User talk:Thegreatdr/2010archive

Re: WikiProject Meteorology

Hello, Thegreatdr. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Meteorology#Unusual request - urgent analysis wanted.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I posted a response to the entire post. It is rather long, so if you have a short attention span, please do not turn off the computer before you are done reading. If you are a slow reader, take breaks or read it the next day (but don't read one half today and the other half the next day due to the risk for insomnia). It also contains a small part of the big picture (all at once), and that might be mind-blowing for some people.

WARNING: Contents might cause headaches...and other symptoms, similar to that of 0.999.... Also slightly out of the box, and if informing any ~~users~~ people in real life, please break it down into layman's terms. Wikipedian's discretion is advised.

Also, just in case the page is vandalised, please keep it on your watchlist. Thanks.

~A H 1^(TCU) 01:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you verify this?

I just rewrote the Meteorological history section of TS Danny 2009, but a few things, most notably the formation of the second low pressure system, left me a bit confused, and wondering whether my paraphrasing of the sources is accurate. Could you take a look if you get a chance and verify that the article is accurate? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts at GA passages

Rain

Just wanted to say great work with all the sourcing and updates on the rain article i think its a lot better now than when i last looked at it--Shimonnyman (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Inflow (meteorology)

The article Inflow (meteorology) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Inflow (meteorology) for things which need to be addressed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Hurricane Allen

The article Hurricane Allen you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Hurricane Allen for things which need to be addressed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Typhoon Nida (2004)

The article Typhoon Nida (2004) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Typhoon Nida (2004) for things which need to be addressed. S Masters (talk) 08:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thegreatdr. You have new messages at SMasters's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The article Typhoon Nida (2004) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Typhoon Nida (2004) for eventual comments about the article. Well done! S Masters (talk) 06:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1984 Atlantic hurricane season

Hello, Thegreatdr. You have new messages at Talk:1984 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1.
Message added 14:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Review complete. On hold. /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 14:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thegreatdr. You have new messages at Talk:1984 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1.
Message added 22:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Comments added, sorry for the delay. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to my GA reviews

Arlene (1981) review

Thanks for the review, I think I got most of it. Hope it wasn't too much trouble :) --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiBirthday

I saw from here that it's been exactly four years since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know?

DYK for Braer Storm of January 1993

Hello! Your submission of Braer Storm of January 1993 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! cmadler (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On April 19, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Braer Storm of January 1993, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:231119780853ZBDTirosN.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:231119780853ZBDTirosN.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Prediction Center

You have infinitely more experience with good article nomination than I do, so I seek your opinion on Storm Prediction Center about how close to that level it is and what more it needs before it could be nominated. I checked the automated peer review tool, and it seemed to get confused by the example products and infobox. Thanks in advance, Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 21:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rainfall w/ older storms

Hey, you said the rainfall map for Alice 53 would be up soon, which is great. I was curious if there might be a rainfall map for Hurricane Able in 1950, which I just finished an article on. One of those maps would be great for that article, if possible. Thanks --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok, cool! no hurry, and good luck with it all. --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Ike

I am completely confused here. The NOAA says that hurricane Ike was the largest ever recorded in the Atlantic here, why wouldn't be listed as such? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.169.0 (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because NCDC is wrong. The extended best track database is used as a reference within that template. The largest size you get with reference 1 (which is the primary source in this case) is about 410 nautical mile wide diameter. If Ike's radius of gale/tropical storm force winds extended a diameter of 900 miles, then the entire US gulf coast would have seen tropical storm force winds from the system when it was centered in the central Gulf of Mexico, and this was not the case. I'll try to contact NCDC regarding this error...of the top of my head I can think of larger systems than Ike over the past 20 years, many of them subtropical. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think it is highly presumptuous of you to assume NCDC was wrong. Many sources gave Ike measurements of 600+ nm, including the Weather Underground. CNN was the one reporting 900 nm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.169.0 (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not presumptuous at all. You need to understand how the system works. The National Hurricane Center is the maintainer of the tropical cyclone database, both the regular and extended best track databases. NCDC merely archives their information. I'm sending them an e-mail now. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Send them an e-mail to clear this up. I for one firmly believe Ike is the record holder. Even President Clinton mentioned two things when he and President Bush, Sr went to Texas in the aftermath: Pres. Clinton stated that it was a)the third most destructive storm to hit the U.S., and b) it was the largest storm ever seen in the Atlantic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.169.0 (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're not the authorities on the topic despite their ex-president status, but I understand where you're coming from. The e-mail has been sent, which has been carbon copied to NHC. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldnt be any confusion David. As i notice that the NCDC doesnt provide any mesurements, to back up their claim that Ike is the largest hurricane. The References that were already in the article include mesurements that prove that Ike shouldnt be on the template.Jason Rees (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion rests in the fact that the archival agency for the National Weather Service whose archived information is used in court cases as certified facts is in conflict with the agency responsible for tropical cyclone information. As the National Weather Service/NOAA, we're supposed to provide a unified front with the same information across the agency. If NCDC is wrong about this, what else are they wrong about? Lawyers could have a field day with this type of discrepancy. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are the chances that the NHC was wrong here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.169.0 (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's very minimal, but the e-mail includes NCDC and NHC so the various files and statement from NCDC can become reconciled. We're supposed to speak with one voice as a federal agency, and this discrepancy does not allow for a unified message. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well we'll soon find out whether Hurricane Ike was the largest ever or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.169.0 (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Ike was 900nm, but 600+ nm is probably likely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.169.0 (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the radius of outermost isobar (ROCI), about a 650 mile-wide diameter would be correct. Still, there have been larger tropical cyclones than Ike (Hanna for instance from the same season) if using the ROCI metric as a determining factor. Even using its rainfall footprint, there have been larger tropical cyclones than Ike. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It just doesn't seem likely for a Category 2 hurricane such as Ike to cause a 22ft storm surge and over $35 billion dollars in damage, unless it was a true giant. Frankly, 400nm is not outstanding, and I don't believe it would have caused the amount of damage that Ike did, nor would it have brought on a 22ft storm surge. Compare Ike with Rita; Rita was more intense, had stronger winds, was a fairly large storm, and it hit approximately exactly where Ike did, yet the devastation left after Ike was exponentially greater than Rita's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.169.0 (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaking size and strength for luck in the landfall point. Rita hit a sparsely populated area just east of the Texas/Louisiana border before moving over the thriving metropolis of Orange, Texas, a border town (when compared to Ike's direct strike on Galveston/Houston), and caused much less damage because of the different landfall point. Granted, Rita was a smaller system and shearing apart upon landfall, but Rita's damage would have been much more significant had it tracked about 100 miles farther southwest. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rita made landfall at Sabine Pass, correct? That's where Ike generated a 22 ft storm surge. I'm obviously not as versed in this as you are, but common sense tells me that if Ike made landfall in Galveston, but yet caused a 22ft storm surge in Sabine Pass (where Rita made a direct hit, but could not generate the surge Ike caused). That to me says Ike was a gigantic storm, at least much bigger than Rita was. I read somewhere that Rita was about 375 nm in diameter, which sounds right - but for Ike only to be larger by 25 nm sounds ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.169.0 (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check our article on storm surge to see why the magnitude of the surge could be different between the two storms. Some of it is due to storm size, as you've said. However, curvature of the coastline to the north/northeast/east of the landfall point is critical. A concave coast east of the landfall point will produce much more surge than a convex coast east of the landfall point. The area between Cameron and High Island is as prone to high storm surges as Appalachee Bay is in Florida. That's another difference between Rita and Ike. Ike had more favorable bathymetry to work with northeast/east of its landfall point than Rita did. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess we'll just find out through the emails that you sent what the truth is. Thanks for the chat -- I definitely learned a couple of things. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.169.0 (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NCDC sent me an e-mail mentioning they'd be taking down all references to Ike's size within their web pages over the coming days. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And they have done Jason Rees (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Longshore 2008

Looking through even the first pages of the book, I see that the dates of formation and dissipation of storms are largely incorrect. For example, it lists Alicia 1983 as having dissipated on August 19, when it actually did so on the 21st. As another example, it reports Allen 1980 lasted 6 days between August 4 and 10. I'm not sure if the author used a method other than the official HURDAT database to record storms, but if so, this should be clarified somewhere. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nisha and Rene

Hi David - You wouldn't happen to off seen any rainfall figures in your office from Nisha and Rene on A Samoa?. if so could you please pass them to us Thanks :) Jason Rees (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Water cycle

Hi, I just read the water cycle article and was a bit shocked at how bad it is for such an important article. Any chance you could take a look at it sometime? From the looks of it you're probably the best for the job! Thanks 86.7.19.159 (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC) (User:Smartse)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost interview?

Would you be interested in doing an interview for the Signpost on behalf of Wikiproject Severe Weather? If so, please answer the questions here by March 1st. Thanks in advance, Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 23:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for both the answers and the feedback on Storm Prediction Center! Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 00:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:2006112518zIR.GIF

Thanks for uploading File:2006112518zIR.GIF. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HPC

I remember in the aftermath of Tropical Storm Erin, you said the HPC were not allowed to raise the winds. Does that apply to SATL Cyclones as well? Thanks Jason Rees (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When we take over advisories for tropical cyclone from NHC, we're not allowed to upgrade. However, if something like Erin happens again, we'll be using the proper max sustained winds, but likely just refer to it as the remnants of XXXXX. If the system has become extratropical, we can do what we want. Since NHC is not the RSMC of the south Atlantic, it would not be an issue. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David.Jason Rees (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Where hurricanes lie

Fair enough: but just bear in mind elsewhere in the SHEM especially RSMC Nadi use Tropical Cyclone offically. The only thing refering to Hurricane in the SWIO/AUS/SPAC is in the general warnings for fiji or wherever where they warn of force winds - ie Gale Storm and Hurricane force winds. The logs we keep for the Southern Hemisphere tropical cycloen seasons provide plenty of examples of this esspecially at the minute with 2 Severe Tropical Cyclones present in the SPAC/AUS. If we get any more downtime in the current SPAC season i may look into writing an article all about the southern Pacific basin simular to Pacific Typhoon or Atlantic Hurricane with the aim to try and clear up some of the myths surrounding the South Pacific as if a pro meterologist is confused then id bet money that other people are confused. Regards Jason Rees (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, its like we could use cyclones in the atlantic per meteo france but we go with the offical warning center and call them TS/Hurricanes. In the SEP the offical warning centers use Cyclones and STC, so thats what we use.Jason Rees (talk) 04:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOHTCN

A few months ago we were talking about collaborating to get this article up to FLC. I now have every name bar a couple sourced up. I was wondering if you fancied helping us to put the final touches to it and then be a co-nominator when i get around to sending it up to FLC.Jason Rees (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oddball Barnstar

Thanks ever so much; it's been good fun, working on old Billy :-) Chzz ► 18:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1776 Pointe-à-Pitre hurricane and the Louisiana hurricane climatology page you made

Hey there DR. It's great to be back, so great that I have an issue already. I found a source that links the 1776 Pointe-à-Pitre hurricane (which was the 7th deadliest Atlantic hurricane) to making landfall in Louisiana. At the same time, I saw your Louisiana hurricane list, which lists one storm in 1776 as causing damage in New Orleans. Do you have any further info that can definitely link those two events (such as if your 1776 storm was in September, at least)? I was also wondering if there was any more info beyond "some damage", but we all know hurricane info can be scant one century ago, let alone over two centuries ago ;)

Hope all is well. BTW, any word on if the re-analysis will occur this season? Last year they got up to 1925. I'd love if in this quiet off-season (not too many TCRs) they could get to 1933, but I'd be happy enough if they got another five years out of the way. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks a lot. You're the man, as usual. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help

During the GA review for Storm Prediction Center (currently on hold), it was brought up that the article contains nothing on the budget, staff, etc of the facility. I don't know where I can find a source for this stuff. With your position of employment, would you happen to know where I can find such information on the various NCEP branches? Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 19:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might be able to find out about the staff on the NOAA locator, within the main NOAA page. Outside of that, I'm not sure where you'd find their budget information. It should be out there...nothing about the NWS budget is classified. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Googles always Good to use for the budget.Jason Rees (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tried alot of that, didn't work. See my post on the reference desk for more on my attempts. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 20:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Able/1984

Thanks for making the rainfall graphic - btw, Viennaiswaiting is me. I left an explanation on my user page. Sorry for any confusion. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, socking is bad, but I didn't intend to have VIW become a distinct account. I just wanted to start over and do some fun edits, but old habits die hard, so I abandoned that for this account. Anyways, yea, I've been pretty lucky with my GA reviews. I see the 1984 season is finally at GA status, congrats. BTW, did you figure out that issue with the number of depressions? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That works about the depressions. I'm just surprised they upgraded depressions post-season, since they have no bearing in the best track or anything. Why waste the time if they didn't reach tropical storm status? --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, neat, thanks for the insight. So we just have to wait 11 years for the reanalysis to reach 1984! --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, great, 20 years it is :) ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Thegreatdr. You have new messages at IRP's talk page.
Message added 16:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

-- IRP ☎ 16:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Upper tropospheric cyclonic vortex/GA1

Hi, I have started reviewing your GA nomination at Talk:Upper tropospheric cyclonic vortex/GA1. I am having difficulty understanding the jargon in the article. Is there any way you could simplified the language for a layperson? Thanks, Xtzou (Talk) 22:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see this failed GA. My comments were meant as constructive criticism. I don't know the GA procedures, and was just trying to help make it a better article. I hope you submit for GA again. Ping me and I'll take a look prior to GA next time. I'll also try to help incorporate the new sources I found. -Atmoz (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How 1951

Done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Rain

Wow, hard to believe it's almost over (for the eastern US, at least). So Mexico's will actually go back to the 1950s as well? The infamous 1959 Mexican hurricane might get one? That'd be incredible. I saw your post on the project page. It'd be great if Jamaica could find their stuff somehow. I noticed you didn't mention the Dominican Republic. Am I crazy, or didn't you find something for the DR (or maybe it's the DR DR thing)?

Also, about Mexico, did you ever get more recent years than 2004? While I'm playing 20 questions, what about Canada? Is there a chance that will be filled out more? Sorry to be a pain, but those maps are great! --Hurricanehink (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No on Mexico and Canada, though I have tried with Canada on occasion. The contact we had in Mexico was murdered soon after he gave us the CD, so there is really no connection there either anymore. As for the Dominican Republic, just like any other country, I'd have to know who to contact and hope they are willing to share the data. The WMO does allow for data access via payment, if need be, but it's nice to get cooperation/professional courtesy for free, if possible. Any Mexican rainfall graphics prior to 1976 are going to be dicey, due to the lack of readily available satellite info and any document such as Daily Weather Map to help determine what may or may not be related to the TC rainfall pattern. Basically, I'd be "flying blind" and making lots of assumptions, although my first few skirmishes have turned out fine. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got it. Jeez, I can't believe that happened with Mexico! Question though : since Mexico is so far south, wouldn't tropical cyclone rainfall more often be directly related to a tropical cyclone? Oh, and btw, I reviewed 1990 PHS. You didn't write that whole article, did you? I put it on hold, fwiw. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Henri?

I have mad an inquiry about the landfall status of Hurricane Henri of 1979, at The TC talk page about half a month ago, and so far it has illicted only one response and no feedback. you have been so knowledgeable on weather issues when I have ran into you before, I thought you could possibly give me some advice? -Marcusmax(speak) 02:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Prediction Center 2

I hope I catch you before your planned middle-late May absence, but do you think you could please look over the Storm Prediction Center article and see what improvements it needs to get from GA-Class to FA-Class? I'm not very practiced at getting articles beyond GA, and I don't have the depth of knowledge about the Storm Prediction Center to know what's missing from the article. Thanks, Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 17:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 1990

Yea, it's a shame that we have to use Newspaper sources for some articles, but sometimes they're the only thing we have to work with. Here is the link to the Google news service. You just enter the dates you want and the search terms, and you'll usually find at least something. --Hurricanehink (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology question

In writing a new article, I came across an issue that I would like some expert insight on. This MWR article refers to an "intertropical convergence line", which I've never heard of. Is it the same thing as the intertropical convergence zone? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleonic Triple Crown

Severe weather

Back in February, you were in a discussion about this article that appears to need discussing again. If you have the time, your participation would be greatly appreciated, because this article is still in the shambles it was back then, and with Runningonbrains back, now would be a great time to discuss improving it. Cheers, and I hope the database work is going well. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 05:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a quick look of your reorganized article this morning. It is much simpler in its layout. I read the dicussion and I saw that there was competing views on the organization. Personnally, I would have preferred convective, synoptic layout and tropical layout, like you have HPC, SPC and NHC offices in your country, but yours is as good as any. However, I have a few remarks :

The Cause and Categories sections put too much emphasis on convection. For example, it says floods are always related to thunderstorms while they are often not found in synoptic systems giving large amounts on rain in mid-latitudes. There is only categorizing of severe criterias according to summer convective severe weather, too.
The same can be said from the Excessive rainfall section which only talk about flash flood, monsoon and tropical cyclones while regular low pressures can cause 100-year floods as commonly.
I would not make a European windstorms section but a Synoptic scale windstorms section in which you can use the European as one example. This would be more general as a Nor'easter is producing as much wind as its European conterpart. By the way, tropical storms are wind producer too and it is not taken into account.

Pierre cb (talk) 12:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at the article later this afternoon and let you know my thoughts. Juliancolton (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One concern I have is that the article is a bit inconsistent in its presentation. The Categories and Cause sections lead one to believe that "severe weather" refers exclusively to severe thunderstorms, while the rest of the article focuses (rightly so) on every aspect of severe weather. Outside of that, I see no major issues at a cursory look. Juliancolton (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of tropical cyclone names

I don't know if you've seen but im trying to improve the Lists of tropical cyclone names article and i was wondering. Is their any stupid factor that the NHC use to determine when to name like gales have to be over 1/2 of the system such as in Aus/SPAC? Thanks Jason Rees (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, i presume its the same for CPHC when they need to name systemsJason Rees (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your responses, i appreciate it and im sure others like JC will do too.Jason Rees (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence

Just so you know, when presenting evidence, you just edit your own section. I moved your comments to a new section, so please feel free to edit that as you please. You may also be interested in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change moving to Workshop

This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep "workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Building code

Hi,

I've been asked if there was a building code for tornado prone area. We don't have much that problem here and I thought of asking you. Would you be aware of some references about that or about tornado shelters ? Pierre cb (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Pierre cb (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex rainfall

Hi Doc, long time no see. The Comisión Nacional del Agua says that Alex dropped 890 mm of rain at La Estanzuela;^[1] any chance we can get that added to the rainfall climatology maps? Thanks Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I could add that sometime this week. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much :) Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the graphics online this past weekend. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rain

It might be worth you making another shot at trying to get the Rainfall data for Canada for TC's off the CHC as apparently it is planning to do a climatology of Tropical Cyclone Rainfall. [2]. You never know you might be able to work with them and get rainfall for Canada included in your project and help them out with theirs or am i being too optimistic :P.Jason Rees (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Netherlands Antilles

Well, much like Aruba, Curaçao and St Martin are now autonomic, meaning that they can be seen as "independent" countries. On the other hand, Bonaire, St Eustatius and Saba are now designated as the BES islands or the Caribbean Netherlands. However, Aruba, Bonaire and Curaçao are still commonly referred to as the ABC islands--part of the Leeward Antilles. All of the islands that initially formed the Netherlands Antilles prior to its dissolution still make up a part of the Lesser Antilles nonetheless, so it basically depends on which areas are affected. If it comes to it, feel free to contact me if you're not sure what to call such area. Hylian Auree (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hazel.gif

Hi,

I've seen that you added a Paul Kocin as the author of the 1954 analysis File:Hazel.gif. I was wondering how you got this. The only Paul Kocin in Wikipedia is born during the 1950's, was only a toddler in 1954 and made is mark at the Weather Channel. In the web page where the image is from, I did not see any author and the style of the image seems clearly to me from US Weather Bureau vintage 1954 ?

Pierre cb (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. The image must be in a published paper somewhere in NOAA library I guess. I have changed the date on the image to 1954 as it seemed really like an original analysis done the day of the hurricane. It was better than 2006 I had written before when I thought that this info was for the date of upload. If you can find a web reference for Paul Kocin original production of the map, it would be nice to add it to the description and change to the proper date. Pierre cb (talk) 03:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can do that when Paul publishes the material, or if I ever include it on the Hazel TC rainfall page. The creation date was around 15 years ago. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added info for you, I found the image on this web pages of the Eastern Region Headquarters. However, there is no date of production or author cited. That might be where CHC found it. I have added the links to the image. Pierre cb (talk) 03:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Hermine and TD 11E were the same area of low pressure

I know that it was clearly stated, but just from looking through the remainder of the report, it looks like they're keeping the two systems separate. If they were to be considered one storm, wouldn't the report have also included 11E? It's a bit of a confusing situation... Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the major differences with this system from Fifi and Orlene is that 11E degenerated to a remnant low before regenerating, leaving a bit of a gap between the two systems. The impact caused by the storms is substantially separated, by this I mean the centers of damage are far apart, one being in Texas/Oklahoma and the other in Central America. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Pressure System

Greetings! I've reviewed your article Pressure system for GA status. Please see the review page for details about a few fixes needed to pass it.Lvi56 (talk) 05:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Thegreatdr. You have new messages at Jason Rees's talk page.
Message added 03:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hi David - can you answer the query at my talkpage if you get chance. Thanks.Jason Rees (talk) 03:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering that query :) - Merry Christmas.Jason Rees (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

/* Hurricane Igor-Category 5? */

Are you sure? Not saying you're wrong, but what if it's right? And isn't it possible that Igor will be upgraded to category 5 after New Year's anyway? --Ryder Busby (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is most definitely wrong since he is the author of that page and the whole of the NWS must speak the same tune until such a time as the TCR comes out. Yes it is possible that it will become a category five when the TCR comes out but if i were a betting man Cyclone Giri would be a better bet for an upgrade to a Cat 5 in BT.Jason Rees (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thank you. --Ryder Busby (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PNA correlation with NHEM TC genesis?

Hi David, hope all's well. With the co-existence of TS Omeka in the CPAC and 95L in the Atlantic, I started to wonder if there was a teleconnection potentially corresponding with the development of off-season TCs in the Northern Hemisphere, and after checking the NAO, MJO, etc., I came across the PNA, which seems to be in a fairly negative state at the moment. Looking back over the past few months, it seems bursts of tropical activity in the EPAC and Atlantic basins tend to occur at the same time as negative dips in the PNA. I did some further sampling for the past several decades and my hypothesis has remained consistent so far. I've done quite a bit of research on the tendencies of the PNA, but it doesn't seem like there's much in the way of published material on the relationship, if any, between PNA swings and cyclogenesis in the hemisphere. Do you know if this has been professionally covered at all, or otherwise if it seems like a plausible theory? Juliancolton (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Tropical Depression Two (2010)/GA1

I'm wondering, are you finished that GA review? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas flood of 1964

Hello, lovely to see someone notice an article of mine so quickly! You are clearly a weather article expert, judging by all the GA and FA badges on your page. I'm a bit concerned about the "official" naming protocol of the article, so if think it belongs at a different name, please feel free to do the move. I can "fix" the redirects if necessary.

BTW, it looks like the California Flood – December 1964 and the Christmas flood that you expanded upon in Floods in the United States: 1901–2000 (thanks!) are in fact the same flood. Cheers! Valfontis (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]