Talk:Hurricane Hattie

Article name

I'm not sure I agree with the renaming of this as Hattie-Simone. See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_Cyclones#Zone_Crossers. Jdorje 18:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

If you go on to do that, you should include its full lineage which is Hattie/Simone/Inga. I'm relooking for the old Weatherwise article that talks about the evolution of the only known storm to cross from the Atlantic Basin into the Eastern Pacific, and back again across the Isthmus of Tehauntepec. I believe it was published soon after the fact in 1962. thegreatdr 18:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is official that Inga was the same storm...probably like Katrina and TD10, I believe there is some doubt that Simone's circulation lead to Inga. — jdorje (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Todo

More content... Jdorje 08:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

References, especially for multi-basin

As pointed out in my talk page, references for this article are quite lacking - particularly any that support the claim that hattie, simone, and/or inga were the same storm. No doubt I'm much to blame here; all i can recall from working on this article is that I wanted to get the track map right with the multi-basin nature of the storm. But I did not do careful research on it; going with the first secondary/tertiary source I found. As I recall.

So, what's the truth? From a brief bit of research it looks like things are actually uncertain and the article is flat incorrect to claim the storms were definitively the same. This book claims without any particular evidence that the storms were not the same, deferring to the ever-upcoming NHC re-analysis for the final word. This book claims they were the same, but as it was published in 2007 (after the writing of this article) and again cites no evidence this is useless as a reference. This book, or research paper, discusses the topic briefly and appears to cite sources supporting both independent and singular cyclogenesis. Tracking down the sources cited in that last might be productive.

Either way however it seems that we will have to cop out and claim uncertainty, preferably with secondary sources supporting each side. Another idea would be to email the NHC and see if they will give a final word on the matter.

— jdorje (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)