Talk:Hurricane Ida (2009)

Importance is low

Until there are reports of significant damage or flooding within Central America (or elsewhere), it is best to keep the importance of this article low, as it is now set. Minor hurricanes in November are not uncommon enough to assign more importance to the article. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ida is geting near category 3 and has already had record rains in Nicaragua. Importance is rising. Also, Ida is quite strong for a date this late with El Niño, and therefore it is much more important than before. All2341 (talk) 13:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment about November hurricanes during El Nino is noted...Ida is coming close to being unique in that regard. If it struck the Gulf coast at category 2 intensity, we could up the importance to Mid. Record for Nicaragua? What's the source? As far as any of us know, it is no better than the 7th wettest TC to impact Nicaragua, and that is based on incomplete information. It might not even be within the top 10 wettest. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A death toll of 91 is enough to upgrade this to mid importance. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, although unless the death toll climbs into the thousands, I wouldn't move it off the date, since it is unpredictable what warrants retirement in that region. CrazyC83 (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, Ida won't last that long and most likely will have a much lower death toll.All2341 (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The news reports appear to be confused. Ida was hundreds of miles from El Salvador. Severe weather indirectly influenced by Ida? Sure. A tragedy? Absolutely. But deaths CAUSED BY Ida??216.80.110.88 (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further on this, here's a bit from NPR's story: "Almost 7,000 people saw their homes damaged by landslides or cut off by floodwaters following three days of downpours from a low-pressure system indirectly related to Hurricane Ida, which brushed Mexico's Cancun resort on Sunday before steaming into the Gulf of Mexico." The key phrase here is INDIRECTLY RELATED. 216.80.110.88 (talk) 02:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now the CNN International story has been edited: "In El Salvador, at least 91 people died in flooding and mudslides, according to the government, but a low-pressure system out of the Pacific -- not Hurricane Ida -- triggered the disaster, forecaster Robby Berg of the National Hurricane Center said Sunday." I have modified the article text accordingly.216.80.110.88 (talk) 05:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then we'll go back to low importance. Those deaths need to be removed from the article. Thegreatdr (talk) 06:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Its situations like these that make me think we need a Current Importance button for WPTC.Jason Rees (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my note in my edit summary about why the El Salvador damage was added back into the article Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just confirming NHC forecasts, the deaths in El Salvador are completely unrelated to Hurricane Ida, as confirmed by satellite images that I've found. The images show another system forming over El Salvador on October 8 while Ida was well away from El Salvador: [1], [2], [3], [4]. 201.89.68.55 (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Record

I don't know if it count's as a big record, but Ida reached hurricane strength in November only 1 year after Paloma did in 2008. That marks the first time that a hurricane formed in November for 2 straight years since 1985-86. I don't know if it's very important, but if anyone else thinks it's notable, could it be put in? 76.29.112.198 (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be good. If you can prove you have not done OR. (from an un-signed in ITFC+Canes=me) 86.30.174.35 (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait, it is the first time that happened since 1998-99, when Nicole and Lenny formed, respectively. I don't think it's that notable now. 76.29.112.198 (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Image

Rapid Fire just took a new shot of the system however I do not have the software to flatten it out like what was done with Hurricane Freds image. -Marcusmax(speak) 18:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We might want to wait for an image where the eye clears out, which should happen fairly shortly. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed but if the eye does not clear out, this will likely be the best image while its entering the Gulf. -Marcusmax(speak) 18:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True. It's good to know it's there. We may use it as the main picture in the article. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New image uploaded and subsequently replaced the older image, however if a better version can be made or found by all means replace this one. -Marcusmax(speak) 19:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found even better image from GOES East, which shows the structure better and is most current. -Marcusmax(speak) 19:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have an NHC image -All2341(speak) 19:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History

The storm history section is a bit choppy. We might want to look over it an revamp it with some more effective sentences. (Tropical Cyclone K (talk) 11:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Rainfall graphics

They will be done by Monday. I'm going to have ignore the center jump for the graphics, but the graphics will show the track of both lows. Looks like original Ida's surface low disappeared after 06z on the 12th, which is likely the time (if not sooner) NHC will want to consider the system dissipated. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nor'Ida still active?

Ida's remnant extratropical low is still located near the North-Atlantic ridge, southwest of the Azores. Should we include some of this information or should we wait until the official NHC reports are issued? Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 01:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Ida Nor'easter article?

Since the storm did kill 6 people, affected a wide area, and caused alot of damage should someone go ahead and make an article about it? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, as of now, the Nor'easter was Ida so that is included in this article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The remnants of Ida redeveloped" How can it be from Ida if the storm redeveloped? The Nor'easter may have been caused by Ida but it was not still called Ida in the Atlantic at that time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hydrometeorological Prediction Center referred to the system as "the remnants of Ida" in all their advisories. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remnant low

It is said in the texte that the remnant low along the East Coast was a Nor'easter. This is not true as the low barely moved and the wind were from the East. A Nor'easter develop in a strong southwest circulation along the East Coast an move from around Cape Hatteras toward the Canadian Martimes and then off toward the Northeast. This sentence reference should be deleted.

Pierre cb (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still think an article should be made on the Nor'easter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone really disagrees, I think that we can sufficiently cover the nor'easter(or whatever it really was) article can be covered in this article, as the storm was directly related and mostly caused by Ida. Darren 23^Edits|Mail 23:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]