Talk:Hurricane Lorenzo (2019)

Former Easternmost Category 5

Isn’t the former easternmost category 5 Isabel, not Hugo? Ȝeſtikl (talk) 09:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

No, it is Hugo. Look closely at File:Map of Atlantic Category Five hurricanes.png.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Map to compare to other hurricanes

Each dot represents a Category 5 hurricane where it reached Category 5 status. Hurricane Lorenzo (in blue) holds the record for the easternmost Category 5 hurricane since records began.

I made a map of where other hurricanes became category 5 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hurricanes3.png Link to the data and the code in that submission. Can I add that image to this entry? David Curran —Preceding undated comment added 19:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC) The map was removed "13:09, 1 October 2019‎ Jasper Deng talk contribs‎ 14,236 bytes -150‎ this is an uninformative map, with no lat/lon labels, and is misleading as many Category 5 hurricanes maintained peak intensity in far more than one BT point" The other map on this page also has no Lat/Long labels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lorenzo_2019_track.png. And this section deals with 'Lorenzo became the easternmost Category 5' not how long the peak intensity was maintained for. Iamreddave (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Iamreddave and Jasper Deng: How about using this photo (right)? It doesn't use lat/lon, but it's pretty clear either way without the lines (might I point out that the hurricane track maps also don't have lat/lon). This map doesn't show peak intensity, it shows where each hurricane initially became a Category 5.

@Jayab314 and Jasper Deng: I like that map. I am not sure about the 1851 claim as until 1967 a lot of out at sea hurricanes might have been missed. I will leave the call on it to Jasper Deng Iamreddave (talk) 06:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

downgraded?

this file fails to mention its brief 140 knot (160mph) peak. error or actual downgrade? FleurDeOdile 14:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The peak was at 130Z and the storm was downgraded to 135 knots by 06z. Noah^Talk 15:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

So it was a non-synoptic point then? --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Also adding if the peak is downgraded in TCR does that remove the essence of having this page? Or is the ship accident and impacts in Azores still sufficient enough to keep it? --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

If the article is improved and there are any impacts to the Azores, I see no reason why it should be deleted, even if it’s downgraded to a 4. Grammarguruguy (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Most likely, NHC will place the peak intensity at 3z, a nonsynoptic point in between, as it peaked at neither 0z nor 6z. The impacts will likely merit keeping the article and even 135 knots still holds the intensity record at 45 W.—Jasper Deng (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Track

Why is there no C5 dot on Lorenzo's track? Michael has one and according to the TCR it wasnt a C5 at 1800z BananaIAm (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

This is already being discussed at Talk:2019 Atlantic hurricane season#Hurricane Lorenzo Map. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Size

@Buttons0603 and Vladwin: I would really like to know what source is being used to justify the claim that Lorenzo set a size record, and what metric of size you are using, because a bold claim like this can't stand without a source (and unlike many other records, cannot be easily verified with other articles like List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes). Absent such sourcing, that claim cannot stay in the article.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The NHC advisory maps. Buttons0603 (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Buttons0603: It is WP:SYNTH to conclude that from Lorenzo's maps since they say nothing about its relation to previous storms.--Jasper Deng (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

They do if you compare them to previous storms Buttons0603 (talk) 12:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is still WP:SYNTH. Areal comparisons are difficult to do visually due to the nuances of map projections. This is too far of a stretch.--Jasper Deng (talk) 12:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The Met Office have referred to it as the biggest ever. (1) This source also refers to it as one of the largest and this was far from its peak size (2) so we may just have to wait for better sources to become available maybe with post-season analysis. There is also this article (3) saying it is one of the largest in the headline, but I can't actually read it cos I'm in Europe Buttons0603 (talk) 12:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "biggest-ever" – sorry, this vague claim is not close to what is being claimed by the text I removed, and Mirror is not known to be a very reliable source. I got access to the Orlando Sentinel article but it too does not support any such claim. What we can say is that Lorenzo was unusually large on account of its gale-force wind radii, which NHC repeatedly emphasized. But there is no record being set here short of a reliable source making that exact claim.--Jasper Deng (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

If we're going by gale diameter, Lorenzo doesn't even make it into the top five since its maximum gale diameter was 610 nautical miles (see forecast advisories 38, 39, 40) which converts to 700 miles (1130 km). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 12:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with the consensus to mention its size, since it was definitely extraordinary, but to hold out on any record until the TCR comes out. Auree ^★★ 18:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)