Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones

Shortcuts

I just created this wikiproject, after several months of contemplating doing so. I hope everyone working on hurricane articles will get involved. I went ahead and wrote a bunch of guidelines, basically based on current practices...naturally since this is something I just wrote it doesn't necessarily represent community consensus and needs to be discussed. That discussion should probably go here for now...although eventually we may make these pages a little more structured. For a general TODO list, see the "tasks" item on the project page. Jdorje 23:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article alerts

Warnings template

I'm putting this here so we can easily copy/paste when we need to put warnings up:

===Warnings and watches===
{{HurricaneWarnings}}
{{seealso|Tropical cyclone warnings and watches}}
As of X p.m. EDT [[June 1]] (2100 UTC), the following warnings and watches were in effect:
*Coastal watches and warnings:
** A '''hurricane warning''' is in effect for:
*** x
** A '''hurricane watch''' is in effect for:
*** x
** A '''tropical storm warning''' is in effect for:
*** x
** A '''tropical storm watch''' is in effect for:
*** x
*Inland watches and warnings:
** x
* See the NHC's [dummylink latest public advisory on Hurricane X]
<div style="clear: both"></div>

Remove the coast/inland part if no inland ones exist. --Golbez 21:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accumulated Cyclone Energy

There's pretty much a consensus not to have them for each individual storm, but they are still there. Should we get rid of the individual tables, and instead add a season total ACE for the season infobox? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yeah lets get rid of the tables - Theres already a bit for the total ace on the main Hurricane infobox Jason Rees (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong opinion either way. ACE is generally useless, but if we were to remove the tables from the season articles, one could argue that doing such would compromise the comprehensiveness of a page. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the season table. What is the argument against it? Plasticup ^T/C 15:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only independent source (i.e. one that doesn't specifically study ACE) that places importance on ACE is wikipedia. Objectively speaking, it's not a notable statistic, and I don't understand why we have a table of that when we don't include tables of storm duration, strength, IKE, or whatever else. It certainly doesn't deserve its own section in the season articles, and removing it completely would not weaken them at all. — jdorje (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My strongest objection to those tables is that they're basically original synthesis, as they're usually not referenced, nor kept up to date with official records. Most NCDC season reports have ACE stats that differ from ours, and I'd feel more comfortable either citing their numbers, or not adding those numbers at all. (Although I realize that they're good content to fill old season articles, which lack information lost to time...) Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What if we were to add a little ACE box to the hurricane templates and get rid of the ACE sections??? User:Itfc+canes=me ^Talk ^{Contributions} 22:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ACE

Since ACE information is popping up in quite a few storm articles nowadays, it's probably time to decide whether or not we want it. I'm in favor of it, as it's only a couple sentences, and more information never hurts. Thoughts? –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also in favour of using it in Storm Articles but if we do we MUST use it like this:

"The Joint Typhoon Warning Center's messured the Ace at A, whilst the RSMC Tokyo measured the Ace at B."

Jason Rees (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem is getting a reliable source to back it up. I personally am split between keeping it and removing it. If there is a reliable source that backs up the Best track info, then we should keep it, otherwise it's OR and therefore has to be removed....Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I oppose using it. We've discussed before that the stat means very little for each storm. Scientists and officials rarely mention the ACE of certain storms, and more often only use it for the entire season. In previous discussions, it was described as original synthesis. I noticed this problem on Hurricane Hernan's current FAC, where the author cited the TCR for Hernan's ACE value. I completely disagree with doing that, particularly since the next sentence cited the NCDC page with a different value (which was its operational ACE). In short, I believe we should remove every mention of ACE for individual storms, and leave it only for the season totals, when available. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ACE is not OR, though, it is a simple calculation. It does not require a class in Statistics to figure it out. Potapych (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no non-wiki source to really back it up despite being simple calculations. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it weren't OR, it still doesn't add much to storm articles in general. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, it is mainly just to make small articles a bit longer. I just followed the outline for Tropical Storm Erick (2007) to create Tropical Storm Karina (2008) (both extremely short lived storms) to add length to the article. But now it may be becoming a problem due to a lack of sources.

There are, however, reliable sources to cite the ACE, the NCDC seasonal chart as an example. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the operational data though. The problem is citing the best track ACE data since there are changes between the two. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's OR or not in its simplest form is debatable, but I agree that it's original synthesis. The sources never say plainly that storm A had an ACE of X. And furthermore, they are a fairly useless statistic that (IIRC) no scientist ever uses for each individual storm. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the storms that had notable ACE ratings, like Ivan? –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely is one source, though how to cite it is debatable. Original synthesis occurs with multiple sources. Potapych (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it adds to the season articles. Eastern Pacific season ACE values can swing wildly while maintaining a pretty consistent number of named storms from year to year. Citing ACE highlights the true level of activity and the importance of El Nino in that basin. This is still important in the Atlantic, though slightly less so. Potapych (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, there probably should be an exception for storms with record high ACE's. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a given, but for that we are only talking about 2-3 storms. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so unless the storm has a record high ACE, the ACE will remain a season statistics section only thing? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for that, and for clarification that means only having the seasonal ACE value, which we have for the Atlantic from 1851-2007 already (HURDAT has it). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Time to clear out some ACE values in some articles. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Shall we wait for more people to voice their opinions? Only a few people have commented, and for such a big decision maybe we should wait another day or so. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, hit a wall with Tropical Storm Karina (2008). There is a fair amount of info on it in the statistics section, and I'm not sure what to do with it. (got to stop the impulse), yea, probably best to wait for more input. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not hitting a wall if there is legitimately no more information outside of the storm history. If ACE is just used as a space filler, then it's not needed. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HURDAT link for seasonal data - this link has the seasonal ACE values, which will be the source for the seasonal totals. Also, if the NHC happens to mention monthly ACE totals (as it did in the Karina article), then that's fair game. For that article, only the first two sentences of that paragraph would have to be removed, if we agreed to it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get more feedback on this? I see a user just added ACE to a NIO season article, which certainly doesn't even use ACE. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see it removed from all of the current season articles esspecially the WPAC 08 as it is a pain to update Jason Rees (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree to removing it from the individual storm articles? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends from storm to storm. At the edges of the spectrum (i.e. very low [almost none] or very high [>40]) a note about it should be made. Otherwise it shouldn't be included since it is the "norm", exceptions do appear as usual, Katrina could be a good example of an exception since it is one of the most important article and that bit of info could be helpful with statistical information on the storm. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the bottom of the barrel get the numbers? If a storm lasted six to twelve hours, I think we should just say "The storm was the weakest/shortest lasting storm of the season." I don't see a need to explain the confusing ACE system. Likewise with the high ones, chances are they either set some records, or were the strongest/longest lasting storm of the season. There's enough information in the Katrina article already; I don't think we should confuse the reader by introducing another term in an already full article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we need to get rid off it completly as it is hard to verify and update. Jason Rees (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there is a bit of an IRC discussion (gasp) between some of the project members. There is a rough agreement that ACE should not be used outside of the NHC basins, primarily due to inconsistencies with the warning centers. That's it, though. Also discussed was whether or not to remove from the individual pages, but there wasn't an agreement. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else want to respond? The usage of ACE currently is close to being decided. Would anyone be opposed to removing all mentions (except perhaps extreme ones) of ACE for individual storms in the sub-articles, and if so, why? Likewise, would anyone be opposed to removing the individual values from the season articles, and if so, why? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancies between NOAA's list and HURDAT

The palpable discrepancies between the official designations for United States hurricanes and HURDAT are adversely affecting articles' accuracy. For example, I furnished an article on the 1949 Florida hurricane. Officially, the list of United States hurricanes lists a Category 3 impact in the state of Florida, but the HURDAT file cites a maximum sustained wind of 150 mph (130 knots) at landfall. I produced a verifiable article with numerous sources, several of which supported the Category 3 classification. Subsequently, an anonymous contributor altered the 1949 Atlantic hurricane season article and reverted the Category 3 values for the maximum sustained winds. The person utilized HURDAT's winds and listed Category 4 winds for the Florida hurricane, as well as a Texas tropical cyclone that exhibited similar list/HURDAT discrepancies. The Texas hurricane is assessed as a Category 4 landfall (115 knots) in HURDAT, but the official list does not indicate winds higher than Category 2 strength in Texas. This conundrum leads to the question of accuracy: which source is more "authentic"? Wikipedia should yield reliable, viable, and truthful information.

The HURDAT database precedes the official list, which implies that the list is updated. Originally, HURDAT was conceived in the 1960s, while the first list of United States impacts was published in the 1970s. HURDAT contains numerous errors, since it has not been reanalyzed beyond 1920. A new paper from the reanalysis project discusses these issues. The official list states that the United States impacts are grouped by "the highest Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale impact in the United States based upon estimated maximum sustained surface winds produced at the coast." Therefore, a person gains the impression that the impacts are based on the modern Saffir-Simpson Scale standards, which utilize one-minute sustained winds (as opposed to central pressures) as the sole qualification of hurricane strength. However, the reanalysis paper notes the following facts:

"Another methodological concern is that the winds in HURDAT just before a hurricane landfall in the United States often do not match the assigned Saffir–Simpson hurricane scale. C. J. Neumann and J. Hope developed the first digital HURDAT records with 6-hourly position and maximum wind estimates in the late 1960s (Jarvinen et al. 1984), before the Saffir–Simpson scale was devised (Saffir 1973; Simpson 1974). The U.S. Saffir–Simpson scale categorizations for the twentieth century were first assigned by Hebert and Taylor (1975), based primarily upon central pressure observations or estimates at landfall. It was not until the late 1980s that the use of the Saffir Simpson scale categorization was based upon the winds exclusively, which is the current standard at NHC (OFCM 2005). Thus, reanalysis efforts in Landsea et al. (2004a,b) and in the work presented here have utilized the estimated maximum sustained winds for assignment of Saffir–Simpson category to be consistent with today’s analysis techniques."

This portion explicitly implies that the official list of United States hurricanes (which has been unaltered since its conception in the 1970s) is actually based on minimum central pressures. Note that the vast majority of the hurricanes (and their respective Saffir-Simpson designations) in the official list are largely confined to the original Saffir-Simpson Scale standards for central pressures per category. Note that the last section on Landsea et al (2004a,b) refers to the reanalysis project:

"and Coauthors, 2004a: The Atlantic hurricane database reanalysis project: Documentation for the 1851–1910 alterations and additions to the HURDAT database.

Hurricanes and Typhoons: Past, Present, and Future, R. J. Murnane and K.-B. Liu, Eds., Columbia University Press, 177–221.

——, and Coauthors, 2004b: A reanalysis of Hurricane Andrew’s intensity. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 85, 1699–1712."

In other words, the official list of United States hurricanes actually lists Saffir-Simpson impacts by central pressure. The only sections that list United States impacts by winds are 1851-1920, which have been reanalyzed. All hurricanes' United States designations from 1920 to 1979 rely on central pressures in the list. That portion has not been updated to reflect modern Saffir-Simpson Scale standards. On the other hand, HURDAT cites maximum sustained winds.

What is the moral of this long diatribe? The long battle between "the list" and HURDAT in Atlantic tropical cyclone articles has been finally resolved. I was wrong: HURDAT (as opposed to the list) is the authentic source for maximum sustained winds at landfall for all tropical cyclones from 1921 to 1979 (pending reanalysis). Therefore, the 1949 Florida and Texas hurricanes should be listed as Category 4 hurricanes at landfall. CVW (Talk) 04:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I recently uncovered the original compilation (list) of United States landfalls. This document lists all United States hurricanes in the 20th century. The introduction to the document states that the Saffir-Simpson Scale categories at landfall were determined solely by central pressure. Note that the pressure values and landfall categories are identical to all hurricanes from 1921-1979 (not reanalyzed) in this list. In other words, HURDAT should be utilized in lieu of the list. On the other hand, the format description for the official landfall designations (trailers) states that they are "based upon the Saffir-Simpson Scale category (through the estimate of the maximum sustained surface winds for each state)." However, the trailer data is derived from the Saffir-Simpson Scale categories in the official list, and the list's data was based on central pressures at landfall. How can we solve this issue? No one has addressed it, and our articles are suffering from these HURDAT/list discrepancies. CVW (Talk) 02:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prominent units within TC articles: Imperial or SI?

After hink's recent response in the section above, and my search of my own talk archives and the first 12 of the project archives (time consuming,) it appears this problem hasn't been discussed yet. It has made sense the main units used in season and storm articles for the Western Hemisphere should have mph prominent over SI units, since the warning centers are based within the US, where imperial units are still commonly used. However, this is not true in the Eastern Hemisphere. I've been placing knots as the major unit for tropical cyclones in the Pacific typhoon season articles (since it is the most common nautical term), with convert templates shifting the values to km/h. Is this reasonable? I could see a real POV issue if we used mph in the Eastern Hemisphere, since the world outside the US has essentially embraced SI over imperial units. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where we decided it, but we have decided, somewhere or another, to use only mph and km/h (with mph used primarily for NHC and CPHC and the others getting km/h). Notice that the Infobox uses just the two units (knots don't show up). I believe the argument was that the public in general doesn't really know what a knot is - do any countries even use knots? For the Eastern Hemisphere, keep in mind that although it may seem biased, there is a huge percentage of people on WP that solely use mph; not having that unit would not be accessible. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true of the American public, but what about the Caribbean countries which are British, French, and Dutch dependencies? Europe went SI back when we were supposed to, several decades ago. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the world uses km/h, quite obviously, which is what the articles are supposed to use outside of NHC/CPHC (or so I thought). We just use mph for NHC basins since that's what they use. I'll repeat what I said: given the large percentage of US users (who use mph), it would be inaccessible not to include mph. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also there is a problem with the mph in many articles, mainly when the Template:Convert is used. The wind speeds publsihed by the NHC are commonly rounded by 5 knots. Therefor converted into mph the result should be rounded by five. When one is using now mph as a base for converting into km/h the output can be wrong. Following are some values and there verification of that wrong way of convertig wind speeds (I just hope I haven't make mistakes).

30 kn -> 35 mph -> 55 km/h – okay
60 kn -> 70 mph -> 110 km/h – okay
90 kn -> 105 mph -> 170 km/h – wrong, should be 165 km/h
120 kn -> 140 mph -> 225 km/h – wrong, should be 220 km/h
150 kn -> 175 mph -> 280 km/h – okay
75 kn -> 85 km/h -> 135 km/h – wrong, should be 140 km/h
50 kn -> 60 mph -> 115 km/h – wrong, should be 110 km/h

So we must ever convert from the source data into the unit we need, i.e. knots directly into km/h and not via mph into km/h. Cocerning the use of mph in genereal I think to remember a discussion on one of the MOS pages some time ago. --Matthiasb (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest within the Eastern & Southern Western Hempishere i would rather use Knots and km/h as thats whats the "OFFICAL" agencys use. also whilst im not sure about this but isnt it minor Original Research when we use MPH in the Eastern Hempishere as it can not be sourced back to a Primary source.Jason Rees (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to remember where, but there are several articles that are of the format χ kt (γ mph; ζ km/h), which we could use in the eastern basins. You also mentioned one of the evils of {{convert}}, and why it should never be used. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that many people who review GA articles (myself included due to how often it has happened with me) insist upon the use of convert templates. Besides, with the convert template you don't need to worry about all those nbsps. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point them to this discussion. {{Convert}} is useful only for exact measurements (e.g. maximum recorded gusts, rainfall amounts) but it introduces rounding error when used with values that are already rounded (e.g. maximum sustained winds, estimated maximum gusts). Additionally, the benefit of not having to type   is nullified by having to figure out which syntax to use for the desired measurement, so I'd say to just avoid it completely and use the non-breaking spaces. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the way i prefer to do them and i have been doing it that way untill Hink moaned at me for using knots earlier this week Jason Rees (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for moaning, but I really thought we had this agreed upon not to use knots. I believe the only articles we use all three are some of the season articles. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh dont worry about it your forgiven - From memory Daman, Elisa, Fengshen and some of the other Wpac storms from this year have all 3 units Jason Rees (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any more comments? This is somewhat important. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point of this discussion wasn't whether to use template:convert or not. It's whether to use knots or not, and the knot, while used by scientists, isn't usually used by the public (AFIK). I propose the main unit we use is mph and imperial for NHC and CPHC, with metric in parenthesis, and metric for all of the other basins, with imperial in parenthesis. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds about right (although I would clarify that km/h is the preferred metric unit, instead of m/s). That said, I remember that in a few FACs there were requests to use m/s in the main science articles, so in those, it would be better to use all four units. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although the problem occurs when we only have data in knots; in that case, shouldn't we put the knots outside the parentheses (as the original source unit), and put the other two in metric/imperial order inside the parentheses? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have to. I don't think it happens often when the source is only in knots; usually it is also provided in either km/h or mph. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the reason we started using knots in the PTS articles were because we did not have km/h in the advisories—but then, I don't edit those articles. Is that still the case? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The western pacific databases (JMA and JTWC) use knots, just like the northeast Pacific and Atlantic databases. So far in the Pacific season articles I've sent through GA, no one has complained about a lack of mph units. Thegreatdr (talk) 05:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that goes back to my problem of knots not being very accessible. We talked about this on IRC a little. Personally I think we should keep knots in the scientific articles (with metric then imperial in parenthesis), and then for storm/season articles (depending on the basin) have metric and imperial only. Imagine of the NHC season articles only had knots and imperial units. There would surely be an outcry of bias and whatnot. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(\n) So, to summarize:

χ kn (γ km/h, ζ mph) for the general science articles,
χ mph (γ km/h) for storm/season articles SSHS-based basins, and
χ km/h (γ mph) for storm/season articles everywhere else? (We do need to have imperial units in all articles per WP:UNITS, although they don't have to be the primary units. Although we still need to discuss whether we want to use knots as secondary units in storm/season articles.) Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - As its orignal research just to use conversions in the SPAC when the RSMC Nadi generally just uses knots for Cyclones Jason Rees (talk) 00:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly original research. The country of Fiji uses the metric system. We use metric and imperial for ease of use for the public. I believe all of the warning centers use knots to some degree, but none of us work for the warning centers. We are writing an encyclopedia which is supposed to be accessible to the public. AFIK, neither the knot nor the nautical mile is officially used by any government. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion - basin vs. worldwide

Need	The article's priority or importance, regardless of its quality
Top	Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia
High	Subject contributes a depth of knowledge
Mid	Subject fills in more minor details
Low	Subject is mainly of specialist interest.

In light of the recent discussion on Talk:Hurricane Ioke and elsewhere, it would help getting some clarification on this. Some users believe the importance should be based on the basin only, but a voice of opposition suggested it be project wide. I am stuck in between, but after looking at WP:1.0 (and the table on the right provided by 1.0), I am leaning toward project wide. User:Potapych brought up a good point that the importance influences the articles chosen for the printed version of Wikipedia. For storms, that would mean an extremely obvious tilt toward low importance, perhaps as answered by the question "How much would the project suffer without that article?" For seasons, I think make only a certain number of recent seasons as automatically mid-importance, maybe making the cutoff like 1980. Comments are appreciated so we can put the issue to rest. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. If possible, I would also rate a season article a bit lower if all of the important storms already have articles. For example, I moved 1881 Atlantic hurricane season up to Mid, despite being a new article, because of a deadly hurricane that hit Georgia. This could work the opposite way for storm articles that have several subarticles. Anyway, the 1881 season is borderline, Mid, I think. I would ask User:Thegreatdr about the cutoff because some of those 1980's articles can be difficult to research. Lack of information is going to hurt an article's encyclopedic value. I assumed that's why Hurricane David is only Mid. Potapych (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

/me puts WP:1.0 hat on

remember that the project's overall importance to the encyclopedia is already counted in the SelectionBot algorithm. So a FA-Class, Top-Importance article from WP:WPTC is not scored as high as a FA/Top article from WP:CORE. As a result, we don't have to worry too much about importance to Wikipedia as a whole, but rather, we need to worry about importance to WPTC as a whole.

/me puts WP:WPTC hat on

I personally consider that our grades are overall too low from everybody else's, but I'm not sure that determining importance per basin, as indicated on Talk:Hurricane Ioke, is the way to go. Importance by rarity is a different thing, though. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think that the basin importance reflects on the worldwide importance. Take Typhoon Dot (1985) of the WPac for example. It killed 101 people, all directly, and was a Category 5 typhoon, but it's Low-importance. Now let's shift over to Tropical Storm Beryl (1982) of the Atlantic. Beryl was a tropical storm with maximum sustained winds of less than half the power of Dot's, and killed only slightly more people (115 direct) but Beryl clocks higher than Dot at Mid-importance. --Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 13:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really a worldwide factor, or is it just country to country? Dot struck the Philippines, which gets hit by TC's all of the time. Gamma in 2005 caused 37 deaths, and though it wasn't quite 101, it's still a good amount; Gamma is still low, since Central America regularly has fairly high death tolls from TC's. Basins are just arbitrary dividing lines. Would Ioke be any more/less important if it formed in the WPAC, but still caused the same impact? I'd imagine it would still be Mid, since the strength and impact would warrant exactly that rating. Granted, it's obvious we are too Atlantic-biased, so maybe that's part of the problem. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea which of those typhoons were considered major events in those regions. We are all admittedly biased, since most of us do not have access to other media outlets from that time. For anything to make it to High or Top level, there should be substantial external interest in the subject. This is supposed to be taken into consideration when grading articles, and higher grades should have more stringent requirements. It doesn't have to be as catastrophic as Katrina since Cyclone Catarina is up there. Everything can't be rated High or Top or even Mid because the ratings here won't be taken seriously (by SelectionBot or others). Potapych (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least for the Philippines, we have the Typhoons in the Philippines article to consult, if you're curious about the relative impact of a tropical cyclone on that island chain. Creating similar articles for other countries could help resolve relative importance of tropical cyclones on a country-by-country basis. Once the season articles and storm articles are all up the speed (if ever), it would be a worthy endeavor for this project. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Depression Numbering for 1969

There has been some minor discussions about this between Thegreatdr, Juliancolton, Hurricanehink and myself about this but not absolute solution has been found. This problem with the numbering of the TD's in 1969 (and possibly other seasons) is due to a document posted here by Thegreatdr which contains all the tracking data on past tropical depressions. However, after looking at 1969 in hopes of creating a timeline article for it, I discovered that the numbering of the TD's was very confusing.

AL0169 SIX       052900 1969 12.0  82.0  25    0 -99 -99  -99 -99   0  0  0  0   0  0  0  0   0  0  0  0 ?

This is the first line for 1969, it shows the basin (AL), storm number (01), year ('69), the storm name (Six) the date and time (May 29, at 00 UTC in 1969), the lat. and lon. (12.0N 82.0W), maximum sustained 1-min winds in knots (25kts), and some other stuff which I don't understand yet. But how can TD Six be the first storm of the year? and for that matter, how can TD Five be the second (see below)? Hopefully we can figure this one out, all comments and thoughts are greatly appreciated.

AL0269 FIVE      052900 1969 26.1  77.8  25    0 -99 -99  -99 -99   0  0  0  0   0  0  0  0   0  0  0  0 ?

Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm torn whether we should include every TD for a certain time period, since after all, they aren't in the official database. It seems that from the 60's to early 70's, TD's were being classified like our current invests. Some TD's were certainly real cyclones. Maybe for the season articles, say "A total of X tropical depressions formed during the year, of which Y affected land." And then give details on the land impacting ones. IDK, just a thought, though it'll probably be shot down. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's how we deal with PAGASA systems in the western Pacific, so it sounds alright to me. Include info on the ones which impact land, since they'll be documented in the TC rainfall climatology anyhow, and just mention dates for the others. If you can find more info in the newspaper database, include info on those systems as well. There will be better documentation from NHC within the next couple years as their storm wallets from years past trickle online, but the issue probably won't be resolved for a decade until the reanalysis extends into the 1970s. The database I placed online was for both NHC reference regarding the reanalysis, as well as for my uses. Although it is a reanalysis of sorts, it's not official, per se. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, NHC has a bit more of their scanned storm wallet information online now, covering 1968-1970, and 1977-1979. It is accessible in a much easier manner than initially seen several months ago. Thegreatdr (talk) 06:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Track Map Help

I have windows so when I tried to download the track map generator, I used Cygwin (something like that). When I typed in the instructions from User:jdorje/tracks, it couldn't find it, does anyone know what to do?--Irmela08 02:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try the first two commands here? I couldn't get it to work on my mac, but I did get it to download. Potapych (talk) 04:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the new version of the generator on the repository should now make the installation process easier, as I got it to compile on my own Macintosh. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got it to work. I was wondering about something. Thegreatdr provided this data for various depressions on some of the talk pages example. Would it be a good idea to make track maps from this? Potapych (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can make track maps from that data by massaging the format to fit into HURDAT, but since Thegreatdr indicated that the data is "not reference-able" in the link you provided, I'd rather not. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its not reference-able. It's the same as if you emailed an employee for information, which we do a lot of here. At the very least we could put his name as the source. I don't think he would mind since his name is referenced in dozens of articles already. Potapych (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Employees usually don't tell us to not cite stuff. There could be a lot of reasons why the data is not considered reference-quality, and I'd rather not speculate on the reasons... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't say not to cite it, just that it was not reference-able. I think it was just a misunderstanding that we can't cite internal data. We can ask when he gets back. The data is already in hurdat format on some of those talk pages. Potapych (talk) 07:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about Track maps can someone please bring 2008-09 SPAC up to date with the Track maps? Jason Rees (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a lot of stuff to do right now, including updating some of the 2007 tracks. You can make it easier if you put the data in HURDAT format and post it somewhere in your userspace. Just remember that any longitude number in the eastern hemisphere needs to be converted by subtracting it from 360. That probably needs to be done for any track in the southwest Pacific. Potapych (talk) 07:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NHC told be personally not to trust the original HURDAT-formatted dataset they e-mailed me, since it was a digitized version of a dataset created by one person who retired 20 years before, and could have errors. However, the HURDAT versions I posted on the talk pages are the same tracks as those used in the annual tropical systems articles. Tropical depression definitions have changed over time, and the non-developing system database has not been reanalyzed, which is why I received such instruction. The version I have on the HPC website (in the extended best track dataset format) is a modified version of what was given to me by NHC which takes into account the Daily Weather Map series and has an increased amount of data and usefulness. If you want to reference that version, go right ahead. Just keep in mind I haven't fully reanalyzed the dataset, so it could change over time. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Costliest hurricanes

I was really surprised to find that Katrina wasn't the costliest hurricane ever, but rather some hurricane that hit Miami in 1926. 157 billion dollars! That seemed amazing to me, especially considering that the total GDP for the entire country was only $750 billion in 1926. Then I looked at the table closer and saw that it was adjusted for something called "wealth normalization". Since there was no explanation of what the heck that was anywhere in the table, I did a little digging and discovered that the $157 billion was not the actual (inflation-adjusted) damage done by the 1926 Miami hurricane, but what the damage would hypothetically be if an identical storm hit today. Does it strike anyone else as strange that we have a table called "Costliest U.S. Atlantic Hurricanes" that has no relation to the actual costs of any actual U.S. Atlantic hurricanes? Can we change this? Costs adjusted for wealth normalization is an interesting side note, but it shouldn't be the PRIMARY "costliest hurricane" statistic, should it? How about some real data here? 68.101.165.156 (talk) 07:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That has bothered me for a while as well. I'm not sure who changed the previous inflation-based data to point to the Pielke normalized data, or even if there was a consensus for doing so. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAR

I have nominated 2004 Atlantic hurricane season for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliancolton (talk • contribs)

More WP:WPTC/A

Along the lines of the previous discussion (scroll up), I have set up the final review pages for any articles added to the page before November. Please go comment at the page, so we can take a pruning knife and shorten it... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes afoot on the List of wettest tropical cyclones by country page

I found a set of NCDC publications that covers Caribbean-wide daily highs/lows/precipitation that starts around 1925 and ends in 1966. Today I started making changes to the Excel files at work, the main Tropical Cyclone Rainfall Maxima page, and the List of wettest tropical cyclones by country page to add the new statistics. Recent work on the wikipedia page has focused upon Antigua and the Bahamas. FYI, because this information could be useful within the season or individual storm articles. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet. Thanks for the heads-up. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Typhoon Seasons (PTS)

Whilst having a look through some of the PTS articles i noticed the following mistakes weve been making.

JMA Minor Tropical Depressions - we should be monitoring these and writing about them.
First storm of the year should be the first JMA depression not the first JMA storm.
Other storms - why do we use it for the JMA depressions that we do monitor?

Jason Rees (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike US centers, JMA is not very serious about TDs, be they major (35-knot-to-be, 30-knotter) or especially minor (no wind speed). They come and go much more casually than a US TD or an Australian "Tropical Low". After all, TD warnings of the latter two types are issued by merely JMA, not under the auspices of RSMC Tokyo, which has the responsibility to warn on 35+ knot storms and what will become 35 knots in 24 hours. In other words, there is no international/regional "officialness" in those "xxJPxx" bulletins--it is just another country's take on the weather. HkCaGu (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, JMA has been tasked as the RSMC since 1980 (years longer than I thought it was true. I just saw this reference in the Hong Kong (HKO) link during research for the 1984 Pacific typhoon season article.) That makes their information impossible to ignore, if we're going to be globally consistent with how we deal with these annual articles. The season dates should be consistent in using the formation and dissipation of the first and last TDs. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I simply don't think we can be "globally consistent". The fact remains that in the Japanese (and Taiwanese) mentality, TDs are not TCs (or in their languages, "typhoons"). Even down in Australia, TDs that had been TSs are called "ex-cyclones". If we were to include TDs, which of these three classes of TDs shall we include? HkCaGu (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And let me repeat my point: Not every JMA product is an RSMC product. 30-knot, non-intensifying TDs are not even mentioned in the RSMC website! HkCaGu (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was true of NHC not much more than a decade ago. But still, we're adding the depressions if we can find corresponding news clippings or other info that shows they existed. Look at how we deal with PAGASA info, where we're lucky to be able to match their TC names to the main list. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My question: are JMA depressions actually considered tropical cyclones? What if they are that basin's equivalence of a low pressure area? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so as the JMA warn on low pressure areas in the same warnings Jason Rees (talk) 05:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hink.... I think we could create a section about them still.... Maybe a sub-article just to cover them all... User:Itfc+canes=me ^Talk ^{Contributions} 22:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Making our project larger

Hello all, I was wondering... since our numbers are beginning to dwindle AND its beginning to get boring here. Could we take over a few extra areas - extend the projects reaches... so we could take over control of Extratropical Lows and related things. We also need to make those numbers go up again. While we are still a big WP project we need to make ourselves bigger. Is there any chance of us getting a few more adverts for the Wikiproject?

Thanks

User:Itfc+canes=me ^Talk ^{Contributions} - Its good to be back! 22:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa there. While I think we all appreciate the ambition of your comment, we have hundreds of season articles to get out of stub class and dozens of vital articles (both storm specific and related to tropical cyclones) to improve to GA/FA. If you feel bored, tackle some of the storm-related meteorology, or general meteorology articles. The general meteorology project needs help, should you be willing to provide it. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's always a lot of work to do in the bottom of Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Tropical meteorology articles by quality (e.g. Outflow (meteorology)), as these articles are of relatively higher importance. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extratropical lows are under the scope of WP:NTROP. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 00:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do i feel like my heads been chewed and then thrown off....

Greatdr - of course.... and Titoxd I will have a go but I am useless at writing things about Outflow - etc,etc. User:Itfc+canes=me ^Talk ^{Contributions} 15:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invest

I need help on this one. I think I have got it up to start class but am not sure what it needs to get to C class. Thanks User:Itfc+canes=me ^Talk ^{Contributions} 15:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admins

Could an admin please move this page: User:Itfc+canes=me/pablo (including talkpage) to Tropical Storm Higos (2008) for me please. User:Itfc+canes=me ^Talk ^{Contributions} 21:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Julian... its starting to bug me how every page I try to create is like that. User:Itfc+canes=me ^Talk Sign me! Its good to be back! 22:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are usually admins around to do page moves like that; if not, just tag the target article that's holding up your move with {{db-g6}}. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 22:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Severity Index

The article Hurricane Severity Index is about an interesting notion but is not very different from Accumulated cyclone energy. I'm not familiar with this index, nor the authors, but it is mentionned in the article that it is a proprietary item, not a general knowledge one. I don't know if it should be deleted but I've added the Avert template to warn the reader. Any comment ? Pierre cb (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, from a Google search shows it isn't used much with just 241 hits. The top hit shows a proposal at the "28th Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology". It seems it is hardly used anywhere (seems to be limited to just that company). The scale is merely a proposal as an alternative to the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale, so perhaps it should be redirected there, and maybe explained a little better on that page? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of it being a separate article, because it is different than the Saffir-Simpson scale and ACE. There have been many such proposals for alternatives to the Saffir-Simpson scale over the years (they all could be separate articles in their own right on wikipedia), but NHC has rejected them all. That doesn't mean they shouldn't exist as their own articles. However, it does look like an advertisement, so I understand the tags being placed on the page. However, we may want to consider having a comprehensive article such as Tropical cyclone scales having a section having an overview of all related tropical cyclone scales. Wait a second, we do, and it's even going through the GAN/GAC/GAR process right now. Hmmmmm. => Thegreatdr (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, well that might be a good idea, then, merging to a place like that. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Largest Atlantic Hurricanes

Template:Largest Atlantic Hurricanes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search, and did not find an entry for discussion. This isn't be deleted merely because someone placed an improper citation in it, is there? The citation should be the extended best track database, which is within our project resources pages on the various sections of this project. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary to delete it. Maybe it can be done by HSI, radii of closed isobar, etc. Potapych (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like gale radii, but the values didn't quite match so I fixed the values in the table based on the extended best track database. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If some of those are tied I think we do 1,1, and then jump to 3,3... etc. but I'm not sure how they are arranged. Potapych (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um... HELP!!!

Sorry to call for help AGAIN but I have a problem on my 2009 Atlantic hurricane seasonsandbox... some of the text has dissappeared but I cannot find the coding that has made it dissapper... the text is still there in the edit box...

HELP!!!

User:Itfc+canes=me ^Talk Sign me! Its good to be back! 18:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]