Talk:List of California hurricanes

Northern California or farther north?

Are there any reports of any kind of land effects from a tropical cyclone in northern California, or in the Pacific Northwest? CrazyC83 19:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

No. Typhoon Frieda became a frontal cyclone way out in the Pacific and hit Vancouver Island and the Pacific Northwest in October 1962 I think, but the only thing that made it different from any ordinary frontal cyclone is that it was once tropical.

The systems on this page are not frontal cyclones that evolved from hurricanes. They are the non-frontal remnants that either were a non cyclonic airmass or still had a circulation when they hit. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, actually. Igancio redeveloped due to a shortwave aloft and TPC declared it extratropical due to a rejuvenation of central convection (what?! It's in their report though.) The cyclone lacked a surface front when it moved through northern California and the Northwest. Thegreatdr 21:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The central convection which persisted was entirely aloft, not at the surface. Elevated convection results from radiational cooling destabilizing a warmer moist layer such as that which existed in the remnant of Ignacio.Tmangray 20:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Rename

Since this article is a list I think it should correctly be called List of California hurricanes. Or maybe List of California tropical cyclones, since almost all of them were only tropical storms. Jdorje 05:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we could actually rename this to list of Western United States tropical cyclones. Some ePac storms affect Arizona without affecting California. Norma in 1970 is an example. They could be added to the list and keep it a featured list. I think that artificially dividing up what could be a long featured list into short ones that are closely related is a cheaty way of increasing their number. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds fine. We can do another rename once the list is expanded. Though I'm not sure if it should be "List of west coast hurricanes" or "List of United States West Coast hurricanes" or "List of Western United States hurricanes". (It should be hurricanes, not tropical cyclones, as for instance it is Category:Florida hurricanes.) Now on a related note, what should the category be: Category:California hurricanes, or is a larger category desirable? Jdorje 16:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

IMO, Category:Western United States hurricanes is the best name because we don't really need to seperate California and Arizona, right? Hurricane Nora (1997) would be the only one in the Arizona category, and it would also go in the California category. The only difficulties with this idea is the work with renaming category:California hurricanes and perhaps possible confusion with category:Hawaii hurricanes. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

There should be no title "California hurricanes" since there has never been such a thing, except POSSIBLY the storm in 1858 which anyway did not make landfall. We have our earthquakes, and hurricane envy is ridiculous. The most remarkable thing about California's summer weather is the ABSENCE of hurricanes thanks to the coldness of the offshore waters. Tmangray 19:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

References

I'm unfamiliar with the Notes way of annotating an article, and am using ref as it appears the article had already begun this transition per earlier discussion. If this is a problem, can someone with the know-how convert either the refs to notes or the notes to refs, to keep it consistent? Thanks. Thegreatdr 21:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Done, converted to <ref>s. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Todo

What's up with the broken references? Jdorje 20:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it... I used {{ref}} instead of {{note}}. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Because this is already a featured list, does this mean it is FA class? Hurricanehink 18:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Problem

When the page was moved, it caused a problem with the peer review and FA thing at the top. Is there any way to fix it? Hurricanehink 18:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it can be fixed by moving the peer review and FLC. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Hurricanehink 20:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No Hurricanes to list

This article is not a list of California hurricanes. There are none to list. The article was changed to a list of tropical cyclones many months ago. The text reflects this. I would be interested to hear arguments to the contrary, but it should remain as a list of tropical cyclones for now. Tmangray 19:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It should remain as a list of hurricanes for now because that is the format for all of the other such articles. It includes the remnants of Pacific hurricanes, so yes, it is a list of California hurricanes. The terms hurricane and tropical cyclone are fairly interchangeable in this basin, so why change it to a longer title when this is just as accurate? Hurricanehink (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No, tropical cyclone is a term which includes all closed low tropical systems, at all levels of strength. This is far more inclusive and accurate as to the tropical disturbances that have affected California. The title is grossly misleading. Not only has no hurricane ever made landfall in California, only one tropical storm has. This is the most important and remarkable thing about the subject. Is there a list of Kansas hurricanes? Why not? Many hurricane remnants have visited Kansas. How about a list of Alaska typhoons? The remnant of a typhoon struck Alaska last year. Until more than one hurricane actually makes landfall in California, having a "list" is absurd, and clearly unencyclopedic. Tmangray 19:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The title is not misleading, it is for North Atlantic tropical cyclones and Pacific hurricanes that affect California (though only Pacific hurricanes have done so). No, there isn't a list of Kansas hurricanes due to lack of information, but there could be a category for it. There's a category for Indiana hurricanes, California hurricanes, Florida hurricanes, Oklahoma hurricanes, etc., which are all part of Hurricanes in the United States. This is for continuity, not for the nit-picky exactness which isn't needed. Furthermore, one hurricane did produce hurricane force winds in the state. This list is not absurd, nor is it unencyclopediac. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree. If there are no California hurricanes, how can there be a list of them? The title is patently absurd. If there really is a "list of Indiana hurricanes", that is equally absurd. It makes far better sense to re-title the article "California Tropical Cyclones" as the meteorological term "tropical cyclone" properly covers all possible systems of tropical origin that ACTUALLY affect California. And any discontinuity in categorization should be adjusted to reflect factual information, yes EXACTNESS which is what an encyclopedia versus something pop-media aims to achieve. Anyway, I see nothing wrong with subsuming the category "California Tropical Cyclones" in the larger category "Hurricanes in the United States". THAT is where exactness is not so critical. But this article cannot be falsely titled as it is. Tmangray 04:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to call for a new consensus on the naming of this article. Tmangray 20:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You're likely not going to get it based on the discussion above. If you still have a problem, take it up with the National Hurricane Center, not us. --Coredesat 21:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on conversations with several guys over at the NWS who've shared a good laugh with me about the title "List of California Hurricanes" (that would be a list of zero), I think you're counting on the lack of traffic here, which is the only reason why the title hasn't already been changed. For the record, the NHC does not hold that even a single hurricane has made landfall in California, as the article itself accurately states. Nor do they classify storms that used to be hurricanes as hurricanes. They consistently refer to "remnants of". Based on their actual practice, the title might be "List of California Hurricane Remnants". Doesn't sound quite so dramatic as the current title, does it?

I propose the title "List of Tropical Cyclones Affecting California". This covers the gamut and isn't limited to ex-hurricanes (Pacific & Atlantic), but also ex-typhoons, and the far more common, relatively-speaking, ex-tropical storms. It's also not---well---silly. Tmangray 22:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not change the name of the National Hurricane Center to Atlantic and Pacific Tropical Cyclone Center? The main article is Pacific hurricane; ergo, List of California hurricanes is perfectly valid, and is certainly not false. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ergo? There are Pacific hurricanes ergo there are California hurricanes? Please. As for the NHC, their title includes the word "national". Hurricanes do make landfall in the United States, even if they don't make landfall (yet?) in California.Tmangray 23:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have also told you in the past that storms that had hurricane strength at any time are referred to as "hurricanes", and "hurricane" is a catch-all term to refer to tropical cyclones in the eastern Pacific basin. --Coredesat 22:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This is incorrect and ludicrous. Nobody at the NWS refers to an ex-hurricane as "Hurricane XYZ" without a qualifier except in the loosest conversation. The usual practice is to use the name of the storm plus the term "remnant". For example, "the remnants of Camille". Or if there was no direct hit, they would say "the outer fringes of Camille". When a hurricane is downgraded to a tropical storm, they don't continue to say, for example, "Hurricane Camille struck Kentucky", rather they would say "Tropical Storm Camille struck Kentucky". When an ex-Pacific typhoon is absorbed into a storm headed to California, we don't say "Typhoon XYZ struck California". We speak of the "remnants of (or the moisture from) former Typhoon XYZ".

A title which purports to be a list of hurricanes---sans qualifier---is misleading when the fact is, not one hurricane has ever made landfall in California. That's a most important fact.Tmangray 23:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

And I have to point out, the meteorological term "hurricane" is NOT a catchall term for tropical cyclones. It is a meteorological term which specifically refers to a certain defined level of strength of a tropical cyclone, (and geographically limited). Tmangray 23:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly offering a solution here, only a secondary issue; whether or not hurricane-type storms, by whatever name, have hit American California doesn't exclude the fact that such storms have hit Mexican California, i.e. Baja California, which is still California (in a different sense than the usual USian "state of California"). I'm not sure how many there were, but I do know that Loreto was destroyed "by a hurricane"; the Sea of Cortes and points south do get hurricane-type storms. Normally such storms, in the western Pacific, are of course called typhoons, and hurricanes are supposed to be Atlantic/Caribbean only....yet I know I've seen mention of them on the Mexican Pacific Coast; whether huricano or whatever the correct Spanish is is used, or another word, I don't know, but Baja California, if not Alta California (ie. the US state of California) has been hit by hurricanes, sometimes spectacularly. Didn't Cabo get nailed, in fact, just this last year?Skookum1 (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You'd probably want to see List of Baja California Peninsula hurricanes. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting....sounds like a merge proposal to me, given the absolute definition of California as including Baja California as well as Alta California (the US state); and no doubt many in these lists are, one would expect, a lot of the same hurricanes, or post-hurricane storms or whatever they're defined as; the distinction seems to be that when they land in Mexico they really are hurricanes, which they're not in Alta California.Skookum1 (talk) 07:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there are a few different ones, but more importantly, the information in this article is specific to the U.S. state of California. I see no need for a change. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Then it should say "the US state of California". Standard English usage may equate "California"="the US state of California", but it's something like saying "American hurricanes", given the wider context of "America" =/= "the US", but rather the whole New World; this isn't just in Spanish, btw; in England "he went to America" could mean Canada or Brazil (even when they know Canada isn't part of the US). It's just a fine-hair to pick at; I just think that given that the "rest of California" (Baja) does get hurricanes, and the "real California" really doesn't......I imagine there's a convention such that "California" always means the US state, as in History of California, but in technical terms the name does refer to unpartitioned California, not only the US state. Guess it would have helped if the Founding whatevers-they-are of US California had used "Alta California" or "New California" (as it was known then) instead of the short form, so as to avoid confusion with Mexican territory. But I suppose they were maybe figuring it might not be Mexican territory much longer, too....whatever; it's a nitpick, but given the title it seems to me that the List of Baja California hurricanes is gonna have crossovers this one (and its title doesn't need "Peninsula" in it; Baja California is a proper name, w/wo del Norte or del Sur.Skookum1 (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Typhoons in California

Perhaps we need a new article entitled as above to cover this subject, based on all the criteria argued above for this article. According to the National Weather Service, the remnants of Typhoon Min-Yi will affect the Bay Area today, [1] resulting in such dramatic effects as...increasing the fog layer. Tmangray 16:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The link says nothing about Man-yi, so nothing to worry about and no need to create a new article. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the link to what is no longer the current, but archived 5:30 AM discussion. So, let's get that new article started. I'll be sure to justify it with all the points you've made here. Tmangray 18:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Just as I updated the link, they posted a new current one. It looks like the link URL shifts every time they update. Just find the 5:30 AM discussion. Tmangray 18:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, here's what the NWS said:

FXUS66 KMTR 201218 AFDMTR AREA FORECAST DISCUSSION NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SAN FRANCISCO CA 530 AM PDT FRI JUL 20 2007 UPDATED AVIATION SYNOPSIS...CONTINUED UPPER TROF ALONG THE CALIFORNIA COAST IN THE EAST PACIFIC. NEGATIVE TILT TROF MAINTAINING MOISTURE INFLUX POINTS NORTH OF THE CENTRAL COAST FORECAST AREA BASED ON WV SATELLITE IMAGERY. NO PRECIPITATION EXPECTED LOCAL AREA BUT MID AND HIGH CLOUDS TO PASS OVER NORTHERN PORTIONS OF FORECAST AREA. HIGH PRESSURE DOMINATING SOUTHEAST CALIFORNIA EVEN AS NORCAL IS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THE EAST PACIFIC TROF. .DISCUSSION...FOLLOWING A MILD DAY ON THE CENTRAL CALIFORNIA COAST THE OVERNIGHT TEMPERATURES ARE RUNNING SIMILAR TO 24 HOURS AGO. WITH HIGH PRESSURE ALONG THE SOUTH-CENTRAL CALIFORNIA COAST AND A MOIST FETCH ACROSS THE PACIFIC GENERALLY NORTH OF N40 SOME LOW CLOUDS ARE FORMING ON THE WEST S.F.PENINSULA OVERNIGHT. EXTENSIVE STRATUS IS NOT IN PROXIMITY FOR FRIDAY MORNING ON THE CENTRAL COAST...BUT SOME LOW CLOUDS WILL BE SEEN AROUND DAWN IN THE SOUTH S.F.BAY AND THE PENINSULA. A MOISTENED ATMOSPHERE FROM THE LIKELY REMNANTS OF TROPICAL CYCLONE MIN-YI IS EXPECTED TO HELP REDEVELOP THE STRATUS FIELD ALONG WITH SOME PRESSURE RISES FROM THE MID-COAST SOUTHWARD GOING INTO THE WEEKEND. Tmangray 18:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There's not enough information to do so. Man-yi is only one storm, and an article shouldn't be created for one storm affecting the state. Furthermore, it doesn't even say it is definitively Man-yi. Again, no need to worry, and no need to create a new article. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You're incorrect. This is the remnant of Typhoon Man-Yi, it's affecting California. It could be included in this article re-named properly "List of Tropical Cyclones Affecting California", but alas, the lack of interest in this article precludes a proper consensus to make that change for the time being. Tmangray 18:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? The link you provided only said it was likely the remnants of Man-yi, and as far as I have seen it hasn't yet affected the state. It could be included in this article if there was some real impact. You are the only one that is concerned about the title, and it seems you are only concerned about this title. What about every other US state with an article such as List of Texas hurricanes, List of New Jersey hurricanes, etc.? What about every category being something like Category:Pacific typhoons, Category:Pacific hurricanes, etc.? What about the name of the National Hurricane Center? The NHC even includes Tropical Storm Allison in its list of retired hurricane names. It's called the Atlantic and Pacific hurricane seasons by the NHC and us. There is a consensus to keep it how it is, which is why there seems to be a lack of interest. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you completely ignored the discussion from the Eureka NWS office. The National Hurricane Center doesn't deal with typhoons. There are many articles listing typhoons for various areas. And there is no article entitled "hurricane", as it is subsumed---properly---under the title "Tropical Cyclone". Your arguments are flat, as is the consensus you claim. Your inflexibility in this is childish, but unless others post here to support the appropriate change, I will leave the title--ridiculous as it is--as is. Tmangray 20:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, excerpt from the Eureka NWS forecast discussion at 3:10 AM (apparently California also affected by rain, not just fog from Typhoon Man-Yi):

FXUS66 KEKA 201012 AFDEKA

AREA FORECAST DISCUSSION NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE EUREKA CA 310 AM PDT FRI JUL 20 2007 AVIATION...VAPOR ANIMATIONS DEPICT FORMER `MAN-YI` DEBRIS STREAMING EASTWARD AS AN IMPRESSIVE TRANS-PACIFIC PLUME OF ENHANCED MOISTURE NOW NOSING ONTO THE WEST COAST. THIS FEATURE WILL SEND A FAMILY OF CLOUDS ACCOMPANIED BY OCNL LIGHT RAIN TODAY THROUGH EARLY MONDAY ACRS NRN CAL. Tmangray 18:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, that "it's just one storm" argument is a loser. A number of typhoon remnants have affected California in the past. Here's a link to one about Super Typhoon Pongsona: [2]. Tmangray 19:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's hardly a losing argument. "A number of typhoon remnants have affected California"... How many? Even if you were so inclined to create a separate page, there'd be very few storms to list due to difficulties in verifying it. How long did it take you to find the link for Pongsona? I really hope you would just stop discussing it to death; this is my last post on the matter. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

How many? Well so far we've mentioned two. That's enough for a list. Heck, one possible hurricane that never made landfall has justified this article's title. Tmangray 20:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

contradiction

The 1858 San Diego Hurricane was a very rare California hurricane. It is the only known tropical cyclone to impact California as a hurricane, although other systems impacted California as tropical storms.

• and

A California hurricane is a tropical cyclone that affects the state of California. Usually, only the remnants of tropical cyclones affect California. No hurricane has ever made landfall in California in recorded history.

• huh?

tarotcards (talk) 04:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

According to researchers, the 1858 San Diego Hurricane made an abrupt change of direction just before making landfall in San Diego. It was still a hurricane at that point but never made landfall.

Varan619 (talk) 21:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

... and? 99.178.102.54 (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Greg's remnants

Did Hurricane Greg's remnants impact California? If so, should they be added to this list? 99.35.233.16 (talk) 05:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK Hurricane Greg 2011s remnants didnt impact California.Jason Rees (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Not 100% sure, but I do not think so. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Important Notice

@LightandDark2000: This is just an important notice regarding my recent edit of the removal of the 2013 Hurricane/Tropical Storm Kiko. I removed Kiko from the list and I moved it to the List of Arizona hurricanes. There are two main reasons why I did that, and they are related. Firstly, the text said that Kiko fueled the monsoon. There is no such monsoon in California––it is only in Arizona. Secondly, I looked at the reference used, which said that "heavy rain was recorded in Arizona while little or no rain was recorded in California". That supported my claim even more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.223.175.207 (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Another thing, according to the reference it was Tropical Storm Juliette that brought the rain, not Kiko. I have fixed that. Thanks, 73.223.175.207 (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Should page numbers be included in links of pdf files?

@Cyclonebiskit: I added page numbers to the links of the pdf file: "A History of significant weather events in Southern California" so that people don't have to keep scrolling down that reference to find the correct page where the information is located. Could you please check my edits and open the revised links and tell me if you like it better now, or if you liked it better earlier when the link opened like this. You can even call other users and check on their opinions if you have time. Thanks, 73.223.175.207 (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)