Jump to content

Talk:Tropical Storm Hermine (2010)

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

Source of Hermine

[edit]

Unified Surface Analyses from the NWS clearly show that Tropical Depression 11E's surface low moved into the Gulf of Mexico and developed into Tropical Depression 10L/Hermine. There will be a reference for this, other than via the Unified Surface Analyses from the Ocean Prediction Center, in about a week. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great i think if we could show that this is defentley 11E regnerating, however DR dont the rules of basin crossers at NOAA say if its weakened into an RL and subsequently moves basin then its treated as a brand new disturbance, though the CPHC and JTWC were very slack on this rule last year with Maka.Jason Rees (talk) 02:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The NHC rule indicates that if a tropical cyclone loses its tropical cyclone status, in this case its "well-defined circulation", that it cannot keep its previous designation when it crosses between the Atlantic and Paciic basins. NHC/CPHC/JTWC treats systems within the same basin, and even within the same ocean (Pacific) differently, of course. I wish this made sense. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks David.Jason Rees (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The rainfall graphic for that low has been added to both pages. I hope to have the related web pages up on Monday. A continuing outage of the SMN/CONAGUA website seemingly due to Karl plagued its ultimate completion in Mexico, however. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The SMN website was running smoothly as of 4 days ago. Then it just got absolutely slammed with people trying to see the Alvarado radar. (Now they're just sending traffic to their lightweight backup site...) Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 17:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

11 E merger

[edit]

I just noticed that the articles were merged. I don't mind terribly, but the source that supports them being the same system (the HPC rainfall page) even said that they were only from the original low pressure area. That doesn't mean they were the same tropical cyclone. Generally, only actual crossover tropical cyclones have the same article. Additionally, given that 11E had a lot of impact in its own right, I think there would be justification for keeping the articles separate.

Feel free to discuss. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is also supported by the National Hurricane Center, per the recently updated KMZ Best Tracks for the respective storms. Although 11E degenerated into a remnant low over Mexico, it was still the same system that became Hermine, thus being the same storm. Would this be any different than what happened with Hurricane Ivan (minus the basin crossing).? As far as I'm aware, the current policy for basin-crossing storms is that if they weaken below tropical depression status as the system crossed over they will be given a new classification. However, it doesn't state that they are considered separate tropical cyclones. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this. Even if they were from the same LPA (but discontinuous as a TC), should they really be in the same article? If the tracks are connected in the TCR and BT, then I would agree, but since we don't know that as of now, I think they should be separate articles, since they are numbered separately and they had two majorly different impacts. I know it is very anti-me of supporting keeping articles separate, but I would err on the side of caution for now. I see no overwhelming reason to keep them as one article, that's it. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that is why my attempt to create a dual article for Tropical Storm Alma-Arthur in 2008 failed. Also, I think both 11-E and Hermine did enough to justify their own article.--12george1 (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, Alma-Arthur is another great example that there is enough info separately to justify articles. If it was an Atlantic-EPAC crosser (dissipating like 11-E did and reforming), and the EPAC one did very little, I could see keeping them together, but not if one caused $70 million in damage and the other killed hundreds. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit confused how the NHC has handled this particular storm, which speaking of TD 11-E operationally might have been declared a TD much earlier and I am really wondering why they didn't reflect that those immense large area of showers showed some organization several days before. That did happen a few more times this season, Karl was another instance, IIRC, and there had been some more. We also might find out one day that Matthew and Nicole had been basically the same system. However, that's not our thing to judge about. But at this moment the merger does not realy fit yet. In the introduction and in the meteorological history are still some statement that don't fit together. --Matthiasb (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the NHC stated in their Hermine report that it formed from the same area of low pressure which was TD 11E, I'm curious why the pages were unmerged recently. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they weren't the same tropical cyclone. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, merely two tropical cyclones which formed out of the same low pressure area (or cyclone), like Alma/Arthur. We should be consistent on how we treat these systems within the project. Either stick with the way we dealt with Alma/Arthur, or every tropical cyclone which didn't remain a tropical cyclone through its entire land passage of Mexico/Central America gets its own article, even when it is clear that one's remnants caused the other to form. Fifi/Orlene should then be split into two articles. I seem to remember San Francisco (Eastern Pacific Hurricane Center) insisting they were two different systems within their report for Orlene. Thegreatdr (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the reason I think 11E should be separate is because it did cause a lot of impact on its own. Likewise with Alma/Arthur, the former of which was retired and the latter which caused decent damage in Belize. I agree that Fifi/Orlene should be two separate articles, if there is enough info for Orlene. I don't think that Bret 93 should have all of Greg included, simply because its remnants became Greg. IDK, I just feel that when there is enough content, then the two TC's should be separate articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the articles are merged (I'm 50/50 now), what would it be called? Would everything be put into Hermine's article? I just don't readers getting the false impression that Hermine caused $500 million in damage and killed 100 people. Wouldn't Tropical Depression Eleven-E-Tropical Storm Hermine (2010) be too long? --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about just calling it Tropical Storm Hermine and noting within the articles lead and like we usually do out in the EHEM and SPAC that it was TD 11E and TD XXL?Jason Rees (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I now think that 11E and Hermine should be in the same article, since they were the same overall system. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is coming up again. Since when are these storms separate? Do we have any proof they are separate? YE Pacific Hurricane
As Hurricanehink pointed out in the very first post of this talk page subsection, Tropical Storm Hermine and Tropical Depression 11-E are part of the same system, and, the same low-pressure area. However, that does not make them the same tropical cyclone. The tropical cyclone report makes note of this. Although I have not touched upon the meteorological history or impact of the article itself, I made clear in my edit to the lead that Tropical Storm Hermine was not a continuation of 11-E from the eastern Pacific. Reason being is that the original thesis was that Tropical Storm Hermine was in fact also known as 11-E, this would imply that 11-E crossed the Isthumus of Tehuantepec, and after intensifying was renamed Tropical Storm Hermine. However, this was not the case. 11-E operationally and post-operationally dissipated over Mexico; the remnants carried on into the Bay of Campeche, and it was at this time that the remnants reorganized into Tropical Storm Hermine. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 03:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly care, I really want some consistency here. YE Pacific Hurricane 03:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Make life easy...just email the NHC and ask for clarification. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The NHC makes it clear in their TCR for Hermine what happened, "Eastern North Pacific Tropical Depression Eleven-E moved northward across the Mexican states of Oaxaca and Chiapas early on 4 September, and degenerated into a remnant low over the high terrain. The middle-level circulation accompanied by the weak surface low continued northward and moved over the southern Bay of Campeche later that day. Once over water, deep convection began to form near the low and the thunderstorm activity became organized with some cyclonically curved bands. It is estimated that a tropical depression formed at 1800 UTC 5 September when the system was in the southern Bay of Campeche." Tropical Storm Hermine formed from the remnants of TD 08E, but they were not inherently the same system. The low-level vorticity associated with the EPAC depression dissipated over the mountainous terrain. NHC states that if this happens, if regeneration of the mid-level features occur, it gets a new name. Had Dorian lost its low-level vorticity, we would've seen Tropical Depression Five yesterday. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And now that I re-read that...it clearly says the surface low was retained. Maybe asking the NHC is a good idea... (goes back to corner). TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask today. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, it doesn't matter terribly much what the NHC says. We're an encyclopedia, so whatever is the most natural subject is what we should do. Cesar-Douglas works well together because Douglas didn't do much on its own, ditto Fifi. 11E did enough on its own for its own article, and IMO that's slightly more natural (especially since it didn't have a real name that would've carried over). The subject of Hermine should be limited to Atl, IMO. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I got a response with regards to the crossovers.
On Aug 6, 2013, at 10:10 AM, James Franklin wrote:
I'm not sure the question on the AOML FAQ is correctly answered, or even clearly stated.  The question as stated asks about tropical storm or hurricane passages but the  
first sentence of the answer changes the topic immediately to tropical cyclones.  This confuses the issue of whether tropical depressions count or not.  I'd think that is 
the first thing that ought to be clarified:  are we talking about tropical storms that crossed or tropical cyclones?    And by crossing over do we mean as bona fide 
cyclones/storms, or just remnants of tropical cyclones that redevelop.  The criteria employed in the FAQ:

To be considered the same tropical cyclone an identifiable center of circulation must be tracked continuously and the cyclone must have been of at least tropical storm 
strength in both basins (i.e. sustained winds of at least 34 kt, or 18 m/s). 

Tropical Depression Eleven-E degenerated to a remnant low during its passage and therefore did not successfully cross basins as a tropical cyclone.  Whether or not it 
deserves to go on the "list" depends on clarifying what the list is supposed to be a list of.
James L. Franklin

And I got further clarification from Neal Dorst. 

As James points out the criterion established within the TCFAQ would exclude the Hermine example since it was NOT
a Tropical Storm in the East Pacific.  Rather than rewrite the whole question and then search the entire database for other
examples that might have previously been excluded, I will simply keep things as they are.  But thanks for asking.

So they're using the fact that 11E wasn't a TS as a reason to exclude it. Not sure if I personally buy that, since TD's are in the BT now, but that's how it goes. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the reply I got (asking Lixion Avila and John Beven, the authors of the two TCRs) was that 11E and Hermine are considered the same storm. Although it degenerated into a remnant low, it was still the same low and therefor the same overall system. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, figures. Mind sharing your email? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm convinced they are the same overall system. But, do we keep them separate? How do we handle Cosme/Allison? what about Bret/Greg? Ernesto/Hector? YE Pacific Hurricane 22:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP policies would absolutely require us to avoid going beyond what our sources say about them (to avoid OR). So of the official RSMC say they're separate, they're separate. If a (for example) a number of meteorologists think these separate systems are really identical, that can be included in the article under meteorological history or such. As Thegreatdr said, "...Well defined circulation center dissipation does not mean the low itself dissipated. The meat is sliced ever so thin at NHC."]
And our de facto WPTC policy is that if a basincrosser was mostly insignificant in one basin, we only name it in the significant one, such as Bret, Ernesto, or Anita. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hector was significant in the EPAC, so you're wrong there. And we have proof that they are the same overall system. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, 11-E and its associated monsoonal flow resulted in 38 fatalities in Guatemala. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 02:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the matter is that there are credible reasons for both sides, and since we're already getting different answers from NHC, I think it's up for us to decide. So, disregarding anything official and going by gut instincts, what does everyone think? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would be inclined to say keep them separate articles, but the damage/deaths associated with 11E is confusing, given it was affiliated with a monsoon flow. YE Pacific Hurricane 15:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I say keep them together on the basis of it being the same overall storm. As far as notability goes, both are deserving of articles; however, substantially fewer people are going to be looking for "Tropical Depression Eleven-E (2010)". This would provide an opportunity to give people more information on a highly related event (the same event in my opinion) which is of interest to many readers. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is the title could be misleading, it could imply that Hermine did $500 million and 90 deaths to Oaxaca, Guatemala and Costa Rica. After all, we don't combine Cosme 89 and Allison 89, even though they are the same system and both are a bit notable. YE Pacific Hurricane 21:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Yellow Evan here. And I always though a true basin-crosser was one that maintained its tropical cyclone status, not one that dissipated and reformed (even if it was the same system). If that wasn't the main factor, the fact that it would be confusing and misleading is enough to keep it how it is. United States Man (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's potentially misleading with the current title. I agree, it's very much a Cosme-Allison situation. IMO they should be split again, and that's been my gut instinct the whole time. People only see Hermine in the title. Plan B would be to make it Tropical Depression Eleven-E-Tropical Storm Hermine (2010), which I think is too long and weird of a title. I think the people who want them combined like the idea of having one article for one storm, which I agree with in theory, but in practice I don't think it works that well. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for Plan B, I oppose that. We don't title Gret 93 Hurricane Gert-Seveenteen (1993) after all. Anyone object to splitting 11E/Hermine up? YE Pacific Hurricane 22:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Cosme/Allison 1989 is a good comparison...The low associated with Cosme dissipated and Allison developed as a result of the merger of three features.
I still maintain my position of keeping the 11E and Hermine in one article. YE's argument of "it could imply that Hermine did $500 million and 90 deaths to Oaxaca, Guatemala and Costa Rica." falls flat on it's face when you look at any other article. The total damage/deaths in the infobox is a sum and is not differentiated by area. That information is explained in the body of the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 06:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Monsoonal flow seems to be a term NHC used to describe peripheral effects, rather than any pre-existing impact of a monsoon trough. We ran into this issue during Stan. Cosme/Allison were two different surface lows forming out of the same disturbance. After seeing how NHC has handled Emily (2011) and Dorian (2013), which were also two different surface lows forming out of the same disturbance, maybe we are talking about exactly the same thing. I still like the idea of TD 11E and Hermine being the same article since they were the same area of low pressure. When a tropical cyclone evolves into an extratropical cyclone, which then does damage, we normally handle it within a single article. We should be consistent, no matter what is decided. If this system has two different articles, we should open the flood gates to make sure all storms are handled in this manner. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about Alma/Arthur? That works fine as two separate articles, since they both got separate names, and affected different enough areas. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about Hector/Ernesto? Affect one country, yet different parts of the nation. Right now, Ernesto's article mentions nothing about Hector. YE Pacific Hurricane 20:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alma/Arthur were two separate low pressure systems, ergo not the same cyclone. Same applies for Ernesto/Hector; Hector formed from a trough that split off Ernesto aka not the same storm. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Tropical Storm Hermine (2010). 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, 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 14:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Tropical Storm Hermine (2010). 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) 19:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tropical_Storm_Hermine_(2010)&oldid=1210974386"