've seen that conradict UNISYs still put landfalling wind speeds at at least 136 MPH. That's a Category 4 gentlemen, not a three. 130 mph surface wind speeds along with 140 mph gusts were measured by the ship Shirley Lykes near Corpus Christi. Near Corpus Christi! That's roughly 100 miles from where the center made landfall and surface readings are generally lower than the actual wind speed. A surface reading of 130 mph 100 miles away from the center is not good. That means that wind speeds near the center are no less than 150 mph and more likely 155-160 mph. Also known as a Category 5.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 21:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree TOTALLY! EVERY TRACK I have seen of Beulah showed it as a category 5 at landfall. It must have almost completely disintegrated before landfall!

Cyclone 1 (14 year-old meteorologist)

And you, being such a hurricane expert, should also know that the only Category 5 hurricanes to ever make landfall in the United States were the Labor Day Hurricane of 1935, Hurricane Camille, and Hurricane Andrew. Unisys is not always correct! Maybe it was a category 4 at landfall, but it was not a category 5.bob rulz 22:11, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Tracks I've seen (even up to date ones)have shown Andrew making landfall as a category four. I know he hit as a five, but every track must still be wrong. Is that possible? Check it out yourself

Hurricane Andrew - Clearly shown as a four.

Cyclone 1

The official publications of the National Hurricane Center say Beulah was a Category 3 at landfall in Texas [7]. The NCDC Category 5 page lists no Category 5 landfalls for Beulah anywhere.

That map is generated by taking the intensity from a single fix and carrying it forward to the next chronological fix. Thus it can show an intensity that was not actually present. The map is simply not accurate enough be used to interpret short-term behavior of a storm, and where a computer-generated map conflicts with the NHC, I'll take the NHC's word for it.

On top of that, Shirley Lykes was in Brownsville, not Corpus Christi. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See this site--[8]. It is a report done by NOAA. I quote: "At landfall winds near the center were about 136 mph...". 132 is the Category 4 threshold. You're telling me that's wrong? With the Shirley Lykes report, even if it was in Brownsville, the hurricane made landfall 50 miles to the south in between Brownsville and Matamoros, Mexico. The 130 mph reading that far away would still correspond to at least 145 mph surface wind at landfall. Clearly there's some inconsistancy here. Using NHC reasoning, we take the median of the two reports: 140 mph (rounded down). Well gee, I guess that makes us both wrong ;).

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 02:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beulah's landfall was between Brownsville and the mouth of the Rio Grande, according to the Monthly Weather Review. Given that the Brownsville NWS anemometer recorded 109 mph but was tilted way over, the report from Shirley Lykes, and the reported storm surge, I'm willing to accept that Beulah was a Category 4 (with reasonable odds). However, to avoid original research, we'd have to say that official statements on Beulah's intensity at landfall vary. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of Category 5 Atlantic Hurricanes shows 11 hurricanes making landfall at category 5. The difference is two "Bahamas" landfalls for the 1932 and 1947 storms. Now you can argue (as some did above) that the Bahamas don't count as landfall. But then I would like to argue back that the Keys don't count as landfall either. How do you draw the line? The answer is we don't. We look at NOAA or other sources. And unfortunately there are no sources given for either list so no way to verify. Whoever made these lists, if you're reading this: please find the source you made the list from and add a reference to it. Jdorje 03:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well to mention that many articles are not found for the West Pacific is due to the ethnocentrism of the Western Hemisphere. Has anyone every bother to put that into play? Every country does it. Germany puts a hush tone with the WWII, well how it starts and the Holocaust. Well when it comes to Asia Western sociies don't pay much attention. User:tdwuhs

2005 hurricanes

How should we handle 2005 storms on here? Obviously they aren't officially retired, but if it is clear they are going to be, should we have a section saying the following:

Hurricane names likely to be retired, but not officially retired yet; a decision will be made by the WMO in the spring of 2006:

(name), 2005 - (description)

That line would be repeated for each name that is likely to be retired. That seemed to be the standard used for 2004. CrazyC83 8 July 2005 00:20 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. However, for ones that are OBVIOUS cases, then you can mention it separately, as seen in this version: [9] However, don't put them in any list form until the official NHC request has been made, as per this version: [10]. A problem with popping the stuff in to list form before the season is over is that it's still in flux; damage estimates and death counts will still be coming for a while. --Golbez July 8, 2005 00:30 (UTC)

The NHC request usually comes in December, after the season ends. If a storm was destructive elsewhere but missed the US, they may come at different times or may not be well reported. I also don't want to go into "jumping the gun" either on "iffy" storms, I know a few (last ones being Bertha in 1996 and Bonnie in 1998) that I personally thought might be retired but weren't. An example is if Dennis gets overlooked heavily by Cuba and then weakens and makes final landfall at Category 1 or low-end Category 2 unless it stalls. CrazyC83 8 July 2005 01:08 (UTC)

Sometimes it may not be as obvious as it seems. Some that I personally believed should not have been retired that were (Klaus, 1990), and at least one that was seemingly a no-brainer that wasn't retired (Gordon, 1994). bob rulz July 8, 2005 05:13 (UTC)

The gut reactions from the casual users has already began! It is likely that newbies will continue to add Dennis (and other 2005 names later in the season) that are likely to be retired...looks like you'll be doing a lot of reverting! However, Dennis is likely to be an obvious pick to be sent to the dustbin, so once it dies and everything becomes official, (and it will likely be joinedw by several other names later in the season) we can put it in the separate mention. (Not in a list format until the NHC makes the case to retire it) CrazyC83 9 July 2005 03:37 (UTC)

Will Dennis be retired? I'd say yes (even if it died before reaching the US); Cuba should get the choice of name since they were hardest hit (that alone would retire the name), as he weakened before reaching the US Gulf Coast. CrazyC83 01:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NO NO NO NO. No 2005 storms! No speculation! -- Cyrius|✎ 04:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrius, I don't mean to be cynical, but no matter how many times we tell them not to, some idiots are still going to do it. I'll wager that more than one person is going to stick Dennis onto the list in the next few weeks. Bob, I agree 100 percent with that last comment. The WMO is a fickle organization (to put it mildly). Those rusting, buereaucratic desk-jockeys have no concept of reason. Their ridiculous reason for not retiring Gordon was that Haiti's warning system sucked. I find it a gross disrespect for those who died. It just amplified my hatred of bureaucrats. It's a subject that I try not to think about much because it arouses so much anger in me.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 19:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis and Emily now...and most likely more to come later...I expect another record to be broken this year: most names to add to the list. (My guess is 5 to 7 - and 7 would be one-third of the list!) CrazyC83 18:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And now Katrina...the most obvious case yet... CrazyC83 16:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And now Rita and Stan. I think 2005 wants another record... --69.86.16.61 20:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At least there's only one more name left...unless they shock us on Ophelia (which IMO shouldn't be retired, but still might) CrazyC83 04:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And that one more name... BAM! *sigh*. Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Rita, Stan, Wilma; I think 2005 is all over the most-retired-names record.--69.86.16.61 23:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, there is a chance some Greek letters may be retired, but they don't get replaced... CrazyC83 02:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would I be able to make a note like "While the names of the 2005 season won't be retired by the WMO until Spring 2006, there is heavy speculation these names will be retired."Fableheroesguild 18:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is not a crystal ball, and the WMO may disagree with you. --Golbez 18:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Off-season storms

I noticed that in the off-season storms listing, it says Hurrican Alice formed in December in the 50s, the a couple entries down it lists two storms from recent years as the "first to form in December for 115 years." What's with the conflicting info?

Back then, they used the same list every year, it wasn't entirely official. In 1954, there was an Alice that formed in June, the first storm of the season. On December 30 1954, a storm formed. It wasn't noticed (this was before the satellite age, after all) until January 1 or 2 or so in 1955, so it was given the first name from the 1955 season - Alice. However, later analysis and reports showed that it had become a storm on December 30, and therefore retroactively became part of the 1954 season - which now had two storms named Alice (The second one is officially designated "ALICE2"). So that might explain the discrepancy. Things were complex before the satellite age --Golbez 03:43, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Does it say that there? Well, I believe they're wrong; I think it was the first time that TWO storms had formed in December in 115 years. I think it's worded wrong. bob rulz 04:18, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Only one storm formed in December, 1954, Bob.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 02:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right. He meant, the recent one (2003 I think?) was the first time in 115 years that two storms formed in January. And it's of course easy to be confused about Alice, since it had a 1955 name but retroactively was set as a 1954 storm. --Golbez 04:32, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I was talking about 2003. I believe that on this page it says that that's the first time a storm has formed in December in 115 years, but I believe that it was actually the first time in 115 years that TWO storms had formed in December. bob rulz 06:25, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thats right, two storms. Cyclone1 15:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane San Ciriaco

Someone needs to verify the listing of this hurricane at 31 days longevity. The sources I've seen don't seem to be consistent with this: it is reported to have struck Puerto Rico without warning on August 8, 1899, and made landfall in North Carolina on August 16-17th. This accounts only for 8-9 days. Since hurricanes mostly could be tracked only by landfall in those days, that leaves a question as to how the 31-day interval was determined. (Part of the confusion may be due to the fact that a second hurricane struck Puerto Rico on August 22nd, and that it is recorded that it rained in Puerto Rico for 28 days straight.) CoyneT ^talk 02:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did you use unisys? http://www.weather.unisys.com/hurricane gives the most accurate information, and this time, they are somewhat correct. From its birth on August 3rd to its death on September 3rd, it was 31 days. However, for 4 of the days, it was extratropical. Be sure that the website you use was used after the hurricane re-analisys. Hurricanehink 21:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How? Ship reports. At least, that's how they determined the track of the Galveston hurricane that struck a year later. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate cost list

Today the Associated Press circulated a list (in anticipation of Katrina making it obsolete) of the fifteen costliest tropical cyclones to hit the mainland USA.It is stated to be corrected for inflation with dollar values adjusted to the year 2004.It differs in some respects with this article.

Andrew 1992 $43,670,000,000
Charley 2004 $15,000,000,000
Ivan 2004 $14,200,000,000
Hugo 1989 $12,250,000,000
Agnes 1972 $11,290,000,000
Betsy 1965 $10,800,000,000
Frances 2004 $8,900,000,000
Camille 1969 $8,890,000,000
Diane 1955 $6,990,000,000
Jeanne 2004 $6,900,000,000
Frederic 1979 $6,290,000,000
New England 1938 $5,970,000,000
Allison 2001 $5,830,000,000
Floyd 1999 $5,760,000,000
Great Atlantic 1944 $5,390,000,000

Not saying replace,but perhaps these numbers should be taken into account?--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 20:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current list of should be replaced, and this looks like a good option. I just don't think it makes sense to report the Great Miami Hurricane as having caused almost $100B in damage, when that figure actually assumes that it hit today with today's development. That would be like saying a hurricane caused $200B in damage because it ravaged Manhattan Island in 1586. --DavidK93 15:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the list might mean, as E. Brown said, that the economic impact was equivalent to $98 billion. That is, so much was destroyed, but prices were so much lower back then, regardless of inflation, that if people today had lost the same kind of buildings and infrastructure, the cost would be $98b. But that's pure guessing either way. --Golbez 15:54, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

The hurricane's article says "It is estimated that if it had hit in the year 2003, with modern development and prices, the storm would have caused over $98 billion in damage." "Modern prices" means inflation, which the article says would make the cost about $1B even. "Modern development" seems to mean an assumption of what would have happened in today's Miami under the same scale of destruction. Granted, it's not clear. The NOAA source list says it accounts for "inflation, personal property increases, and coastal county population changes." Again, inflation is a no-brainer, but the other two just sound like they're creating a totally hypothetical situation. --DavidK93 19:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I wrote that passage before E. Brown pointed that out to me. And I agree, no matter how you paint it, it's a guessing game. --Golbez 19:29, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

"...if people today had lost the same kind of buildings and infrastructure, the cost would be $98b..."

Percentage would probably be a better word to use instead of 'kind'. A percentage can be be more accurately adjusted. If the same percentage of the city of Miami were destroyed by a hurricane today as in 1926, the cost is estimated to be around $98 billion. That aside, there is indeed a lot of guesswork involved. These numbers are meant to give people today an idea of how the hurricane was viewed by people of the day. Also, remember when thinking about Katrina and New Orleans that many people after both the Galveston Hurricane of 1900 and the Great Miami Hurricane thought that the respective cities of Galveston and Miami would never recover from the disasters. Yet look at them now. (Looking beyond a sogy Miami). They are both quite healthy cities.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 22:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the NHC has a webpage that (as a GIF file for some reason) has lists of up-to-2004 hurricanes by both inflation [11] and "wealth normalization" [12] (I gather that what is now in the article is the previous year's version of the latter with unofficial figures for 2004 hurricanes added.The 2004 version nudges the if-it-hit-today's-Miami figure for the 1926 hurricane into the twelve-digit range.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 21:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If we must have the cost-in-original-dollars and adjusted-for-population lists, then I guess the current three-list system is best. Personally I think the only list needed is the adjusted-for-inflation one. And, although I don't want to pick a fight about this I have to again rebuke any argument in favor of the adjusted-for-population list. Saying this list indicates how the hurricane was viewed by people of the day is not only unfounded (since none of us were alive in 1926, I assume) but just plain wrong. From all the documentation I've seen the 1928 hurricane was viewed as much more of a tragedy than the 1926 one. And a hurricane that was intense enough would have a *lower* cost on this list. Why, you ask? Simply because a hurricane that destroyed a large part of an area reduces the population/infrastructure of that area permanently, thus reducing the adjusted cost. A good example of this is the Galveston Hurricane of 1900. Had this hurricane not struck and encouraged everyone to emmigrate to Houston, perhaps Galveston would today be a city of 5 million people and then the adjusted-for-population cost of that hurricane would today be $100 billion. Another hypothetical example is Katrina. If tomorrow we decided to leave the lower half of louisiana uninhabited, then by next year the adjusted-for-population cost of this hurricane (in louisiana only, of course) would be zero. Jdorje 07:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, and what I actually meant to say: these lists need to be checked over. I read over them and fixed the most obvious problems (misspelling of Allison, renaming north-texas-1915 as galveston-1915, links to wrong places, added links to the hurricane season if there was no page for the hurricane) but many of these hurricanes (like the 1944 florida one) simply have very little documentation elsewhere in wikipedia. Some of the season-articles linked to mention the hurricanes from this list only in passing. Jdorje 07:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The three-list version seems an improvement,but is there a good reason why the wealth-normalized version continues to be the 2003 and not the 2004 list now available at the NHC site?--Louis Epstein/le@put.com/12.144.5.2 21:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't update to the 2004 version on the wealth normalization list because I couldn't find the 2004 list. - 72.240.238.243 11:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can find the 2004 wealth normalization at http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/gifs/table3b.gif (right hand column).--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 20:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone noticed that, of the top 5 costliest hurricanes, 4 of them have occured in the past 2 years (Katrina, Andrew, Charley, Ivan, and Frances) with Jeanne ranking seventh behind Hugo? That is chilling.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 00:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reason is simple: overdevelopment and (to a lesser extent) inflation. In the future, the unadjusted is almost certain to get even more stacked with current storms (although Katrina and possibly Rita could be tough to beat - the rest of the top 10 will be littered with them). The most chilling list is the development-adjusted list, which really tells you what a historic storm would do if it hit today...Katrina would have some company up there! CrazyC83 03:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still don't know why no one has imported the 2004 wealth-normalized list from the NHC site to replace the 2003 one.As far as Katrina's damages go,I believe there ARE still active estimates down in the $25B range (these are for insured damage though).The list will likely have to make room for Rita.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 18:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And I still don't know why!

Meanwhile,see http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/26/news/rita_damages/ for preliminary numbers on Rita's costs and recent estimates on Katrina's (note that the insured-loss estimates range down to $14B which makes me uncomfortable with the total-damages lower bound of $100B now cited in the article).--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 17:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And have you noticed that the "Source" link underneath the 2003 wealth-normalized table now links to a 2004 wealth-normalized table?...I say again,why aren't those newer figures in the article?--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 19:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because you haven't updated the list yet? Jdorje 20:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Ajm81 23:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

It is difficult to find what the daggers and double-daggers refer to since they are first references at the very top of the article but aren't described until the very bottom of the article in the Notes section. I was trying to think of a way to make their references easier to find. My first thought was to use the old footnote template {{fn}} and {{fnb}}} but this template is rarely used. Also I couldn't get it to work using the dagger symbols. A thought would be to use the newer footnote format {{ref}} and {{note}}, but the default text for this template is to use the text "Note 1". An alternative would be instead of using footnotes, just to provide a link to the #Notes section for each instance of the dagger or double-dagger. Does anyone have any suggestions? —Brim 17:42, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe just make each symbol (dagger/double-dagger) be used only within the table rather than throughout the whole article? Then it could be explained at the bottom of the table (where I normally look for it anyway). The current amount of separation between use and explanation is very bad for the cohesiveness of the article - this article is too big anyway, and this would impede any attempt to break it up. Jdorje 06:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

more organization of hurricane pages

As I suggested at Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season I'd like to better organize work on hurricanes. My initial suggestion is that we use a template, which I have put at Template:hurricane, on the talk page of hurricane and hurricane season articles. We should then have one centralized place for discussion of standards (for naming, season layout, etc.). (This place need not be/should not be the template talk page; it's easy to point the template to somewhere more permanent once we have such a location). Unless there are objections I will add this template to some talk pages. Jdorje 18:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Ninas

I found this rather interesting. There have been 12 Typhoon Ninas in the north-west pacific [13]. Only pressure and tracking data is given here so the below is interpretation. (This is a story, not an encyclopedia...but see the references for the full background.)

7 of them were minor storms (pressures 970 mb or above).
1968's was a category 3 storm; it crossed the Philippines as a category 1/2.
1960's was a strong category 3 but never made landfall.
1987's was a category 4; it crossed the Philippines as a category 3/4.
1975's was a strong category 5 with minimum pressure of 900 mb. Amazingly, this storm lasted only 1 week, achieving its minimum pressure just 2 days after forming. The next day it went directly over Tiawan as a category 5, quickly dropping to a category 3 storm and then to a tropical storm as it moved over China. As it moved over the Yellow River basin, it ran into a cold front (the true Perfect Storm). All of the water fell out of the storm, dropping over 1 meter of rain on the whole area in 3 days. Shortly thereafter the 2000-year floodmark was reached causing 62 dams to fail along the Ru River and other tributaries of the Yellow River. This culminated in the collapse of the Banqiao Dam, dropping 15 trillion tons of water on the inhabited lands below it. Approximately 200,000 people died (most from disease in the immediate aftermath of the flood; the waters themselves don't seem to have killed that many but simply washed them downstream) and many millions were left homeless. The story was covered up by the Chinese government for decades; available information about it isn't very consistent.
But this wasn't even the strongest Nina! 1953's Nina achieved a minimum pressure of 885 millibars - stronger than any recorded Atlantic hurricane. It made landfall near the mouth of the Yellow river as a category 3.

After all of this, the name doesn't seem to be retired. Do they retire names in the Pacific? The name was last used in 1995.

Jdorje 04:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Names are not retired in the Western Pacific, and never have been. Especially with the new naming system they have had since 2000. Names are rarely retired in the Central and Eastern Pacific, and of the 10 or so E. Pacific names retired, only three were significantly distructive (Ismael in 1995, Pauline in 1997, and Kenna in 2002). Adolph was retired because it took them that long to realize how bad of an idea that name was (you know, with the link to a certain dictator).

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 00:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The name Nina in the western Pacific name list has been used thirteen times: Twelve Ninas occurred in the western Pacific and one Nina occurred in the eastern Pacific in 1957. In other word, Nina in 1957 was not in the eastern Pacific name list but in the western Pacific name list. Japan Meteorological Agency didn't regard Nina in 1957 as "Taifuu". --HERB 11:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why retired?

Does anyone know why these names were retired from the Eastern Pacific?

Adele 1970
Fefa 1991
Fico 1978
Iva 1988
Knut 1987

Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pages on Eastern Pacific seasons and storms are still being worked on, and unfortunately, NHC archives available online only go back to the mid 90s. Lemme see if I can at least just get basic path info from Unisys... Adele, so far as can tell, never effected land; perhaps it sank a ship.[14] Fefa hit the Big Island of Hawaii, though as a weak hurricane or TS. Fico grazed the Hawaiian islands as a Cat 3 storm. Iva paralleled Mexico but I can't see that it got close enough to do any damage. And Knut, so far as I can see, did nothing whatsoever. First step is to find out why these were listed as retired (what reference work was used?). Second step is to ask the NHC why. I probably added that list, but I don't have the bookmark where I got that info from at this computer; I'll check it at work tomorrow. --Golbez 23:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This has always puzzeled me. This line from the 1978 report from the CHPC appears to give the reason for Fico's retirement:

"...considerable damage to beachfront homes and roads along Big Island shores"

Adele was prior to 1978, when modern naming lists were used in the East Pacific (for some reason the Atlantic didn't start using modern lists until a year later). Iva and Knut have me stumped. NHC reports don't go back any farther than 1988. Iva doesn't seem to have gotten close enough to the Mexican coast to have caused much damage. The 1988-1994 reports page at the NHC picked a perfect day to stop working. Knut's retirement is just ridiculous. Maybe they retired it because the name is embarrassingly stupid. Maybe someone found it offensive to the mentally insane (end buereucrat chiding) :D.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 03:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There have been questionable retirements in the Atlantic basin as well...Hurricane Klaus is the first one that comes to mind. CrazyC83 16:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Knut isn't stupid. It's a well-known Danish name; perhaps you're more familiar with its other spelling of Canute. --Golbez 16:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wail fer us Zeorgians eet don't make no cents :D. Crazy C, there have been much more questionable unretirements in the Atlantic than questionable retirements. Gordon-1994 (1,112 dead), Bret-1993 (143 dead), Beryl-1982 (112 dead), Francelia-1969 (100+ dead), Alma-1966 (90+ dead), Carrie-1957 (80 dead), Gert-1993 (76 dead), Emmy-1976 (68 dead), Alice-1954 (55 dead), Dorothy-1970 (51+ dead), Ella-1958 (37 dead), Alberto-1994 (30 dead), Edith-1971 (30+ dead), Amelia-1978 (30 dead). God!, that's too many people not doing their job.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 20:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot Juan in 1985, which apparently was the costliest storm that year. And it says on the List of previous tropical cyclone names that, in the East Pacific, Kathleen was retired after the 1976 season. It flooded a town in California and killed three people. That retirement is reasonable. What got me upset is the fact that the second storm after that, Hurricane Liza, killed 600+ people and was not retired! Liza should've been sent to the dustbin! Instead we have a Pacific Gordon.

I found out from that at least until 1999, retirement only meant that the name couldn't be reused for ten years [15]. Perhaps Klaus and these weird EPac retirements would be the perfect candidates for "unretirement".

21:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Ooh, that might be it- my reference was a list of names, like [hypothetical] "Klaus (R) 1965, 1978". The (R) meaning it's retired, but maybe it was retired in 1965 and brought back in 1978? Worth checking. --Golbez 00:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing to remember: if it can easily be mistaken for a non-tropical rain event (which can have high death tolls in less-developed areas), it has less of a case for retirement. On the names missed, here is my take (bold names - should have been retired IMO):

Gordon-1994 (1,112 dead) - Worst decision ever made. NO excuse with such a high death toll, especially in the modern era, especially when it was a hurricane
Bret-1993 (143 dead) - I could see some logic in the decision, it was barely a tropical storm and the terrain had a lot to do with the death toll (which meant it could easily be mistaken for a non-tropical event)
Beryl-1982 (112 dead) - only a tropical wave at the time
Francelia-1969 (100+ dead) - major hurricane, strong landfall, good case there...
Alma-1966 (90+ dead) - unnamed tropical depression for most of its deaths
Carrie-1957 (80 dead) - fish-spinner (Category 4/5 though), must have been ships that sank
Gert-1993 (76 dead) - see Bret (1993)
Emmy-1976 (68 dead) - no landfall, must have been ships that sank
Alice-1954 (55 dead) - (which one?)
Dorothy-1970 (51+ dead) - another one that can be mistaken for a non-tropical event
Ella-1958 (37 dead) - it was a major hurricane that did lots of damage
Alberto-1994 (30 dead) - I guess they didn't want to retire only a tropical storm? (although Allison changed all that)
Edith-1971 (30+ dead) - 2nd worst decision ever made IMO. It was a Category 5 for God's sake!!!
Amelia-1978 (30 dead) - Less memorable, somewhat less than Allison

CrazyC83 04:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The real question here is why this article has to distinguish by retired names. With no real organization over the decades (why is Adolph in this article anyway? No reason whatsoever.) I'm sure the NHC/WMO wish they could change a few of their past decisions. This article should just be changed to a list of significant hurricanes (including unnamed ones), sorted by year (or perhaps reversed). The fact that current-year storms can't be included in either of the "significant hurricane" lists is another problem here. Jdorje 06:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Using retirement as the major criteria makes it objective; else, we run the risk of people adding in any storm that killed a few people or hit their hometown: See the recent attempt to add Ophelia under Canadian hurricanes. However, we should add these others somehow, yes. --Golbez 17:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I disagree with you exactly, but the current discussion came about because retirement itself is not entirely objective/consistent. Jdorje 04:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not consistent, no, but it's objective, it's the statements of an official body, no emotion required on our parts. --Golbez 08:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy C, Gert in 1993 was the same intensity as Diana in 1990 at final landfall in Mexico. The first Alice of 1954 was the killer. Plus, people back then weren't that stupid. They would know that the rain was caused by a tropical system, they could see it on the satellie imagery. A possible reason Gordon wasn't retired in 2000: all but 1 of the deaths occured when it hit the Yucatan peninsula as a tropical depression. The other death was a surfer that drowned in Florida.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 18:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know one that should have been retired (other than Bertha and Bonnie). Hurricane Bret (the name Bret should have been retired twice.) I think Mother nature has been telling us to retire Bret. 1993 Bret killed like 193+ people. And Bret in 1999 was a category three at landfall in Texas. It is Crazy! Too, late now. we have already had another Bret that didnt do much damage. Oh, well. Cyclone1 15:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What about Cindy (2005)? Should it be retired???? That's an iffy one. I don't know. Cyclone1 15:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More Epac Retirements

From the List of previous tropical cyclone names article:

Hazel 1969

I don't know why. Was a TS at landfall. Perhaps because of the horrible Atlantic storm?

Irena 1971

I can't find this at Unisys. Maybe a mistake?

Sharon 1971

Didn't make landfall.

Adele 1970

I don't know why. Didn't make landfall.

Kathleen 1976

Definitely because it flooded Ocotillo, California and killed three people.

Should these be added to the retired names in the article? And should we add that Dalilia was "accidentally" removed due to an error in documents?

The only 2 of these the WMO appears to recognize [16]] are Hazel and Adele. Ha Ha. The WMO doesn't know why either was retired!

They also mention that names may have been retired because of "pronunciation ambiguity or a socially unacceptable meaning" in one of the languages.

Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Busiest Day?

In addition to knowing what the busiest years for tropical cyclone activity were, is there anyway of knowing what day had the most active storms? I've read that August 22, 1869 had 4 active storms (that is, tropical storm or greater). Is this the record? If not, it would probably make for, at the very least, an interesting factoid.

Refugee621 01:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From the Hurricane Ginger article;

Records broken:

Number of tropical cyclones on a single day: On September 11th, 1971, there were 5 active tropical cyclones at once; Tropical Storm Edith (later a Category 5 hurricane to hit Central America and eventually Louisiana), Tropical Storm Fern (over southeast Texas), Hurricane Ginger, Tropical Storm Heidi, and a tropical depression that would later become Hurricane Janice.

The closest other time this happened was on August 29th, 1995, when Hurricanes Humberto and Iris, Tropical Storms Karen and Luis, and the renmants of T.D. Jerry existed. From the 27th to the 28th, there were 5 tropical systems, but 3 were TD's.... 1971 holds the record for storms. On September 25th, 1998, there were 4 hurricanes for the second time ever, the other on August 19th, 1893. Hurricanehink 01:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, bear in mind that remnants do NOT count. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deadliest and Costliest EPac storms

I added these names to the article as the deadliest EPac storms:

Unnamed: 1800+ deaths
Hurricane Paul: 1000+ (only a numbered TD at the time)
Hurricane Liza: 600+ deaths
Hurricane Pauline: 230&ndash400 deaths
Hurricane Ismael: 105 deaths
1939 Long Beach Tropical Storm: 45 deaths

I am pretty confident that the top three members are accurate, but does anyone have a better list? Possible candidates:

Hurricane 12, 1957: Cat 4 at landfall. [17]
Katrina, 1967: sank 60 ships and left 2500 homeless in San Felipe [18]
Bridget, 1971: Sank ten ships (including the flagship of the Mexican Navy!) Worst Acapulco storm till Pauline. Maybe the admiral in charge of the ships was forcibly retired;)[19]
Olivia, 1975: Killed at least 30 and left 30K homeless in Mazatlan. [20]
Madeline, 1976: More intense than Kenna at landfall.
Tico, 1983: Left 25K homeless in Mazatlan. [21]
Cosme, 1989: Became Allison in the Atlantic.
Kiko, 1989: Hit Baja California Sur as a Cat 3. [22]

Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hell were Paul and Liza not retired. That is ridiculous. More bureaucrats sleeping on the job.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 18:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only possible justification for not retiring Paul (and a LAME one at that) is that it was a numbered tropical depression at the time. USA today is incorrect in saying that it killed those thousand as a tropical storm [23]; the Unisys track shows clearly that it hit Guatemala as a tropical depression [24].

I don't know shy Liza wasn't retired. If it's hope, it has not been used since then.

Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian hurricanes

Should that be moved to a separate article, i.e. Hurricanes in Canada? There have been many hurricanes or tropical storms that have affected Canada (either directly or - in the case of Fabian - destructive offshore) at considerable intensity - since 1995 alone, I can name 19 (including four in 2003). There could be more.

The list: 1995 - Barry, Luis, Opal; 1996 - Bertha, Hortense; 1997 - none; 1998 - none; 1999 - Floyd, Gert; 2000 - Florence, Leslie, Michael; 2001 - Gabrielle, Karen; 2002 - Gustav; 2003 - Fabian, Isabel, Juan, Kate; 2004 - Frances; 2005 - Ophelia. CrazyC83 04:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List articles aren't very friendly. But if you make one at least call it List of XXX. Jdorje 06:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these, if not all, hit Canada as extratropical storms, so I'm not sure an article on them would be a good idea. Fableheroesguild 04:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 22:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most Active Seasons

Just a few minor problems with it. First, it should be Total tropical storms/total hurricanes/total major hurricanes, not just storms that only reached storm strength. For example, 2005 should be:

21/12/5, rather than, 11/5/5.

The latter makes it seem that there are only 5 hurricanes, of which all 5 became major hurricanes. Having 21/12/5 shows that there were 12 hurricanes, of which the 5 became m.h.'s. If it is to go by my format, they should go by Most T.S.'s, and if they are tied, then the most hurricanes (2005 would go first because they had more hurricanes).

Second, it is fine to mention that there was a subtropical storm, but the subtropical storms were included in the total. The 1969 season, for example, had 18 storms, 17 of which were tropical. I'm not sure how you should differentiate them, but when you say + 1 subtropical storm, it is actually incorrect, as the subtropical storm was already included in the total. That's basically it... Hurricanehink 19:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About the numbering system, I don't have an opinion but it must be done consistently for all seasons (someone changed just the 2005 numbering, whichis obviously wrong). About the subtropical storms, I agree with you that the current method of showing them is confusing/misleading. Jdorje 19:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally I've just been updating the layout of the lists on this page for the last couple days, putting things in easier to read and maintain tables. Hopefully the way the active seasons section is layed now makes more sense. --Fxer 20:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the new layout makes sense. Good work Wikipedians, especially Fxer, it makes more sense now. Hurricanehink 22:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Listed by most total storms: Post-1900

What is the appropriate order of these when there is a tie for number of storms? Is it oldest season first? Should it be by most major huricanes then by most hurricanes? Should this even be in this article which is about notable cyclones not about notable seasons? crandles 13:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's officially a tie, yes, no, no. Jdorje 17:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most intense storms list needs to be fixed

Pacific Typhoon recon flights were discontinued in 1988. Almost all typhoon minimum central pressure reports after that day are based on Dvorak numbers and windspeed/air pressure relationship estimates. This would include almost all typhoons on that list, except for Tip, Forrest and (possibly) Nancy. This is why same pressure number is given to many different typhoons. Methods have margin of error about 10mbar or so.

I think, at minimum, list should put a note next to all typhoons whichs' readings are estimates, not actually measured numbers. In addition, there is no real reason to disqualify Southern Hemisphere cyclons from the list, as their central pressures are measured by exact same method. Possible candidates would include at least Cyclone Zoe, Cyclone Gafilo and 1991 Bangladesh cyclone.

Um, yes, all "estimates" should be removed. And as for the 1991 Bangladesh cyclone, the article says it had a pressure of 898 mbar at landfall. This came from a UK technical memorandum on the 1999 Orissa cyclone (listed in the external links), but it is mentioned there only in passing and is almost too low to be believed (I'm fairly positive this would qualify as the most intense recorded landfall anywhere). Jdorje 18:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't advise removing all the estimated entries, because then the list would look really silly and ppl would think that Wilma is the third most intense TC ever or something. Just put an asterisk or whatever. As for Indian Ocean cyclones, at least three have their maximum intensity recorded as 898mb (Dvorak number 7.0): 1991 and Orissa cyclones, and Cyclone Gafilo. These numbers come from Annual Tropical Cyclone Reports, which are available at JTWC website. At least Gafilo and 1991 storm made landfall at that intensity. What the actual intensity was, is anyone's guess. Remember, Labor Day Hurricane made landfall at 892mb, and some Pacific typhoons probably have also made landfalls at those intensities. Dvorak number chart --Mikoyan21 10:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've finished digging up JTWC archives and would like to have some sort of consensus before major changes are made. I have checked all Super Typhoons between 1959-2004, all Southern Hemisphere Cyclones between 1984-2004 and most of Northern Indian Ocean Cyclones for storms which are not yet in the list. Results: I have found total of 30 Typhoons and 3 Cyclones with measured or estimated MSLP 895mbar or lower. SIX of these storms were under 880. In addition, from other sources I found STY Ida,1958 - 877mbar measured by aircraft and unnamed typhoon from 1927 - 887mbar measured by a ship (gosh). So, what now? It's obvious that 895 is just too ordinary in Pacific to be listed. On the other hand, list is going to be totally swamped by Pacific storms anyway. Wilma would struggle to make top 20 in all-time list. The list is getting ridiculously long if we want to include meaningful amount of Atlantic or Eastern Pacific storms. Should we put the list in separate article? Should estimated storms have separate list? One annoyance is that data is sometimes re-evaluated and estimates change, and it may not show in ATCR: for example Forrest went from 883 to 876. Nancy(1961) is listed as 882mbar by JTWC, but 888 in some other sources, which one is correct? Even if we put Pacific cut-off to 885mbar, it would still put 10 new entries on the list. --Mikoyan21 09:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Use caution when adding West Pacific storms. Storms with an 885 pressure and higher are quite common over there. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 22:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If we have to exclude storms from the list to get representation from all basins, it's a sign that the list isn't a good idea. Either the list should be accurate or it should not exist. We can always have separate lists for each basin (which the Atlantic has anyway). Jdorje 23:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we should list ALL tropical cyclones we are bale to find at those low enough intensities. I know it may have been hard to bump Wilma off the 10 list, but it was necessary. We need typhoon articles for those major storms and also pics. We have an Ophelia article, thenwhy don't we have a Super Typhoon Forrest, Super Typhoon Gay, or Super Typhoon Ivan article? Remember a NPOV and don't just try for equal representation within the lowest pressure list. I recommend a note next to some of the typhoons about Dvorak estimation of intensity and windspeed and possible inaccuracies or discrepancies. Finally, I think we should include all storms below 900 mb, although there are plenty of typhoons to go below this mark. It is only fair to have a complete list as opposed to making Rita look stronger than other 880-890 mb typhoons. The great kawa 18:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Stronger Than Tip Evidence

That's right. I came across this report online, so here: http://www.typhoon2000.ph/karl/hoarau001.pdf. It is quite interesting and says that Angela and Gay have all indications of being stronger than Tip at max intensity (in regard to pressure). Also, there are a lot of super typhoons that are stronger than the ones listed in Wikipedia's records, I propose we update this. I'm also interested in starting a articles for the major super typhoons like Gay that need to have their own article. As soon as I have some time and desire to research it, I will get started. If you are interested then help out. The great kawa 18:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some typhoons reportedly had higher Dvorak numbers than Tip. I've read that STY Angela had the highest estimated Dvorak number ever - 8.3. Nevertheless, Tip is impressive, because it was mighty intense whilst being enormous in size; as in contrast to Wilma which was very small at it's peak intensity. It's a great pity that Pacific typhoon recon flights have been discontinued. Dvorak method came to use in 1984, and recon flights were discontinued '88, giving mere 4 years of comparative data. By the way, reason why Pacific typhoons tend to have lower central pressures than Hurricanes is that MSLP is somewhat lower in Western Pacific. This is why I don't want outright accept JTWC estimates for Indian Ocean storms - they're done using the Pacific scale, since there is too little direct information about IO cyclones. I think some IO nation should put some effort to this field - India, I'm looking at you! --Mikoyan21 20:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great August Gale

According to UNISYS, no tropical cyclone ever struck New England in August of 1934[25], like the article says. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 03:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, and I googled everything I could think of for 1934, yet nothing came up. Nothing is in the Monthly Weather Review. I think it should be removed until there is evidence of a storm, let alone a powerful storm. Hurricanehink 02:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know, right? I looked every where. Cyclone1 15:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Retired Names

Just setting up the chart for the inevitable. Some numbers will change with the final reports. I doubled the middle of the insured estimates for Rita and Wilma to get somewhat accurate damage totals. I'm assuming that the damages listed for Dennis and Emily are total, not insured, as their articles do not indicate otherwise. Death tolls for Katrina and Stan are my own estimates for what the final declarations will be.

--69.86.16.61 05:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Name	Year	Location	Deaths	Damage (2005 $US)
Dennis	2005	Cuba, Florida	71	$4-6 billion
Emily	2005	Grenada, Cayman Islands, Mexico	14	$420 million
Katrina	2005	South Florida, U.S. Gulf Coast	1,383+	$75 billion+
Rita	2005	Louisiana, Texas	119	$9.4 billion
Stan	2005	Central America, Mexico	100-2,500	"Severe"
Wilma	2005	Cuba, Yucatán Peninsula, Florida	60	$18-22 billion

I tweaked some of the death toll figures to match the current estimates. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 03:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this is a good idea, let's make a chart that we won't need for four months. --Golbez 07:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, why not? You didn't lose anything as a result of this being created. Also, katrina death toll is 1,302, IIRC, but still rising, so I set it at 1,302. -- 69.86.16.61 00:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Won't Ophelia be retired ? Irene in 1999 wasn't retired, so Ophelia won't be retired either, will she ? --HERB 11:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it will, but I wouldn't be shocked if it is - they have done stranger things before. I'd leave it off there. CrazyC83 03:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case:

Name	Year	Location	Deaths	Damage (2005 $US)
Ophelia	2005	Florida, North Carolina	3	$1.6 billion

- Cuivienen 23:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike last season, when the NHC made all the cases, it seems to be harder to find the cases made for retirement, as foreign agencies will likely make at least two (possibly up to four) of the expected retirement cases. AFAIK, the NHC has only publicly suggested that Katrina will be retired - quote from the NHC's Daniel Brown: "Hurricane Katrina will "absolutely" be retired". [26] Of course, I expect many more names to be removed from the list and replaced for 2011. CrazyC83 22:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Longest Lasting Tropical Cyclone on Record Worldwide

We have most intense cyclones worldwide, so I propose having a worldwide longevity one, which would look something like this. Only storms lasting more than 20 days (so 20 days aren't listed here) are here, with the exception of Faith so you could see her true longevity. For accuracy purposes the Southern Hemisphere only goes to 1980.

Duration (days)	Name	Basin	Date
32.5	Cyclone Pancho-Helinda	South Indian	January 1997
32	Cyclone Katrina	Southwest Pacific	January 1998
31	Hurricane John	Eastern/Central/Western Pacific	August 1899
28	Hurricane San Ciriaco	Atlantic	August 1899
27.25	Hurricane Ginger	Atlantic	September 1971
26.75	Cyclone Rewa	Southwest Pacific	December 1994
26.5	Cyclone Justin	Southwest Pacific	March 1997
26	Typhoon Page	Western Pacific	November 1990
25.5	Cyclone Phil	South Indian	December 1996
24.75	Hurricane Inga	Atlantic	September 1969
24.75	Typhoon Rita	Western Pacific	July 1972
24.5	Hurricane Tina	Eastern Pacific	September 1992
24	Super Typhoon Paka	Central/Western Pacific	November 1997
22.5	Cyclone Elinor	February 1983
22.25	Cyclone 8	South Indian	December 1989
22	Typhoon Orson	Western Pacific	August 1996
22	Hurricane Kyle	Atlantic	September 2002
21.25	Typhoon Wayne	Western Pacific	August 1986
21.25	Typhoon Verne	Western Pacific	October 1994
20.75	Hurricane Carrie	Atlantic	September 1957
20.75	Typhoon Owen	Western Pacific	November 1990
20.75	Hurricane Keoni	Central/Western Pacific	August 1993
20.75	Cyclone Leon-Eline	South Indian	February 2000
20.5	Typhoon Orson	Western Pacific	October 1996
20.25	Hurricane Inez	Atlantic	September 1966
20.25	Typhoon Oliwa	Central/Western Pacific	August 1997
16.25	Hurricane Faith	Atlantic	August 1966

Just a note, these dates are when the storm was tropical or subtropical. Hurricane Ivan, for example, included its extratropical stage, which goes against the word tropical in the title. Faith, I have no idea how that was done. I included it here so you see it wasn't as long as once thought. It existed for 26 days as some sort of cyclone, but only 16 of those were as a tropical cyclone. Would something like work in the article? Hurricanehink 15:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of this data is horridly incorrect. JTWC (the equivelant of the National Hurricane Center for the West Pacific and Southern Hemisphere cyclones), says Pancho lasted 25 days, Katrina lasted 22, Rewa lasted 16 days, Justin lasted 19, Phil lasted 18...I could go on and on and on. This table needs to be revised before I'm willing to put it in the article. Also, the table should include only time as a tropical cyclone (sorry 1899, Faith, Ivan, Phil...). Even if you include Ivan's time as a remnant low, it still would give you just 22 days, not 26. 2-24 September, 2004. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

??? I am really confused. I used the Best Track for JTWC, but most of the dates are still correct. First, I included Faith so the world knew how long she really was, and I had no intention of including her in the real thing in the article. Ivan was less than thought. The remnant low was as an extratropical depression or storm, not as a tropical cyclone, as stated in the NHC report and Unisys. I only included the tropical portion of the 1899 storm. Going one by one (sorry!) Rewa was 26.75 per the best track of JTWC, Pancho-Helinda was 32.5, Justin was 26.5, Phil good, Katrina good. Using the best track, unless my calculations are wrong, I don't see the problems. Where in JTWC did you get yours from? I got mine from https://metoc.npmoc.navy.mil/jtwc/best_tracks/shindex.html the best track portion of the site. Hurricanehink 14:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I got my data from JTWC's post-season reports. The best track data is created at the same time, so there shouldn't be any discrepency. One thing I've noticed in studying West Pacific and Southern Hemisphere storms is that JTWC likes to include the Invest stages of the cyclone into the best track. Don't ask me why, they just do. If you look at the tracks in the post season reports, the TCFA (Tropical Cyclone Forcast Area) is at a point after the start of the the track (it's more noticeable in pre-1996 season pdfs). Ex: Super Typhoon Ruth. See the hollow circles and then "TCFA" after them. Those hollow circles mean 'tropical disturbance'. It wasn't a tropical cyclone until the start of the solid circles. You may be inadvertently including this into the duration. That may be why there's a discrepancy. Further evidence for this: [27]. The NOAA FAQ site lists Hurricane John of 1994 as the longest lasting tropical cyclone on record. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 21:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, now I'm really confused. It appears at the bottom of this, the Southern Hemisphere reports for 1997, that they included the invest stage for tropical depression. Rather than going back and fixing them all, I say forget it and leave the main page as is. Hurricanehink 22:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 23:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Second largest tropical cylcone?

What tropical cyclone is the second largest? I think it is Typhoon Lupit. Irfan Faiz Cyclone/Aviation Expert - Even tough i know about cyclones but some stuff i didn't know yet...

Unless you have a source for that it is not a record. Jdorje 03:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Qualification to 885 mb

Even though the threshold for a typhoon being mentioned as particularly intense has been raised from 895 mb to 890, the most intense list is still swamped by typhoons. I have changed the threshold be raised again to 885 mb. This way, after the first couple of non-typhoons (Zoe and Wilma) appear, the list is devoid of typhoons, making it easier to see the relative intensities of storms in the less intense basins. - Cuivienen 02:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Headers

The headings need to be changed so anchors such as List of notable tropical cyclones#Off-season storms don't collide. There needs to be a way to jump to the Pacific off-season storms section, for example. --AySz88^-^ 03:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agreed. I just noticed that problem, and I'm not sure how to fix it. Maybe just retitle it as Atlantic Off-Season Storms, Eastern Pacific Off-Season Storms. Hurricanehink 03:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There should be separate articles: List of notable Atlantic hurricanes, List of notable Pacific hurricanes, etc., containing each set of lists for each basin. Jdorje 04:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you are talking about. What is wrong with List of notable tropical cyclones#Off-season storms 2? --Ajm81 05:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I didn't know they worked that way. --AySz88^-^ 13:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just my two cents, think the heads should be reworded to be specific and remove the "listed by" redundancies. IOW, I'd prefer "Costliest Atlantic Hurricanes," "Longest-lived Atlantic Hurricanes" and so on. DavidH 19:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Formation over land?

Agnes (1972), Bill (2003), Christine (1973), Subtrop 3 (1976). All of these formed over land! Every Hurricane 101 book tells you this is impossible! Help me! Cyclone1 05:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's most likely that it was simply be a timelag - the depression formed over the Gulf of Mexico, but the first advisory was not issued until it was inland. --Golbez 05:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Image:Bill_2003_track.png and the best-track data, you'll see it was a non-tropical low (not tropical or subtropical) when the land advisories were issued. Jdorje 06:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense! Thanks guys! Cyclone1 14:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crossover Storms

I heard somewhere that if a storm crosses into the Pacific from the Atlantic (or vice-versa) past 2002, it kept it's name. True? ... lets say (FOR EXAMPLE - NOT REAL! - Hurricane Zelda made landfall in Nicaragua and continued West. It crossed as a Tropical Storm and moved into the Pacific. Hurricane Zelda? or the next name on they're list?) PS. I know Zelda's not on the naming list. Don't E-mail me about it! Cyclone1 15:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. Any storm that maintains circulation will keep its name. For example, in 2002, after the policy was implemented, Hurricane Iris crossed into the Pacific from the Atlantic. However, it lost its circulation and generated new circulation in the Pacific and was renamed Miguel. There was some speculation that this year's Hurricane Adrian would be the first crossover storm to maintain circulation, but it did not, and, in fact, it didn't cross over at all. I believe Hurricane Cesar-Douglas was the last crossover without loss of circulation. - Cuivienen 04:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual landfalls

The unusual landfalls section is not useful and should be removed or cut down. Note that there is already an *identical* section in the tropical cyclone article. It should be sufficient just to give a list of areas that are not usually affected by hurricanes, with a link to the category or list giving the storms for each section. Jdorje 19:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you just removed the section on tropical cyclone, so they need to be kept somewhere.... Though, I agree with creating (a) seperate list(s) or category(ies) somewhere and linking tropical cyclone and this list to it/those. --AySz88^-^ 19:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The categories already exist...see Category:California hurricanes or Category:Hurricanes in Europe or Category:Hurricanes in Costa Rica or Category:Georgia hurricanes or...etc. However these categories only hold storm articles so storms without articles are not included. But then, if a storm isn't notable and doesn't have an article, why is it in the list anyway? Jdorje 20:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If/when such a list is created, reference should be made from the extratropical cyclone page as well (or mid-latitude cyclone depending how that whole thing shakes out). Many tropical cyclones transit outside the tropics and still have an affect worth note. See also Columbus Day Storm. wac(talk contrib) 04:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Georgia landfalls section is ridiculous. The reason there are few landfalls there is because Georgia has a short section of coastline. Small sections of coastline are always going to have fewer landfalls than a longer one, all else equal. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Part of my purpose in adding the Georgia section was to show how ridiculous it is. Even so, Georgia has a longer coastline than a lot of the other areas mentioned! Jdorje 19:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is in the costs, really?

The article says these are not economic impact estimates, and yet they are still far larger than the direct damage estimates reported by SHELDUS [28] [29]. As I understand it, SHELDUS figures attempt to incorporate only the cost of destroyed and damaged property and crops. So that they do not include costs associated with cleanup, emergency supplies and services, or any of the more nebulous economic impact costs. According to SHELDUS, Hurricane Andrew rated only $2B (1992 dollars) in terms of their direct damage costs. As this is only a few percent of the $45B (2004 dollars) cost reported here for Andrew, I am wondering what all is included in the difference?

For perspective, the worst SHELDUS year for severe weather was only ~$16B (2004 dollars) incorporating the direct damage costs of all hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods, etc. affecting the US in that year (1995).

Dragons flight 10:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The costs all come from the NHC so you should look at their info: [30]. Jdorje 21:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article split

List of notable Atlantic hurricanes

This page is getting a little long. I propose we move the Atlantic section to its own article, which on its own is half the article. Hurricanehink 17:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Jdorje 21:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, though maybe copy a couple of main tables here too. --AySz88^-^

Agree with AySz88. We should leave some tables here but move the majority off to a separate article. - Cuivienen 03:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Retired hurricanes should go, as they have their own page, List of retired Atlantic hurricanes. A link would be fine. I think that the Deadliest Atlantic hurricanes, Costliest U.S. Atlantic hurricanes, Total storms, and Hurricanes Listed by Intensity should be kept. Hurricanehink 04:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is a long article. Astroview120mm 05:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here it is. List of notable Atlantic tropical cyclones. I didn't link it yet, cause I wasn't sure how it should've been done. I added a section about Atlantic-EPAC crossovers, if that's all right. Now there's more room for expansion, if needed. Hurricanehink 20:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sooo, can we link it? What should be kept on the main page? Hurricanehink 20:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, we can link it. IMO nothing should be kept on the main page. BTW all of the atlantic hurricane articles that have List of notable tropical cyclones in their "see also" should be extended to include List of notable Atlantic hurricanes. Jdorje 20:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I'll start adding links. I suppose I dug my own grave by suggesting this :) Hurricanehink 21:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about sections like Unusual landfalls? Some of that is in the Atlanic notables. Should all Atlantic storms be left (like Europe or Atlantic Canada), or move all Atlantic ones over? The same problem is with extreme latitudes... Hurricanehink 16:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable Pacific hurricanes

The EPac section was over 6 pages long, so I split it off into a separate article as well. We should, however, try to make the different articles follow a similar structure. — jdorje (talk) 07:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Delta

Why is Delta included as a storm which hit the Canaries? Delta was EXTRAtropical when it made landfall there. 200.119.236.216 19:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apparently the Canary Islands don't get affected by tropical or extratropical cyclones often (else I bet El Dedo de Dios would have been toppled long ago) - but there are(were?) a lot of notable formerly-extratropical storms on that list. --AySz88^-^ 01:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there should be a page of notable extratropical cyclones, then. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.119.236.216 (talk • contribs) 18:16, January 4, 2006 (UTC).

Orphaned symbols?

The following text is currently in the article. The symbols don't seem to be used, but I got reverted.

== Notes ==

*†: ''a very severe hurricane (category 5 at landfall on the [[Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale]])''

*‡: ''a tropical storm, not a hurricane''

The symbols are indeed used again in the page, but the seem to be redefined in those sections. --AySz88^-^ 03:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did the reversion, but you may be right. Those symbols seem to be redefined throughout the article. Jdorje 03:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded sections?

There are way too many sections. Here's some that I think can go elsewhere-

Fastest forward speed- Given that every storm but one was Atlantic, I propose it goes to the List of notable Atlantic hurricanes. The rest, while noteworthy, would be impossible to find. Once moved, the section should be deleted.
Extreme Latitudes- Similar to above, I propose the Atlantic ones be moved, and the current table be expanded (outside of the Atlantic).
Strongest Inland- First, most are Atlantic. Next, none have sources, and aren't that particularly notable. If anything, the records should be mentioned in the season articles, if they are not already. I propose this list be deleted.
Unusual formation- What defines unusual? Does Hurricane 12 of 1975, forming to the northeast of Hawaii from an upper level low and a tropical storm, classify as unusual? What about Hurricane Clara of 1977, which formed from the outer bands of Hurricane Babe? If anything, this should be expanded upon by discussing it here.
Most named storms in one season- Why most named storms? Given the importance of this, it should just be storms, due to the fact that named storms are a relatively recent occurrence. 1933 used to be the most active Atlantic hurricane season, and that should certainly be mentioned. I propose this be renamed and edited to be only storms.

Hurricanehink 17:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely agreed. (1) move to Atlantic (the best-track actually has info about this so we can verify it eventually). (2) Move to atlantic (same reasoning). (3) This is completely unverifiable and should be deleted. (4) Again, PoV and unverifiable - should be deleted. (5) I already changed this to be most storms...however this list is useless and should be split into per-basin lists of most active seasons (as already exists for the Atlantic). — jdorje (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll do that. Hurricanehink 00:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monica and Zoe

In the "most intense" section, Zoe's data uses the JTWC estimate at a time when RSMC Fiji was already official while Monica's data uses the BoM Darwin estimate rather than JTWC estimate. We should be consistent in our usage of JTWC vs. local data; personally, I would prefer to see Zoe use RSMC Fiji, but either possibility (using JTWC or RSMC Fiji and BoM Darwin) works. —Cuivi é nen^T|C, Sunday, 14 May 2006 @ 03:35 UTC

Kendra, 1966

This system is being revisited in the Atlantic Hurricane reanalysis. The question is not whether or not it had tropical storm force winds (it did), it is whether or not it was even a tropical cyclone. Back then, and rarely this rule is used nowadays, NHC had responsibility eastward to 35W, with the Navy having responsibility east of that longitude. Kendra was that far east. This is why Kendra was removed from list of tropical cyclones that year, and why I just removed it from this article which stated it was a named tropical depression. By the way...just for reference...the name Mike was used during the 1950 season and it is also not in any of the databases, probably for a similar reason. The reanalysis will address this mystery as well. Thegreatdr 20:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this also gonna resolve what happened to Gwen in 1960? (If the Pacific BT is ever reanalyzed?) It is not present in the best track[31] (unless Unisys is wrong) and it appears not to have been reduced to a tropical depression.[32] Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 16:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked more into the Kendra issue, and it turns out it was a Cape Verde system, which could make the original versions of Kendra references correct. The problem is, I cannot find any reference that calls it a tropical depression, just that question its "tropical storm status," which leaves the extratropical door open. The spreadsheet indicates it was considered a tropical depression with at least one gale force wind report, which is contradictory. Mike of 1950 was a system that formed in the 20s latitude north and moved WNW, and was nowhere near frontal zones. This implies it was tropical rather than not, but if there was little convection, this would not be the case. It could be that Mike and Kendra were BOTH systems they considered either tropical depressions OR non-tropical cyclones soon after the fact. Oy.

The Pacific best track is being looked at by numerous people, but in the case of the western Pacific, there are several different databases, which makes it all the more confusing. Although there are currently efforts at reanalyzing the Pacific based on satellite imagery alone, it will likely take many years before the Pacific ocean is tackled as a whole in a way similar to the current effort in the Atlantic Basin. Thegreatdr 20:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

notable is pov

The term "notable" is POV. None of these factors are synonymous with "worthy of taking note," which is a value judgement. It would be more accurate and neutral to describe these as tropical cyclone superlatives (costliest, deadliest, most powerful), as we do with automobiles. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of them are superlatives, but if we can't find neutral criteria for inclusion, we run the risk of being indiscriminate. It's already iffy with the "unusual landfalls" that's currently pure opinion on what's unusual. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of tropical cyclones#Most intense storms on record

Hmm... I'm thinking the list is probably too long and is bordering on being an indiscriminate collection of info/listcruft. I'd prefer a shorter one, say, top 5 from each basin, listed by basin. That would give 35 (WPac, EPac/CPac, Atl, NIO, SWIO, SEIO/Australia, SPac). As it stands only the section on the North Atlantic has a list of most intense storms within the basin. We could probably move that down to this section. That would solve the problem that we have right now, not knowing when/whether to list storms. Also, right now there's far too much emphasis on the WPac in this section. Splitting by basin would be better and remove any sign of systemic bias. – Chacor 15:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There can't be systemic bias in the present situation. That would be like saying that a list of the highest-scoring NBA players ever shows a systemic bias towards black people. By the same logic, someone could say putting the 5 strongest of each basin gives undue recognition to basins which have traditionally far weaker storms. I suggest have both - a global list of the strongest, then a list of the 5 strongest in each basin. --Golbez 10:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To truncate the list, how about cutting the list to lower than 900 mbar? KyuuA4 (talk) 08:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry.... I probably made the edit history look disgusting

I'm still getting used to adding in info in "boxes", so my latest edits took a while to actually get it right. Apologies... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gavirulax (talk • contribs) 03:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Changed direct links to inline references

...but I left the no reference tag at the top of the page. Considering how many "facts" are on this page, we should have more than 9 references for the page. If everything was well referenced, this page could become B class. Of course, some entries like Isobel would be gone, for the page's benefit. Thegreatdr 19:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keith

Hmm... I read somewhere that Keith's 872 mb pressure was measured by a plane but I wanted to confirm it before I changed the article. -- §Hurricane E RIC § archive 22:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Man-yi (Japan 07/2007)

I think that Typhoon Man-Yi should be part of the Significant Typhoon list, but I am not sure where to put it. It is significant because, according to Japanese national broadcasting company NHK, it is the 'strongest typhoon to hit the country in July since recording started after WWII'.

I am currently in Japan, and getting updated on this information by use of Japanese Weather website Tenki.JP. It is, however, only classed as a Category 1 typhoon, and that could cause controversy. lallous 20:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it could be added to the significant typhoon list, provided that is correct that Man-yi was the strongest typhoon to strike Japan in July. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Man-yi's winds, I have looked at all sorts of sources and they all say 155 mph; I even saw Man-yi have this windspeed on television reports in 2007, so I am pretty sure the winds were 155 mph, not 145 mph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.206.250 (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last Island hurricane

Shouldn't the 1856 Last Island hurricane be added to 10th place in the most intense U.S. landfalling hurricanes list? It says in the main article "it tied with Hurricane Hugo as the 10th most intense hurricane to hit the United states." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.206.250 (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-article storms

With some intense tropical cyclones in the most intense tropical cyclones list, there is no article for them, so, for example, for cyclone Orson in 1989, can you put 1985-1990 southern hemisphere tropical cyclone seasons#Cyclone Orson instead of saying Cyclone Orson (1989)? it just says next to this (Page does not exist). It says this with lots of storms. Also, in the "list of most intense tropical cyclones", there is a cyclone named Theodore in 1994, but I can't find any info on this storm and it should be deleted; I did find a storm in Unisys in 1994 hurricane/tropical data for southern Indian Ocean that reached a 145 mph peak and lasted 25 days, but it does not say if it was Theodore or not, but later I found a best track for the 1990-1995 storms, and that storm was Rewa, but I couldn't find any info on cyclone Theodore so I could assume there is no such thing. In the most intense Pacific hurricane list, it says, for example, Hurricane Trudy (1990) (Page does not exist), but if you Put 1990 Pacific hurricane season#Hurricane Trudy, it works and refers right to it, so you should put this instead, because there is no main article for Hurricane Trudy, and you should do this with several other storms. With Hurricane John in 1994, it first says in big black letters "Hurricane John" and below that, it says Main article: Hurricane John (1994). It doesn't say this below Hurricane Olivia in 1994, and it is only essential to put hurricane Olivia (1994) if it says the above article below the big letters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.206.250 (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also changed the list of most intense tropical cyclones, and if you take a look, there are no storms in that list that don't have a main article, or if you click on any of the storms, data is provided about them, instead of saying "Wikipedia does not have an article with this title," if you click on them. In the most intense Pacific hurricanes list, for example, it says for 3 storms, Trudy, Olivia, and Annette, (page does not exist) next to them. You should put the hurricane season they formed in and then#Hurricane Annette,Trudy, or Olivia, or any other storm, like this:1994 Pacific hurricane season#Hurricane Olivia, as an example, because putting in Hurricane Olivia (1994) doesn't work, because it doesn't show a Main Article below the big black letters Hurricane Olivia. Can't you at least say thanks to me for having the list of most intense tropical cyclones changed? It looks a lot better now, and it took me nearly 2 hours to do it!

Also, for some reason with some storms, like Hurricane Lane in 1994, if you put 115 knots into the computer, it shows up at 130 mph. You should put 116 or 117 knots down because the computer just rounds 115 knots down to 130 mph, but 130 mph is upper cat. 3, not low-end cat 4; that is 135 mph, and above Hurricane Lain in 1994 it says category 4 hurricane, but it shows 130 mph below that, and that would make it a cat 3, so you should put 116 or 117 knots in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.171.54 (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name

This should be renamed, either back to list of tropical cyclones or to lists of tropical cyclones (hmm where does that redirect to?). See Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Naming_conventions Kappa 07:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? This isn't a list of a random bunch of tropical cyclones. They're here because they're notable in some way. I like List of notable tropical cyclones better. That's what this article is, a list of notable (ie: significant or otherwise out of the ordinary) tropical cyclones. I don't agree with this name change. -- §Hurricane E RICarchive 21:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the subjectivity of notable, I would rather have the important info here moved to the List of tropical cyclone records page, which is currently rather short and pining for expansion. For now, though, I would rather move it back to List of notable tropical cyclones and talk about it, since something should be done. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could I suggest that the presentation be tidied by creating a single table with many columns - rather than the current costliest, deadliest etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.95.0 (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Tropical cyclones and Airplane crashes", why not "Tropical Cyclone-related tragedies?"

Hey guys, I'm planning to edit the section titled "Tropical cyclones and Airplane crashes". If you come to think of it, not only an airplane crash would be a tragedy associated to tropical cyclones. And to name one, there is a whole bunch of Maritime disasters associated with the ravaging of tropical cyclones. So I guess it would be nice to use a "general" word so there will be greater chances of expansion. What do you think? --Rex 1213 (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better to get rid of the list alltogether. Jason Rees (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm.. I have just thought about this one all over and I think there are far too many tragedies related to tropical cyclones that we might even know. So I've decided not to further change that section since it will be just a useless documentation of millions of disaster. So, shall we remove it or not? And sorry for a delayed response about this. --Rex 1213 (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation

One of Accuweather.com's blogs cited this article for a Cyclone Nargis statistic. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame this article isn't cited nearly so well. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark

December 3rd, 1999 there was a hurricane landfall in denmark, with a wind power of 150 km/h. Information is scarce in the english world, heres what i could find: http://www.winddata.com/hurricane/

The hurricane is known as Anatol in Germany and Adam in Denmark, i added it but it was removed, should be added.--77.213.191.134 (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it was not a hurricane. It was a european windstorm Jason Rees (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A European Windstorm is an extratropical mid-latitude cyclone while we cover tropicalcyclones in this article. --Priyanka 03:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual landfalls/Arabian Peninsula

There are quite a few landfalls there. I think this section should be removed. Does anyone else agree with this? Rye998 (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listing by region

Hi. Currently, the article lists storms by region in separate tables. Wouldn't it be nice if one table could list the top ten most intense/devastating/costliest/ect storm in the world? Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 09:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diameter

Here it says the diameter of Wilma is that of 1065 km gale-wise, but in this advisory the diameter can be seen to be 1390 km storm-wise, and this is two advisories before it turned extratropical. Explanations? I am not familiar with the data listed in the table as a source, but from the NHC I gather that since the radius of storm-force winds is 695 km, it would be more logical that the diameter of gale-force winds be greater than the 1065 km listed. Furthermore, the maximum extent of Igor's storm-force winds according to the NHC here is identical to that of the gale one listed here as 1480 km. Why list the winds in terms of gale-force measurements if the NHC tends to list the same or higher (at least for those two storms, unless they're just odd coincidences and exceptions) in terms of storm-force winds? UltimateDarkloid (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying but it's a common mistake that most people seem to make. To obtain the actual maximum diameter gale-force winds, you can't just double the maximum radius, you must know the two largest radii that are opposite of each other. For instance, although Igor had a maximum gale radii of 833 km; however, the radii opposite of that was 648 km, giving a total of 1,481 km (rounded to 1,480 km since the NHC always rounds units to the nearest 5). I hope this clears things up a bit. If you need more of an explanation, just ask. Cheers, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Special storms

Shouldn't there be a list for storms that formed in an unusual way(I mean a storm that didn't form the way hurricanes usually do.)? 32ieww (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC) 32ieww (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2016 ([reply]