Talk:South Atlantic tropical cyclone

What makes this storm odd?

This article isn't really clear on what's so odd about the storm. Is it because of the location, or because of the date? Also, what is defined as the Southern Atlantic?

It's odd because it was in the south Atlantic. We don't have an article on the South Atlantic specifically (and probably don't need one). Seasonally, March in the southern hemisphere could be called equivalent to September in the northern hemisphere, smack in the middle of the peak of our hurricane season, so if a cyclone is going to form in the South Atlantic March is not an unusual time for it to occur. What we could use is someone to do a bit of research on precisely WHY cyclonic storms are so rare in the South Atlantic; I suspect it has something to do with currents and trade winds and so forth but a guess is not what we're looking for. Thehappysmith 21:12, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This picture is awesome. Show this to the non-believing Brazillian government and see if they still think it wasn't a hurricane. [1]

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 20:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since you are a hurricane enthusiast, you should be able to see that the hurricane is rotating in a clockwise direction by the shape of the cloud formations which are in the mirror-image of a comma.

The meteorologists who are employed by the National Weather Service in the U.S.A. know that hurricanes begin in Africa. A mass of hot air will slip out of Africa into the North Atlantic Ocean and generate a trough of low pressure called an EASTERLY WAVE. Clouds develop in Easterly waves. Easterly waves are visible on satellite photographs when they are about 500 miles (800 km) off the coast of Africa.

Africa is less wide in the Southern Hemisphere, therefore, less hot air is produced there to generate Easterly waves.

Easterly waves drift across the ocean along with the trade winds. Only a small percentage of Easterly waves develop into hurricanes.

The North Pacific Ocean sees more hurricanes than does the North Atlantic. The Indian Ocean is the host of many hurricanes, too, which have wreaked havoc in Bangladesh at the Bay of Bengal. 20:49Z June 1st, 2005.

Uh, yeah, I know. What's the point of telling me this?

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 17:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wish that this would say just why the Brazilian government didn't think it was a hurricane. They had to have had some sort of scientific evidence that challenged it somewhere rather than just make baseless claims, since nobody isn't going to think that it's a hurricane just by looking at it. bob rulz July 6, 2005 15:23 (UTC)

Isn't propaganda its own reason? They have long been a country that never had to deal with hurricanes - it's a psychological blow. --Golbez July 6, 2005 15:50 (UTC)

I found some great satellite animations of the storm. [2]. This site has a lot of great imagery on it [3]

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 02:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The Brazilian Meteorologists didn't say it was a hurricane because Meteorology is lame around here. Sorry to troll, but that is fact. I, for one, know of several people that work with it in my University, and it's almost a toy-dept. Most people don't even know, for example, that there are places where it snows every year, that there are Tornadoes in Brazil, and things like these. It doesn't take more than a tourist trip to US to notice how different people treat Met. here and there. Most people around believe Met. is only for telling if they should go to the beach or if it's gonna rain in the weekend. :( nihil 10:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Storms are so rare in the south Atlantic because of strong shear and cooler waters. That simple. Incidentally, the occurrence of tropical systems where Catrina tracked is predicted by some climate models. There is a lot of information in the two sources I have listed in the article, including the exceptional conditions that allowed the system to form (and I plan to add content time permitting). The Brazilian weather service (Weather Forecasting and Climatic Studies Centre) refused to acknowledge that the system was tropical because of denial of reality, not any empirical evidence; none had been observed before and textbook meteorology says tropical cyclones don't form in the south Atlantic. Meteorologists at the Climaterra Institutes of Santa Catarina and of Santa Catarina University did recognize that it was tropical. So did the NHC, who classified the system, and called the Brazilian government to no avail (they also called some Brazilian radio stations who then gave proper warning). The Brazilian government now admits it was a hurricane. Evolauxia 22:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the shear argument, but I submit it is more of a lack of disturbances than cool ocean. The waters in the tropical south Atlantic are warm enough for tropical cyclone formation, although the area is of warm water is admittedly smaller than it would be in the North Atlantic and most other ocean basins. You can see the SSTs in the south Atlantic at this link: [4]. Even today (in their very late fall/early winter), 26C water extends far enough away from the equator in the south Atlantic to act as fuel for any possible systems. Thegreatdr 15:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Separate Catarina article

I (strongly) propose a seperate article for 'Hurricane Catarina'. I'm a meteorologist and can attest that this was an exceptional event; and there is so much information that its own article is strongly warranted. Evolauxia 16:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Second to a new article. Maybe not Hurricane Catarina, but a Cyclone Catarina article would work. This could cover all bases. It may not have been a tropical cyclone, but it was a cyclone of some sort. In addition, don't they call hurricanes cyclones down there? Hurricane Catarina sounds too North Atlantic/EPAC oriented. Regardless, an article should be made. Hurricanehink 16:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I third the notion. Cyclone Catarina. -- RattleMan 22:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Done! At least it's a good start, IMO, for a Cyclone Catarina article. Hurricanehink 02:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that article is a good start and will probably become the best common and well-known source of information on this cyclone on the 'net. When I suggested the new article name I put Catrina in quotes because of the uncertainity on what to name it, but I realize it could look like I was proposing that specific name, sorry for the confusion. It most certainly was completely tropical in nature as is any other tropical cyclone found in any other basin. This is the first storm observed in the western south Atlantic Basin, as such I don't believe there are any naming conventions for what the systems are called, therefore, cyclone is appropriate. Some climatological models have predicted that this would occur and that more activity is likely in the future. Here are some more resources for editors, I intend to add content myself as I have time (I added the Geophysical Research Letters paper and Brazilian conference paper as sources in the main article already).

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=16505

http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/catarina.html

http://trmm.gsfc.nasa.gov/publications_dir/south_atlantic_cyclone.html

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/gallery/?2004087-0327

http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/media/spotlight/brazil_hurricane.html

Atlantic hurricanes versus Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclones

All current categories for Atlantic hurricanes are for North Atlantic hurricanes. There are several good reasons why this TC should be lumped in with the southern hemisphere basin instead of the N Atlantic basin:

• Season. The southern hemisphere seasons span 2 years since they run through the southern summer (i.e., the northern winter). If you lump this into the north atlantic season it ends up in the 2004 season and becomes (erronously) one of the earliest-forming storms.
• Naming. North Atlantic storms are hurricanes. The name for this storm is apparently given as "Cyclone Catarina", though I don't know why.
• Areas. The Northern Atlantic basin is well-defined. The Southern Hemisphere basin (as the name implies) covers pretty much all of the southern hemisphere (though this is the only South Atlantic storm in the list).

Jdorje 22:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Completely agreed. I made it a cyclone Catarina article intstead of Hurricane Catarina for 2 reasons. One, due to the dispute over whether it was a tropical cyclone or not, it was at least a cyclone of some sort, be it extratropical, subtropical, or tropical. Two, hurricane is a northern hemisphere thing. I'm sorry if I was too bold on calling it a cyclone, but all Southern Hemisphere storms with 74 mph winds or greater are called Cyclones. Hurricanehink 00:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

It definitely became fully tropical (from initial extratropical to subtropical to tropical, a series of events that occurs in the formation of tropical systems in any of the basins). Catarina was no different than any other tropical cyclone with winds at least 74 mph, one just has never been observed in the southern Atlantic before. All southern hemisphere tropical cyclones may be termed cyclones, however, I don't know that's an official convention for the southern hemisphere (though it may be, please cite something if so), rather mere regional coincidences. Hurricane is not a northern hemisphere thing if speaking globally as you know with typhoons the official term in much of the Pacific; and the only reason there is no official term for southern Atlantic tropical cyclones is it's not an area usually conducive for their formation (indeed, again this was the first such system ever observed) thus there was no need for monitoring of this area or naming conventions. Tropical cyclone is the general catch-all term agreed upon internationally, but since in some usages of that term includes all tropical systems, cyclone is fine with me. I've noted the lack of official term in the article. I agree that it should not be lumped in the north Atlantic Basin; though all due effort should be made to denote its anomaly that it's not part of the other southern basins. Evolauxia 21:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

which[Cyclone Catarina] is named after the region it stuck in Brazil. It has also been called by the name "Cyclone Aldonca." —Preceding unsigned comment added by IdahoPotatoFarmer (talk • contribs) 00:07, December 21, 2005 (UTC)

Depression in December '04?

What? Where did that information come from? The Subtropical storm too. Where did all that stuff come from? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Improvement drive

Hurricane Katrina has been nominated to be improved by WP:IDRIVE. Support it with your vote and help us bring it up to featured standard! Vote here. --Fenice 12:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Todo

Only thing hugely missing is inline sources. For an article like this that jumps between topics it's important each topic be associated with relevant sources. Jdorje 22:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Tropical Storm in February 2006?

Over on the Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season page it seems to have been established that a tropical storm formed just a few days ago. Should it be added here? —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 19:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

We need an official statement on it. If not, then it wasn't notable enough for mention. --Golbez 20:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Who would issue this official statement? — jdorje (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as we know, it wasn't a tropical storm - AFWA and the HPC noted that it was a warm-core tropical low, but it was never declared a depression, and Dvorak numbers never indicated wind speeds higher than 25 kt. --Coredesat 23:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no one around to declare it a depression there... CrazyC83 00:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

No one declared the January 2004 storm, and this one at least has Dvorak estimates. Hurricanehink 00:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

To the contrary, it received unique designators from several sources, like 50L.NONAME from the US Naval Lab, and 01T-ALPHA from the UK Met. Being 90L.INVEST is not a unique identifier, that's the whole point, if an invest doesn't mature then it was just another storm. We are not here to make pronouncements - if a weather journal or meteorological office mentions it in a standard/press release, then we should, but til then, it was exactly what it was - a storm being INVESTigated for tropical cyclone characteristics and possibilities, and which did not reach it, thus being just another warm, vaguely spinning mass of clouds. --Golbez 01:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You're talking about Catarina, not the January 2004 storm... CrazyC83 02:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Hm. Yeah, that dearly needs sources, or it should be deleted. --Golbez 04:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It may not be possible to find "official" sources since there is no official body. But we do need *some* sources. IIRC most sources for Cyclone Catarina are from university researchers; the WMO has information about it and I'm sure it was covered in journals and such. — jdorje (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

While not an official source, wunderground called it a tropical depression, citing the following:

Satellite images and wind measurements from the Quikscat satellite show that a rare tropical depression in the South Atlantic probably formed for a few hours today, but the storm has since been sheared apart by strong upper-level winds, and is not a threat to re-develop. Although the storm was tropical, had a closed circulation, and winds of up to 35 mph (according to the Quikscat satellite), it only had those characteristics for about three hours today. The National Hurricane Center usually does not designate a system as a tropical depression unless it can hold together for at least six hours. The system formed near 29S 36W, about 600 miles southeast of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, over waters of about 27 degrees C--well above the 26 C threshold needed for tropical storm formation.

Closed circulation, 30 knot winds - definitely a tropical cyclone to me... CrazyC83 02:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It's okay to mention, just use sources like some have said; no original research. There were a few "official" statements made, go from that without adding anything original, mainly, don't clasify it a depression or anything unless an official source does. They would have done so if they thought it prudent, agencies were certainly aware of its existence. Evolauxia 07:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

If we do put it up, I have some great images to use. Weatherman90 17:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if similar systems have occurrred several times in the past, or say since the satellite era. If it is mentioned, just list it providing images and just what is known on the facts; but don't say it was unique, as it just happened to be seen by someone closely watching things and others could and likely have been 'missed'. Although there are (scant) agency reports to go from, it's atypical to mention what was only a strong wave that was likely tropical. That's all we really know in that is what I've seen for 'official evidence'. Evolauxia 09:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Very true. However, Dvorak reports would probably justify its existence on Wikipedia. In addition, this blog can be used as a source. Hurricanehink 16:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe this should be put on Wikipedia too. This is a very odd case. On another note, did anyone see the odd eye-like feature in this system? It is severly doubted to be a true eye, but it's interesting nonetheless. -- RattleMan 16:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, in brief measure. They need to start naming storms in the South Atlantic though... CrazyC83 02:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

There's a nice picture of it from NASA. [5] Why do they call it Tropical Cyclone Carina? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Good kitty (talk • contribs)

Um...that's not the tropical cyclone we're talking about, from the South Atlantic. That's Tropical Cyclone Carina from the Southern Indian Ocean. It recently reached 130 knots and 910 mb, a true monster. Definitely not from the South Atlantic, no way. -- RattleMan 22:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Another one???

Thanks to someone over at Storm2k.org, there appears to be another possible one just off the Brazilian coast. You can see it in this image. Hurricanehink 13:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Guess not. Poof! Hurricanehink 16:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

SubTropical storm section

Not to denigrate Jeff Masters at all, but he's only one meteorologist. Do we really need this section without official pronouncements? --Golbez 03:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There's no way to get truly "official" pronouncements. But I agree that one meteorologist's blog is not enough of a source to justify an entire section. — jdorje (talk) 04:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Something from local meteorologists maybe, or any pronouncement from any official body? (like Catarina got) We can't record every swirling cloud in the South Atlantic. --Golbez 19:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

"Official" sources are hard to come by, especially since there is really no precedent for them to do so (1 hurricane-like storm in how many years?) Additionally, as with the US, government bodies need to be mindful of how they classify and warn about weather features so as not to panic their residents (or in some cases insurance carriers). You could consolidate the links into external links in the paragraph above, eliminating the need for the section, however (IMHO). Ccmhg 16:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

January, 2005

Hink linked to Gary Padgett's mention of a January disturbance. Not that I have a PhD, but this looks pretty good. I've been studying images of hurricanes for the better part of three years now and that looks pretty tropical to me. I'm usually pretty skeptical of Padgett; writing a report on everything that moves, but this time I have to agree with him. If we can have a section on Jeff Masters' storms, then I think this Gary Padgett one deserves a 'possible tropical/subtropical cyclone' section too. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 01:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As that image seems to be the work of the NOAA, consider uploading it to the Wikimedia Commons using {{PD-USGov-NOAA}}. Yonatan ^talk 07:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

January Subtropical cyclone of 2009

2009 Subtropical Cyclone, is there any source about it? I looked up the satellite and don't see much going on. And this may look like one [6]. HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 00:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Gary Padgets January summuary is the source - [7] Jason Rees (talk) 00:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This one might also be a tropical cyclone, it look no different than a sheared up storm in SPac.[8] HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 01:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh, they really are bending the definition of "subtropical". Here's an image after landfall, only one i could find. -Winter123 (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Anita's Article

I think that Tropical Storm Anita deserves an article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.35.176.22 (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It's in the works. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Current storm (90Q)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/2011 SATL - here's a sandbox in case we'll need one. Otherwise, that'll be what we'll put in the section. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey!! Please, be careful with the information being published! Part of the given description DOES NOT correspond to Invest 90Q (Arani), neither the photograph!! The article begins with the description of a very short lived subtropical storm which took place in southern Brazil, eastern Uruguay and adjacent Atlantic ocean (near 34S, 53W) [the picture refers to that system] from March 10 to March 11. Arani IS currently taking place in south-eastern Brazil, more than two thousand kilometres from 34S, 53W. Please correct the information, in order to make it reliable. Thanks. Gonzalo.