Jump to content

Talk:Saffir–Simpson scale/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Capitalization

Why the capital letters in "Hurricane Scale"? Michael Hardy 22:11 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It's part of a quasi-proper name, not merely descriptive. -- Cyrius | Talk 22:48, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
But Richter scale, Beaufort scale, etc., are in lower case on Wikipedia, and the many thousands of Wikipedia pages titled X's theorem, X's law, X's theory, X's hypothesis, X's axiom, X's lemma, X's corollary, X's method, etc., use lower-case. Michael Hardy 22:02, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Caps is what the NHC uses for it. Don't ask me why. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Then the NHC is stupid and wrong. They're weather nuts, not encyclopedia authors.
Nonetheless Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale *is* a proper noun (certainly more so than "Category 3" which is being treated as a proper noun throughout wikipedia), and the rename back to capitalization is correct. Jdorje 06:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Examples

It would be good to add example storms to each category. Storms in the higher categories are likely to have their own articles that we can link to. Pcb21| Pete 11:28, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How about an average number of each storms per year? Is there a Category 5 each year (on average)? Rmhermen 13:21, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
On average, no. If you look at the little bit of research done by Golbez over on Talk:2004 Atlantic hurricane season, the last one was Isabel in 2003, then you have to go back to Mitch in 1998 for the next one. I'll look into fulfilling both these requests tomorrow when I'm not as busy. -- Cyrius|✎ 14:29, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
And Ivan too! Don't forget him... bob rulz 06:19, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Check the message date. Ivan had only hit Cat 5 a few hours earlier. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I changed the examples. I picked examples where the given intensity is both the maximum intensity and the landfalling intensity of the hurricane. I think this will avoid confusion, both because people may remember (for instance) that wilma was a category 5 and because storms that weaken just offshore will do more damage than a weaker storm that made landfall at the same strength (examples: Katrina and Mitch). Finally I changed the formatting a little bit so the year is given for each example storm, and I cut it down to four examples per category (though if people think it looks better, we could easily find more). I took no particular pains to distribute the examples by region, year, or month, but that's something that should be done in future to make the examples more globally useful. Jdorje 02:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Katrina should NOT be listed as a category 5 storm under current policy of only including storms that made landfall at peak intesnity (a policy with which I concur, by the way); in fact, after further evaluation NHC has classified Katrina as a *category 3* upon landfall.
Although there definitely is a difference between a storm that was relatively not long prior much stronger vs. a stable storm of the same intensity, for accuracy, precision and consistency, the listing must be that of the actual intensity at landfall. No special cases. In the case of Katrina, the western side of the storm especially weakened; and max winds everywhere were consistent with cat3. It is true that the storm surge on the right side (not the left side/New Orleans) of the storm was more like that of a cat5. There is a delay of winds vs. water mass, and other non-meteorological factors greatly affect storm surge height, so it is not a valid marker of intensity. Evolauxia 03:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
From the article: "Intensity of example hurricanes is from both the time of landfall and the maximum intensity." - Someone had better make their mind up then, because this is getting stupid. Either someone goes right through the list, resorting by their landfall intensity, or we allow additions based upon highest Saffir-Simpson categorisation. For reference, the NOAA offically labelled Katrina as a category 5 storm at its peak, with landfall as a category 3. Dancraggs 23:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, for the example hurricanes, they are only listed if their peak category coresponds with the area of highest damage, and weren't unusual. Katrina was a Cat. 5, Cat. 3 landfall, but caused Cat. 4+ damage. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Frequency

Something about the number in each category per decade or century would be nice. —wwoods 01:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The table from Hell

That's what it looks like after all: a cross section of the earth, ending at Hell. Why do Wikipedians strive toward Newsweek-like infographics instead of encyclopedic figures like in Britannica or any college textbook? The funny thing about is that it fails at both. It has neither the aesthetics and conciseness of a magazine graphic, nor the clarity of an academic reference. What should be a simple table of numbers has been warped into a fucking horrible, ugly mess of an article summary in table form. Here's one tip: tables should NOT contain paragraphs of text. That escapes the purpose of table, which is the easy comparison of quantitative data. --Herr Xtablenazi

I've thought about this on several occasions in the past several months, during which the color scheme and layout of the table have been continually modified (but not necessarily improved). I just reverted the colors back to the white-tan-yellow-orange-red, but i agree with some of your points, and above all agree that it isn't perfect yet. There needs to be some sort of progression - whether it is in black and white, the unisys colors, or the "newsweek" infographics look which you mentioned. However, one of the reasons why newsweek is so successful and widely read is that it is easily understood by the average person -- which is what we're going after for the most part, right? As to the information in the table, that is a complete mess. It is very difficult, upon first glance, to find out a certain windspeed or example of a storm. There are way too many rows and columns, and the alignment of text is all off. I see nothing wrong with paragraphs in tables, as long as they are easily understood. We are going for the "academic" encyclopedia look, but it still needs to be easy to read and visually pleasing, because this is being viewed online rather than in a textbook. --24.26.120.39 21:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
The discussion on colors is at Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics#New colors. Please discuss there first - the decision is extremely complicated. --AySz88^-^ 03:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Scale

I understand the definitions of cat 1-5 but why cant there be a cat 6? It seems that if there was a 200mph one would not fit into the ratio for cat 5... or 250mph? Just because there has not been one that bad in recorded history does not mean it can not happen. Should not the scale be flexible enough to handle the scaling up of winds?

Most likely, at the time they made the scale, it was thought to be virtually impossible. CrazyC83 02:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
It's an open-ended scale, so greater than observerd before intensity is irrelevant. Regardless, it's not only lack of observation of very intense storms, but atmospheric physics dictates a maximum intensity for tropical cyclones.
Also as described in the article the scale was originally devised by civil engineers, who likely decided that anything above 155 MPH would be catastrophic. Its also likely that they had four categories, and decided to throw in a 5th one for good measure. So maybe CAT5 was the solution to thier CAT6 debate. You'll also notice the steps in MPHs between the different CATs are not equal. For instance the jump from CAT2 to 3 is only 14MPH, while CAT4 to 5 is 24MPH.Thatmarkguy 22:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ophelia?

If we're adding storms to the list based on landfall, why is Ophelia on it as it never officially made landfall? -- NSLE | Talk 01:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

EDIT: To clarify, it never made landfall as a hurricane? -- NSLE | Talk 01:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Ophelia should be taken out, but I also think that we should put some more storms from the past five-ten years as examples because people are more likely to remember them. For example, Dennis and Emily (2005), Fabian and Isabel (2003), Floyd and Lenny (1999), Georges and Mitch (1998), and the storms from 1995.--Cool Genius 20:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
In addition, why is Hurricane Katrina listed as a Category 5 if it, in addition to 'only' making landfall as a Category 4, it also did not have a major effect (damage-wise) as a Category Five. While I understand that this is basically to show that Katrina, at some point, was a Cat-5, but this is sort of like saying that if someone threw a dirt clod, that no matter how much it fragmented, that it was still the original size. (I'm officially trying to get that declared as The Worst Simile Ever.) Refugee621 23:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
There are some disputes over the estimate - the pressure was 918 mb and the storm surge was well over 30 feet, which suggests that Katrina might have been a Category 5 at landfall, although they would need to re-analyze to make sure. Likewise, Hurricane Ivan is not included due to the disputed estimate (the NHC classifies it as a Category 3 at landfall, but some sources a Category 4). CrazyC83 03:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Katrina's Rank on the Scale

Katrina was a ctegory 4 at landdfall, but is considered to be damaging on a ctegory-5 scale. The Katrina example should be removed.

I concur; in fact, after further evaluation NHC has classified Katrina as a *category 3* upon landfall.
Although there definitely is a difference between a storm that was relatively not long prior much stronger vs. a stable storm of the same intensity, for accuracy, precision and consistency, the listing must be that of the actual intensity at landfall. No special cases. In the case of Katrina, the western side of the storm especially weakened; and max winds everywhere were consistent with cat3. It is true that the storm surge on the right side (not the left side/New Orleans) of the storm was more like that of a cat5. There is a delay of winds vs. water mass, and other non-meteorological factors greatly affect storm surge height, so it is not a valid marker of intensity. Evolauxia 02:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Katrina should be mentionned regardless, as it is one of the most expensive and deadly hurricanes in US History. Perhaps it could be mentionned in 5 with a note that it landed as a 3/4, or something like that.... M.nelson (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep in mind that discussion was over 2 years ago. However, Katrina is an unusual example that should not be included here. The scale is based on the winds, but it was the surge and waves that caused it to be so deadly/costly. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, if Katrina is to be mentioned anywhere, it should probably be in the "criticism" section as an example of why the Saffir-Simpson scale, based on winds, is not always a very good measure of what people really want out of a hurricane scale, which is basically damage potential. But would need a cited source for that so it isn't original research, of course. --Delirium (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hurricanes That made landfall as a Cat 5 storm

What storms made landfall as a Cat 5 Storm other than Mitch (i think)

Remember to sign your name with ~~~~! Labor Day (1935), Camille (1969), Gilbert (1988) and Andrew (1992) all made Category 5 landfalls. -- NSLE | Talk 09:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
There have also been others, I'm sure, especially Pacific typhoons, but these four hurricanes I can think off the top of my head. -- NSLE | Talk 09:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I've added hurricane Edith because it made landfall as a Category 5 Hurricane. By Irfanfaiz (STARTER OF DISCUSSION) at 5:15PM 13 October 2005 (UTC+8)
Relisted alphabetically. -- NSLE | Talk 09:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Okay thanks! Irfanfaiz 5.23PM, 13 October 2005
See List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes. Jdorje 02:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Catagory 4 redirect

Why is there a redirect for Catagory four but not for the other catagories? Am I missing something? Or are you guys, and this should be fixed? HereToHelp 18:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Category 1, Category 2, Category 3, Category 4 and Category 5 all redirect to this page, and that has been noted. -- -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 09:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
The note at the top of the article actually says this:
Category 1, Category 2, Category 3, Category 4 and Category 5 redirect here. For other meanings, see their respective disambiguation pages.
Note the lack of wikilinks. A newbie would have no clue how to see anyone's respective disambiguation pages, whereas an old hand would think of that on his own. Also, Category 3 and Category 5 actually don't redirect here; they're dab pages. I took the liberty of adding information to the Category dab page which encompasses most of the information from the other dab pages, so it might be appropriate to link to that dab page, as follows:
Category 1, Category 2, etc. redirect here. For other meanings, see the Category disambiguation page.
This has the advantages of (1) not being blatantly false, (2) having a helpful wikilink, and (3) helping to teach newbies what a disambiguation page is. But, bold as I am, I am somewhat afraid this change would step on some toes, so I want to discuss it first. Hearing no objection, I'll make the change later.
--GraemeMcRaetalk 19:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
It has now been changed so that those category numbers with other meanings go straight to their disambiguation pages, not to the SSHS page. 'Category 4' for example is way too vague to redirect to a specific page. Others without disambiguation remain unchanged. Dancraggs 16:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Wilma resistance

Why the resistance to adding Wilma? It's already mentioned on the Hurricane Gilbert page. Just honest curiosity. Turnstep 01:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Storms are only added based on strength at landfall. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 04:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Let me be more specific: why are storms only added based on strength at landfall? Turnstep 12:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how I missed the text below the table stating that requirement, but I've added a non-specific hurricane comment just above the table so hopefully others won't make the same mistake I did. Turnstep 02:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I've been trying to add a few historical examples as well, so that this page isn't overloaded with recent hurricanes (although they should generally be mentioned as they strike the eye first and foremost). I know I have put Diane in Cat 1, Dora in Cat 2, the 1938 New England storm in Cat 3 and Donna in Cat 4 recently. CrazyC83 00:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
A good example is one that doesn't confuse anybody. Thus we should pick examples where both the landfall intensity and the maximum intensity are of the category being exemplified. Thus Katrina, Wilma, Rita, Ivan, and Isabel are not good examples because some people may think of them as Category 5's whereas others think of them as of their strength at landfall. With older hurricanes this may not be as much of a problem: few people would think of Hugo, Donna, or Carla as Category 5 storms for instance. However I don't think there's any clear line to be drawn here. Since we have plenty of choices for examples we should choose those that are most intuitive to readers. Jdorje 02:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I concur with only including storms that hit at maximum intensity. For Katrina, after further evaluation NHC has classified Katrina as a *category 3* upon landfall.
Although there definitely is a difference between a storm that was relatively not long prior much stronger vs. a stable storm of the same intensity, for accuracy, precision and consistency, the listing must be that of the actual intensity at landfall. No special cases. In the case of Katrina, the western side of the storm especially weakened; and max winds everywhere were consistent with cat3. It is true that the storm surge on the right side (not the left side/New Orleans) of the storm was more like that of a cat5. There is a delay of winds vs. water mass, and other non-meteorological factors greatly affect storm surge height, so it is not a valid marker of intensity. Evolauxia 02:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Improvement drive

Hurricane Katrina has been nominated to be improved by WP:IDRIVE. Support it with your vote and help us bring it up to featured standard! Vote here. --Fenice 12:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Katrina rank now

Why it is in the Cat 5 section? It made landfall as a Cat 3 storm. Irfanfaiz 04:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't have been there at all, since it did well beyond Cat 5 damage but made landfall at Cat 3 (so it's confusing). There was even a warning not to add it, but everyone initially forgot to move it to the template when we turned the table into a template. --AySz88^-^ 04:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed it because the sentence specifically states: "Historical examples that reached the Category 5 status and made landfall as such include..." And, as the previous post says, Katrina did not make landfall as a Cat 5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.114.195.84 (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Record for number of Cat. 2 or above hurricanes

Does anyone know what it is? Weatherman90 15:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Storms

The examples for each storm doesn't give a real example of what that category can do. I hardly would expect a Category 1, for example, to kill thousands of cause over $1 billion in damage. I propose this section be redone with some more realistic examples for each category. Hurricanehink 04:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we should take out those example storms because any example giving it as "typical" could well be non-neutral. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, and good point about typical being non-neutral. There's too many factors to even deem something as typical; landfall location (major city or mountainous), speed (slow doing more damage), or strength (cat. 3 peak vs. weakened from 4 or 5). Anyone opposed? Hurricanehink 19:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
All of the example storms are ones where the peak strength (on the SSHS) is also the landfall strength. While there is obviously some bias in choosing of storms (most are Atlantic, and most are names people would recognize), I think it's better to work to fix the bias than to remove the list. We don't (or shouldn't) claim those storms are "typical", they are just examples. Having examples is good. — jdorje (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, the strength parameter is fixed, but there's still too many factors. For Cat. 1, Agnes and Stan caused significant damage under unusual conditions, while Ismael was damaging to a relatively poor area. I think Gaston and Danny are more typical Category 1's, and the list should be edited to include any of the following; Ophelia, Cindy, Claudette (2003), Chantal (1989), Jerry (1989), or Gladys (1968). The rest of the table isn't as bad. Also, Jdorje, if people recognize the names and remember the damage it caused, they might be able to put 1+1 together. If you give examples of obscure storms (which in an American point of view being anything EPAC or WPAC), 1+1 might equal 3 and they won't understand as well. This is just my little opinion. Hurricanehink 21:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree, the bias in favor of destructive storms should be fixed. Ophelia isn't a good choice though since it never made landfall...pick a storm that was Cat1 at peak strength and Cat1 at landfall. We should also go for some worldwide examples, so Gaston and Danny are probably enough examples for the Atlantic...even that is America-centric; we should probably have one landfalling U.S. storm, one landfalling non-U.S. Atlantic storm, and 3 storms from other basins if possible. — jdorje (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there aren't too many articles for Cat. 1's worldwide. Possibly Adrian is a good example, because it only caused 2 deaths and minimal damage. That sounds typical. Hurricanehink 11:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm looking for a good Cat 2 article as well. Hurricane Fifi is a poor example in the same way that Hurricane Stan was a poor exmaple. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 5 April 2006 @ 16:47 (UTC)
True. What about Marty (2003)? That's the only EPAC one that is fairly typical for a Cat. 2. In addition, there's plenty of Atlantic Cat. 2's, so an EPAC one should be there. Hurricanehink 21:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

A-Class

Before the article becomes A-Class, there should be a few more things done:

  • Flesh out the history section more.
  • Figure out which examples to leave on the table.
  • Perhaps change the layout of the table to be more easily understood?
  • Add a blurb about the 10-minute and 1-minute usage.

Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

How about putting "1 minute" in front of the current "sustained winds" rows; and "10 minutes" in front of a new row for that? And having a blurb explaining the difference? Seeing as all TC articles link here, and the non-NOAA regions use 10mins, that would seem sensible. Also could we add some non-hurricanes into it? Tip for Cat 5 is an obvious example.--Nilfanion 13:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Not really sure about non-hurricanes, as the scale is used solely for them in official forecasts. Also, there should be at least one detailed example for each category in prose form, as well as satellite images of the example storm, to give an idea of what is going on. Titoxd(?!?) 01:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Category 6?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Science/story?id=1986862&page=1 According to this news, someone out there is thinking about it. Probably just a lot of hype, but should there be a note in the article about Category 6, and what the cultural significance of it is, as well as the current discussion?SargeAbernathy 14:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. That's unofficial, though if scientists are talking about it, there could be a little paragraph on it. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I made a paragraph with a few citations. Edit it as you please, I'm not very good at finding mistakes in my own writing. SargeAbernathy 20:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no such category on this scale, and any mention of a Category 6 tropical cyclone is fictitious or incorrect. This sentence seems odd, given its placement at the start of the section. I think it's better to explain who has mentioned it first. – Scartol • Tok 16:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Should we list hurricanes that would qualify under the proposed category?

Year Hurricane Highest
sustained
wind speed
kph
1950 Dog 295
1955 Janet 280
1959 Patsy 280
1961 Carla 280
1969 Camille 305
1977 Anita 280
1979 David 280
1980 Allen 305
1988 Gilbert 295
1992 Andrew 280
1994 John 280
1997 Linda 300
1998 Mitch 285
2005 Katrina 280
2005 Rita 285
2005 Wilma 295

Is there a sortable list elsewhere? -- Jeandré, 2008-01-13t08:02z

No. Category 6 is completely unofficial. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
IMHO, anything over 184 mph. Those under 900 mBars number 45 according to List of most intense tropical cyclones.

GA Passed

This is an excellent article, and it passes all aspects of a good article as mentioned in the good article criteria. I have no qualms about passing it. Consider nomination as a featured article, as it seems almost ready. It may fail on the first try, but that should; give you some tips for improvement. If it isn't feature worthy yet, it may be soon. This article is proof-positive that an article does not need to be excessively long or verbose in order to be of the highest quality. Good job, and good luck! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

One sees 

Typhoon Wipha (Goring)
Super Typhoon 13W 	4

and wants to know why it is called "super" but all one can click on is the "4" which lands one on this Saffir–Simpson scale/Archive 1 article where there is no mention of "super". Jidanni 07:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[moved from my jidanni talk page:] The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale was originally formulated for hurricanes in the Atlantic and Eastern(/Central) Pacific; the JTWC does not actually use it. Including super typhoons on the scale would be incorrect. Super typhoons are already accounted for on Tropical cyclone scales. --Coredesat 23:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, but be sure that the word "super" is clickable to reach an explanation, on the template. Jidanni 14:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Category Six Change

I added the cat 6 section under the Cat heading. -munkee_madness talk 19:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


And I'm removing it. There's never been any large controversy over whether or not there should be a sixth category, and there obviously isn't one, so it shouldn't be mentioned.TheNobleSith (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I added it back in, as there is factually incorrect mention of Category 6 floating around, especially in news sources. Juliancolton (St. Patrick's day) 23:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
IMO it should be more separated somehow. Currently the "Category" section has six subsections, named "Category 1" through "Category 6". The Category 6 subsection does say that it doens't really exist, but only if someone goes and reads the text itself. It might be better put in a separate section about "Proposed additions" or something, maybe combined with other proposed revisions to the scale. --Delirium (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Ok, I'll try to work it into a subsection of criticism or something like that.TheNobleSith (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I edited it slightly to put Category 6 into the criticism section, and I made a minor change to an image caption.TheNobleSith (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The classification table ought to have definitions in knots as well.

Since the forecasts only give wind speeds in knots, see http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCMAT4+shtml/.shtml, it would be very convenient if the table did as well. 213.66.17.161 (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC) $

hurricane intensity index

It seems unclear what the term "hurricane intensity index" even refers to. I did not easily find (in a google search) any article on the subject (and not even on wikipedia, as it seemed apropriate to de-wikify a circular link which simply redirected back to this article [about the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale]. Further, this (external) page had me even more confused: confusing page mentioning Dr. Lakshmi Kantha ... no idea what should be done here, I tried my best. --Kuzetsa (talk) 03:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Gustav

Should we add it yet? Rockingbeat (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Particularly because we don't know the amount of damage it could cause, nor its final intensity. Similar to Katrina, it could cause a huge amount of devastation, even if it "only" a Category 3 storm; or it could cause minimal damage, like Dean did in spite of its Category 5 intensity. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

History of the scale

USA Today has this article which seems to give a little more detail into the formation of the scale than the current history on the page. Not sure how this compares with other history presentations because I came to this article after reading the USA Today one. Some comments here on the talk page and the current article refer to the scale as being based solely on the winds, but the USA Today article mentions that Simpson specifically correlated the winds to barometric pressure and estimated storm surge. --Born2flie (talk) 12:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

I noticed these are changing every month. I picked a few for diversity and because they were the right sizes to make the tables even. There's one in the Atlantic, one in the Gulf of Mexico, one in the East Pacific, one in the Central Pacific, and one in the Caribbean. Potapych (talk) 04:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with changing the pictures every once in a while. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
You'll probably notice that many (if not a majority) of the image captions in hurricane articles are wrong. I've checked the current group carefully, and there's no reason to change this article around a lot. Most of the examples people keep adding here (to the text and the pictures) are wrong, so I've been trying to keep it more stable. Potapych (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Central pressure

It is not always, it depends on the wind. HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 04:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I changed the pressures around a bit; hopefully its a bit more accurate. I used the average and standard deviation of the pressures from all the storms from 1970-2008 so its at least better than the non-mathematical pressures that were there earlier. 96.30.150.26 (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
While this may make more sense (there is actually a movement to remove pressures from the category descriptions altogether), these "typical" pressures come directly from the NHC, and so should stay how they are. -RunningOnBrains 23:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Oy. You need to be careful here, because what you've done may constitute original research. The original SS scale had a range of pressures with each category back in the 1970s, and into the 1980s. That should be listed in the history section (since central pressures are no longer used to assign SS categories), as well as the NHC press release picked up by the media Saturday concerning the dropping of storm surge from the assignment of a SS category. Instead of becoming more inclusive over the years, this scale is becoming less inclusive, which decreases its utility. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Other article

is an article by the name of "list of category 4 pacific hurricanes" be published? 99.60.49.225 (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale

According to the NHC, the scale has been experimentally changed to only account for windspeeds. Should we rename it, or wait until the new scale is no longer experimental? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say wait until it's fully implemented. Cyclonebiskit 00:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I've added a blurb, since they seem to be really serious about making "a more scientifically defensible scale". -RunningOnBrains 05:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Try simpler. See my comments below. There used to be three criteria used to assign category. Realistically, we've been down to one (wind) for at least 15-20 years now. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
It's official now. Time to move it? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
It would be better to create a brand new article on the SSHWS since its completely different form the SSHS.Jason Rees (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I think the two articles would be mostly redundant to be honest, if the SSHWS even had enough to justify its own. I'd say keeping SSHS where it is, at least until SSHWS becomes more widely known and used, and adding some info about the new scale there. Juliancolton | Talk 19:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It [the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale] is fulling operating and has been working for the last year. They [scientists at the National Hurricane Center] have also removed storm surge height and central pressure, making the scale strictly categorizing on wind speed. The SS Team updated for that reason; more info is at the official website, http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/sshws.shtml. I like the idea of splitting it into two articles because I was looking for the SSHS, but it incorporated the SSHWS also, making it fairly confusing for me. The SSHWS is the ONLY scale used to categorize hurricanes in the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific. I think it should be changed ASAP. THANKS!! Kyle :) in Jax Beach, Fla. 12:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.81.30 (talk)

Uhh

Category 2 can lift a house, but category 3 can only cause structural damage to small residences? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justanothervisitor (talk • contribs) 00:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It needs to be switched LOL--Jgsho (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
It said poorly constructed houses LOL-- USERPAGE TALKPAGE 22:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

max. sustained winds

It would be helpful to add the difference between maximum sustained winds and gusts; the duration difference between gusts and sustained winds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.186.12 (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

We already have it in the article: By contrast, the U.S. National Weather Service defines sustained winds as average winds over a period of one minute, measured at the same 33 ft (10.1 m) height.[9][10] Do you mean in the lead section of the page? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Uniqueness

Irene (2011) is listed both as a One and a Three, which seems odd. (Obviously, a three is at some point also a two and a one.) Maybe clean this up? - 216.15.115.141 (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

error

wutz the vertical box (■) doin in the name?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.78.109 (talk) 04:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hurricane Sandy (2012)

This hurricane is listed as an example Cat 1 hurricane despite the fact that it was at one stage a Cat 2 hurricane - and made landfall in Cuba as such. It is my understanding that hurricanes are usually classified according to their highest achieved category, not the one they held when they hit the USA or the category they hold as the article is edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.100.163 (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Need for enhancement of Saffir-Simpson Scale

http://www.daviddalka.com/createvalue/2012/10/29/will-hurricane-sandy-1-175-485-again-demonstrate-need-to-enhance-saffir-simpson-scale/

http://www.daviddalka.com/createvalue/2012/11/18/my-jim-bohannon-radio-show-appearance-discovering-the-hurricane-severity-index/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.206.244.43 (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Merger

So after thinking over it for several months and the disagreement over the title of this article, i think this article should be cut down and merged into Tropical Cyclone Scales. This is because i think all 5 scales used in TC tracking dont deserve separate articles with all of the history etc dealt with in the TC Scales article.Jason Rees (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

All five do not, that is true, but they could always get one if somebody was willing to write it. The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale is used widely not only in the United States, but across the entire world to compare cyclones to the scale equivalent. It has its uses and is definitely noteworthy enough to stay. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
is it used to compare cyclones throughout the world? I only see people unofficially doing it on forums. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I wasn't specifying official agencies. Just people like common meteorologists and weather enthusiasts. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I still think the article should be merged into the TC scales article since this article is so bloated and if it was to be cleaned up that it would so short that it would be better to have it in the TC scales article rather than let it have its own article. Also just because meteorologists and weather enthusiasts may use the SSHS to compare TC's worldwide, i dont see that as a reason to keep the article when we could be in a position to educate users about scales in other parts of the world.Jason Rees (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
"...i dont see that as a reason to keep the article when we could be in a position to educate users about scales in other parts of the world." But you see, that's the thing, we already do. That is the reason Tropical cyclone scales exists. If anything, the fact that the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale article even exists is likely a good thing, as it goes more in-depth about the scale than it would otherwise if it were merged into the aforementioned article. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
No it isnt a good thing since the article is so bloated with details that we do not need to go into for example individual breakdowns of what category will do what type of damage and invidiual examples of each storm. If we merge this article and thus redirect it to tropical cyclone scales, we can educate people looking for details about the SSHS about what other scales there are and how the SSHS compares to other scales.Jason Rees (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that, when people Google 'Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale' for each individual category, they're not looking to see what kind of damage/impact to expect? You would be completely and positively wrong in that regard. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
No what im saying is that the article does not need 5 misleading paragraphs of what an hurricane will do when 1 or 2 paragraphs in the TC scales article talking about the damage wil ldo since its virtually the same wherever you go (for example a Category 3 severe tropical cyclone will do the same sorta damage of about a cat 2 on the SSHS). Besides which i do not see why we should keep this article when all of the relevant parts could be rewritten and merged into the Tropical Cyclone Scales very easily.Jason Rees (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure. There isn't all that much history with the scale (an entire paragraph is devoted to a minor change in mph), and most of the article is just examples of damage and storms of that intensity. The criticism is important though, as are the alternate proposals, and I think that would be a bit much if it was merged. I think if the article were to stay, we should move it to Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind scale, and remove storm examples. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a good reason to merge it. Nor do I see a good reason to remove anything from the article. However, a name change to "Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale" sounds good to me. United States Man (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I think the examples goes a bit overboard, personally. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Which specific parts are "going overboard?" United States Man (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Including 11 Category 1 hurricanes. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I thought you meant the damage examples (the part talking about the type of damage it would cause). Removing the hurricanes works fine. United States Man (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I think that merging SSHS/SSHWS into Tropical cyclone scales would overwhelm that article. So I say no. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
If we were careful and did it sensibly then i don't see how it would overwhelm the TC Scales article if we removed all of the individual category sections and examples and condensed the history section.Jason Rees (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Why condense the history section and remove the category section though? FTR, I think an article on the Austrlian scale would seem an okay idea. Other than maybe some excessive examples (Which I have cut back on), IMO, the article is fine as it is. YE Pacific Hurricane 21:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
YE i meant if we were to merge it, but then again the history section needs condensing anyway since it is biased towards the recent changes to the system which were a minor change and could do with some more info on the origins of the scale.Jason Rees (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

This article serves as a useful, more detailed subarticle to Tropical Cyclone Scales, and the article is considered GA class. It deserves to stand on its own. I looked over the structure, and it's fine. I don't see any overweighting. Having the damage associated with each wind category is fine. I did notice that it didn't mention that pressure used to be associated with the categories. This was the part of the reason (surge the other) as to why the SS numbers for storms in HURDAT didn't quite match their corresponding maximum sustained winds before the Atlantic hurricane reanalysis project began. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

JR, I agree with the last part you said and that it is biased towards recent events. The best way IMO to remove recnetism is to add stuff on older events. YE Pacific Hurricane 22:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Fair point. It'd be good to get some more history on hurricane scales in the Atlantic. Perhaps more history of how the scale was implemented, and how the public took to it. That would be good for a future FA run, if anyone (Tito?) still wanted to do that. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
If I ever get time to at least breathe, I'd be up for that. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Cat. 4 image and Cat. 3

Those two have been there for nearly 2 years based on page history and I feel we should replace the Joan image and the Roxanne one.  --加州飓风 (说话 | 大清帝国) 05:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Few questions. Why does it matter how long the images have been up? Why should they be replaced? And which should replace them? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
^ YE Pacific Hurricane 05:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Nmv :o  --加州飓风 (说话 | 大清帝国) 16:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
But why the hell when I change the image it always gets reverted?  --CaliforniaHurricane25 17:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Because there is no need for a change to the imagery just because its two years or more old.Jason Rees (talk) 17:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh, okay. CaliforniaHurricane25 17:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
To a degree I kind of agree with the category 4 image. The image is quite blurry as it is on the edge of the GOES disk. - HurricaneSpin (Talk) 19:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Category 5 hurricanes at landfall.

I noticed that in the final sentence of this sentence at the bottom of the Category 5 section, that it says Historical examples of storms that made landfall at Category 5 status include the 1959 Mexico Hurricane, Camille (1969), Anita (1977), David (1979), Gilbert (1988), Andrew (1992), Katrina (2005), Dean and Felix (both in 2007), Rick (2009). I thought that Katrina was only a Category 5 while it was in the ocean, and made landfall as a Category 3 hurricane. Dustin talk 00:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Ugh, correct. I removed Katrina and Rick. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Normal central pressure

Hi is it Normal central pressure original part of scale or is it just some kind of wiki improving? --Jenda H. (talk) 10:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It was a part of the scale until about 2010 when it was removed for various reasons.Jason Rees (talk) 13:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Category 1 range inconsistency

I noticed that the minimum km/h for a Category 1 is 119 on this article, but many timeline boxes show it as 118 km/h (therefore showing the maximum km/h for tropical storms as 117). Is this just major error in those articles? Thanks, Rosalina2427 (talk to me) 04:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

What is used for Pressure and Storm Surge now

Since pressure and storm surge was removed from the Saffir scale, what scale or monitoring exists for pressure and storm surge? There is no reference to additional scales/monitoring, just that it was removed because the three factors combine provided somewhat inaccurate results. Editing to say, I did a little bit of research and apparently storm surge is now handled through SLOSH. There was a small SLOSH article, so I linked to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeropeRiddle (talk • contribs) 22:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hurricane Roxanne

Should it really be used for the example of a Cat 3 storm? I think Hurricane Irene is much more notable 76.124.224.179 (talk) 01:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hurricane Bob may be a good example of Cat 3? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauterongo (talk • contribs) 17:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Neither Bob nor Irene were that intensity at landfall though. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 29 August 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Saffir–Simpson scale. No such user (talk) 09:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale → Saffir–Simpson scale – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC) Sometimes editors want to treat "Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Scale" as a proper name. But sources suggest that it is not. The scale was apparently proposed in 1973, and was referred to as the "Saffir–Simpson scale" for a long time (usually in the context of hurricanes, so it was understood what kind of scale). The first use I can find of "Saffir–Simpson hurricane scale" in a book is in 2000, and it's not capitalized, and has "Saffir-Simpson scale" on the same page: [1]. I don't find it capitalized in a book until 2005. Most of the appearances of the capitalized form likely derive from wikipedia. So let's stop trying to make it a proper name, OK? Dicklyon (talk) 07:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree (three years late). I propose we move the article to just Saffir–Simpson scale, which is the common name for the scale. It is almost always referred by the shortened name. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tropical Disturbance

There seems to be an additional level of "Tropical Disturbance" which is a pending weather depression with winds of less than 30 mph. This is what the weather reporters call the depression.

Dan Schwartz DanS1908a@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.19.183.15 (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@73.19.183.15: It has no official status. "Tropical disturbance" often refers to an invest area, which is outside the scope of the SSHWS because those areas are not tropical cyclones.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

hi my name is Jake from sate farm lol get trolled plebs

I have just modified one external link on Saffir–Simpson scale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Replace Felix image with Irma image in example?

Since the hurricanes in the images in the examples of the table are about the most recent, should we replace Felix with Irma since it is occurring now in the Category 5 section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephua (talk • contribs) 22:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

How is "Should Category 6 Be Added" Criticism?

I wonder how is "Should Category 6 be added" criticism? It is more a suggestion than stating that the Saffir-Simpson scale is faulty (aka criticism). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephua (talk • contribs) 22:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Changing both the MPH and the KPH

The History section currently includes this sentence:

In 2012, the NHC expanded the windspeed range for Category 4 by 1 mph in both directions, to 130–156 mph, with corresponding changes in the other units (113–136 kn, 209–251 km/h), instead of 131–155 mph (114–135 kn, 210–249 km/h).

The phrase "with corresponding changes to the other units" implies that when the NHC changed the speed range of Category 4 in miles per hour, it made a separate decision to change that range in knots and in kilometers per hour. This is nonsense; the conversion between the three speed units is fixed. The National Hurricane Center chooses only a speed range, not s separate range in each unit.

I removed the phrase "with corresponding changes to the other units". Another editor reverted my edit. If anybody can articulate any utility that this phrase (which, as I note, is nonsense) provides, let's discuss it here. TypoBoy (talk) 11:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, I agree we should list the speed ranges in mph, kn, and km/h. I'm just saying we shouldn't say that the NHC changed the speed in one unit and they also changed it in the other units. They just changed the speed. TypoBoy (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • What part of the existing text implies that the NHC defines the scale in terms of separate units? Maybe we can clarify that they rigorously define it in terms of knots only, but since the NHC rounds to the nearest 5, this is actually very pertinent.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
    • When we say "with corresponding changes to the other units", we imply that the NHC made more than one change, that they changed the speed ranges in miles per hour, knots, and kilometers per hour. This is not true; the only change the NHC made was to change the speed range. The expression of the range in other units is the inescapable consequence of that change. TypoBoy (talk) 02:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

The official scale is in Knots and the ranges are shown wrong.

Major Revision Needed
The initial section needs to be rewritten.

As described later in the article, the official scale is in knots, not mph. The numbers in mph, km/h, and m/s are approximations.

The boundaries for each range are a number of knots, but less than another number of knots. Using 34-63 kn for the range of a tropical storm means that there is no definition of what 63.6 kn means. The ranges must be in the form of 34<64 kn.

The table should be expressed as:
Tropical Depression < 34 kn ( < 39 mph or < 63 km/h or < 18 m/s)
Tropical storm 34 knots < 64 kn ( 39 mph < 74 mph or 63 < 119 km/h or 18 < 33 m/s)
and so on.
Drbits (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Isaias images

Isaias is not the latest category 1 hurricane to make landfall at that intensity. But, when it approached its NC landfall, it didn't reach hurricane intensity until after dark, so we don't have any good visible-light images of Isaias as a hurricane near that landfall. Is there anything against having an IR image?

This is all we seem to have in the Commons for Isaias as a hurricane at or near its final landfall are these ones:

Unless we find something else, I favor the 0310 UTC image since it is at the time of landfall. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Outdated info

The category 3 and 5 sections are outdated and instead of Otto replace it with Epsilon and instead of Dorian replace that with Iota. I'm surprised that Otto is still there tbh since there was Humberto, Lee, and Ophelia after Otto. Not including epsilon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColinMorgan 56 (talk • contribs)

@ColinMorgan 56: the images are meant to show the most recent landfalling storm of that category. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Another Category 5 Atlantic hurricane

There was already another Category 5 hurricane this year. I know that Hurricane Iota already formed into a Category 5. At Saffir–Simpson scale#Category 5, the file still shows Hurricane Dorian of 2019. I don't think that replacing Dorian with Iota would be a good idea, since Iota is still ongoing. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Iota landfall

Spending a really hard time with this, can we update the image to Iota at Providencia landfall? --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@HurricaneTracker495: it didn't make landfall on Providencia, the center passed just north of the island. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

TCs

Shouldn't Category 5 be Chanthu (Ivana landfall) lol CycloneEditor (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@CycloneEditor: No. The only examples we give here are TCs that occur where the Saffir-Simpson scale is the primary TC scale, that is Atl, EPac and Cpac. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Suggest adding a storm limit alert of edit page?

I believe that this is strictly limited as an administrator function only, but there is currently an alert that is shown when you edit this article that says to only add storms that meet a certain set of criteria.

I would like to propose adding one more item to the list. Please maintain the same number of storms as the Category 5 section for each of the lower categories. Currently that number is eighteen. So please limit to 18 storms per category. The criteria can be worded in the most suitable manner possible.

This is a chronic issue and on multiple occasions in the past, my attempts to rectify this problem have been reverted. This matter was discussed quite some time ago and I believe concensus was strong to keep it this way. I don't think that the hidden message in each section is sufficient to inhibit editors who are unaware of this. --Undescribed (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Small error in table headings

In the main table in the upper right corner, which uses the Template:Saffir–Simpson scale, the headings: m/s knots (kn) mph km/h

are shifted left one column

I took a quick glance at the template but did not immediately see how to fix it S Philbrick(Talk) 11:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I think I fixed it, I also change the categories from text, e.g. "One" to "1" prompted by a comment on the template talk page. My cursory review of the literature suggests the category names should be numbers not words S Philbrick(Talk) 15:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Just one question.

Do we add hurricanes that meat the criteria (peaked at Category intensity and made landfall at that Category) after the storm dissipates or while it's active? BailiwickOfTheChannel (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@BailiwickOfTheChannel Late reply, but technically most hurricanes are added to this page shortly after its landfall. Layah50♪ (喋ってください!) 01:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

"Tropical storm" and "Tropical depression" definitions

In the table at the top of the page, there is defined a "Tropical storm" as being > 18 m/s, and a "Tropical depression" as being ≤ 17 m/s. I have not found any references that define Tropical storm and Tropical depression that way, and definitely not in the articles on the Saffir-Simpson scale. Where have these come from, and can someone find references for these definitions? Richard n 13:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Update: found it: pd01006004curr.pdf (noaa.gov). Richard n 12:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The Colors

I’ve noticed that the colors for the categories have changed, like how red now represents category 4 cyclones and how purple represents category 5. Any particular reason for this? Just curious. Infinitive01 (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Infinitive01: There is a very lengthy discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#RfC: Changing the color scheme for storm colors to make it more accessible. In short, though, we needed to make the colors more distinct from each other, especially for colorblind people. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
why are we not in a tornado alley 69.24.214.12 (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Please change the colors back to where they were. If the colors are not Changed back, I will have to consider this an Act of Vandalism and will have to report it.

Nobody, And i mean NOBODY asked for these changes,Don't act like it isn't true, It IS.

So please do the right thing, The Smart thing, and change them back, Otherwise it will be reported. GhostHunter94 (talk) 05:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@GhostHunter94: the old color scheme is no longer an option. There's an ongoing discussion on the currently accepted version and possibly changing it, but the old scale could not be kept for accessibility reasons. You're more than welcome to waste your time and report it tho. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
YES IT COULD.
But now that you've wrongfully ignored us in the Majority that wished to keep it, I'll have no choice but to report you and anyone in the Minority who act like it needed to happen, when it didnt.
This Unacceptable, and somebody BETTER change it back, NOW. GhostHunter94 (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Bro GhostHunter94 the smart thing is not making it inaccessible and possibly causing death through misinformation and nobody but you cares about the change in a negative light. 80.0.214.105 (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
the new purple color is actually better, in my opinion. 184.67.166.254 (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
it should be noted, that the hypothetical hurricane wiki still uses the old colors. though that wiki is NONSENSE! 184.67.166.254 (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Unless you guys out up alert notices (like merger banners), there's no way most people will have any clue where that discussion is happening. Or even that such a discussion exists. I think it's unfair that those new colors were pushed through without much feedback. I've seen a lot of anger on Twitter over the new colors, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JirenOverload (talk • contribs) 02:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@JirenOverload: We have had a lot of discussion and feedback about the colours and at the end of the day, the old colour scheme did not work for people who have accessibility problems. However, there is a further discussion going on at the moment about the colours.Jason Rees (talk) 11:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I also agree that the colors should be reverted back to how they were before as the maps don't match. At least make things consistant for readers so they don't get confused. [2] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: There was an extremely long RfC discussion, where members of not just WikiProject Weather, but also Wikipedia in general, commented and participated. The consensus and majority, which has to be respected and honored in this case, agreed to change the colors to better support color blindness. I know you as well as some other don’t like the change, but the majority was actually in support of these changes. A while ago, someone way smarter and more experienced told me:
If you disagree with a consensus, which you did not participate in, you have 2 options. 1) Get over it and learn to live with it or 2) read the entire consensus-giving discussion (all comments) and if you have a policy-based reason, which was not mentioned in the discussion (aka not considered in the discussion), you can open a new discussion, which is based strictly on policy and not opinions.
That said, the amount of people who commented and participated in the color discussion basically mean all avenues were covered. One could have been missed though. I will note, opening a discussion based on a I just don’t like it style of argument, or on a repeat of a topic covered in the previous discussion is generally considered to be disruptive and not helpful. Hopefully that helps. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
@WeatherWriter: In my humble opinion, the maps are a major issue. I won't start up a new discussion to go against changing the colors back, but if it's meant to help the colorblind then these maps are rendered useless. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saffir–Simpson_scale/Archive_1&oldid=1250773760"