Talk:2008 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 4

GFDL predicts that 99L could be a basin crosser

Link. Cool stuff. Plasticup ^T/C 18:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, and it may be a two-named storm also, since it shows it weakening to a tropical depression. Nana gave birth also, 90L looks like a repeat of it though. From the looks of it, 15L should be named Omar later today, then it's a battle between 99L and 90L to see who gets upgraded first, if both do that is. :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of TD15, there are warnings out in PR so we ought to make an article on it. This is a busy week for me, so I can't do it myself. Plasticup ^T/C 00:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a sandbox for now. Until there is a definite impact, we should try to keep articles to sandboxes until they dissipate, to lessen the merging controversy and what not. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If it crosses with its circulation intact it keeps its name, so there would be two O storms in the Pacific (assuming it gets named and survives crossing). Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It would also be a record breaker (first Atlantic storm to retain its name while crossing in to the EPac. Jason Rees (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Why would we keep it in a sandbox until it dissipates? That's silly. Some of the best content comes from that surge of interest while the storm is active. Plasticup ^T/C 02:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Once the storm dissipates, there is little interest in the storm, and the article is left to be built up by one or two contributors. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Omars Sandbox: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Itfc%2Bcanes%3Dme/omar Itfc+canes=me ^{Talk Contributions} 16:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Done.... Itfc+canes=me ^{Talk Contributions} 16:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Omar article needed, ASAP. The storm is undergoing explosive intensification, looks eerily similar to Hurricane Wilma. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Omar (2008). –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, keep a very close eye on it (no pun intended), ADT is showing 78mph sustained winds, T#4.1 and the eye is become more and more distinct on infrared satellite. I can't keep up with it for the next 50min because of class, but I'll be back right after, due to free, then home. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

ATCF shows 70mph 982mbar. [1] Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If you think it will be big, take screenshots of the GOES images and combine 2 days of them into one long gif. Plasticup ^T/C 22:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Where can I get past images of Omar? Because I'm not going to be able to get images during the day because of school. Also, are these images [2] ok to use if I can't get the past images? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

ATCF upgraded Omar to a Hurricane, winds at 75mph 979mbar. tied for fastest from td to cat:1, 18 hours. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Nana Sandbox

Since we're doing articles on every storm, I've taken the liberty of starting a Nana sandbox. As I'll probably be unable to edit here for the next few days, I won't have time to finish it. That's why I'm announcing it here so you can finish polishing it up. (BTW, as the redirect Tropical Storm Nana (2008) already exists and points to the section in the main article, you might need a sysop to finish the move.) Thank you. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 06:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I was going to work on the one I started a little while ago this weekend...should I put it in mine and merge it with yours into the main link? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Mine is substantially closer to completion. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I'm going to have to hold off on it for a while, busy with other things. Keep up the good work with the article :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

With so little data to work from, we might have to wait until the TCR. CrazyC83 (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right. If it was published now, it would maybe be a minimal start or a maximal stub. When the TCR comes out I will add a little bit of discussion about how well or badly the cyclone was forecast. There is also a commented out sentence about how the name was not retired (as we all expect Nana to stay on the list) that will be commented out when the WMO has its meeting. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried to expand it a little bit, but wow, what a boring storm. :-) If it were published, I'd give it C, as there's really nothing to expand it with. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Boring storm you say? Sounds like a plan to me :) once I'm done with the MH of hurricane bertha, I'll expand the article to something along the lines of Tropical Storm Karina (2008). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that it was short-lived and not a land impacter, I would think Nana's TCR would come fairly quickly. CrazyC83 (talk) 05:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not think there is a need for the Nana article in the first place. If someone cannot

wright one in its duration they should be an article. Tropical Storm Erick (2007) was a test. Tropical Storm Karina (2008) was created do the the possibility of being downgraded to a depression, the first to do so since a storm in the 1970's unless if you count Ernesto. It was also quick for Cyclonebiskit to make. Karina is also one of the shortest storms ever. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox Happy Verdirins day 17:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

I have found vandalism going on in this article. It is on the season summary. Is it possible you could lock that part of the article? Some people are putting Gustav as a 130 mph storm, and both it's Cuban landfalls at 135 mph. They also put it's damage at 17.5 billion, and put Hanna's damage at 104 million. Can you lock this part of the article? It's rather annoying to see it. 76.236.187.191 (talk) 12:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Td 16 Sandbox

I have created a TD 16 sandbox... located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Itfc%2Bcanes%3Dme/sandbox/Tropical_Depression_Sixteen_(2008) Itfc+canes=me ^{Talk Contributions} 18:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge discussion on TD16

Tropical Depression Sixteen (2008) has a {{mergeto}} template on it. It points here, so I guess I'll kick off the discussion. As we saw from Tropical Depression Ten (2007), landfalling Atlantic tropical depressions can easily support articles, and I see no reason for this one to be different. It should be expanded, not merged. Plasticup ^T/C 11:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Not merge, wie 16 fatalities is that system notable on its own. --Matthiasb (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Just my personal opinion, but I'm in favor of merging until either the TCR comes out, or the article is significantly expanded. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The choices are expand or merge, not expand and merge. It won't expand if it is merged. Plasticup ^T/C 15:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that the article should be merged, and only re-created once expanded. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No merge. As usual with minor (weak/short lived) storms, I'll expand it :) I've just wrote the lead and I'll be working on the MH soon. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've finished expanding the MH. Only the preparations and impact need to be expanded now. Otherwise the article should hold on it's own :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Expand.... please... Itfc+canes=me ^{Talk Contributions} 19:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not good with impact and what not, but MH's and leads are what I'm good at :) hence why I make unnecessarily long MH's Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No merge. Notable with the casualties. 68.205.232.169 (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No Merge dont merge or expand it fine the way it is now. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox Happy Verdirins day 17:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you tell me what I am seeing here?

In visible satellite imagery at 36N, 47W at 15:45 UTC October 19. Looks like a small annular hurricane to me. Screenshot included. Plasticup ^T/C 23:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Remnant low of Tropical Storm Omar. -Ramisses (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, cool. I've been away for a little while and I didn't know Omar made it all the way up there. Pretty well formed for 36 North! 71.75.157.201 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've been wanting to ask a similar question. In the image on the right, it looks like there is a subtropical-like system E of Bermuda, NE of Hanna, and NW of Ike. It can't be any of the named storms, and it looks far enough south to have been subtropical, any idea what it is? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It was first an Invest between Hanna and Ike. Moving northwestward, it became a extratropical cyclone off the US coast. -Ramisses (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Hurricanes to retire for this season

And totally useless. Breaks the first law of WP:OR, not to mention the sub-laws relating to hurricane articles and talk page discussion. doktorb _words^deeds 03:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

For one thing Hurricane Hanna has a better chance of retirement then Fay, and we have no clue which storms will be retired. (Hurricaneguy (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC))

Not sure how this relates to article itself. Any discussion regarding retirement should wait until next Spring. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the Juliancolton guy; we wait till next Spring until we put the retirement paragraph on. Then again, I also agree with Hurricaneguy; Hanna does have a better chance of being retired than Fay, but both names could be retired. I would nickname Fay the "Allison of Florida", due to it's flooding there. If Fay is retired, it would be one of only 2 tropical storms to be retired, with the other being Allison. If Omar is retired, which i'm not sure about, then it would be one of 2 Atlantic hurricanes to be retired without causing any direct deaths, with the other being 1985's Elena, and it would have the least number of total deaths with any retired Atlantic hurricane if this happens, just to put up a couple of records for retirement if this happens. 76.236.179.230 (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

What about Dolly? 1.5 billion in damage. It could be retired...76.236.179.230 (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

As Julian said all talk about retirement in this basin should wait untill the Spring. However if you want to talk about retirement in about a month or so then hop on over to the WPAC Jason Rees (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been more than 3 months since Dolly hit, so 1.5 billion was most likely accurate. 76.236.179.230 (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

As for Fay, we don't have a specific damage total yet. Some of us here thought that from the 2007 season that Erin would be retired. Erin's damage turned out to be much less than initially feared, and the same could be true with Fay. I would agree that both Dolly and Hanna have a higher chance of retirement than Fay. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 00:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Probrably wrong. Damage in Brevard county in Florida alone totaled to 12 million, and Erin's damage toll was 25 million overall. 76.236.179.230 (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, this discussion has little or nothing to do with improvements to the article; please keep unrelated speculation on Wikia. Thank you. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we discuss about this after the season? Like in January? 76.236.187.191 (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This discussion, as Juliancolton has already stated, should not even be in this talk page. If you have any thoughts about retirement that do not have input for the article, i.e. speculations, put them on wikia Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was can we put this somewhere else like the List of retired Atlantic hurricane names. This was done with retirement of 2005. In February 2006, a guy said "what storm names do you think will be retired?" There was a discussion about this stuff there, so I meant is it okay to discuss that there? 76.236.187.191 (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's somewhat more relevant but still discouraged. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Could we still put this kind of message on that list after this year? What's wrong with it? 76.236.187.191 (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussions that do not pertain the to content of the article or are just for talking are discouraged on Article talk pages. The proper place that kind of conversation is on a designated wikia page or a user talk page. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Where is the wikia page? 76.236.187.191 (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

hurricane.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page That's the main page for the site. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. 76.236.187.191 (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Tropical Depression 17

The NHC have issued a model renumber... issuing model adviosrys on td 17... therefore I have created a sandbox... located here User:Itfc+canes=me ^{Talk Contributions} 20:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

2008 isn't La Nina?

Hi. The article says it isn't?! Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's been a neutral ENSO pattern, with conflicting signs in the SST field offshore Peru through the season. At one point this season, it was beginning to take on an El Nino look, but the SSTs in the central and western Pacific never responded to the changes out east. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? NASA Global Temperature Trends: 2008 Meteorological Year Summation reads: "The relatively low temperature in the tropical Pacific was due to a strong La Niña." And Met Office states: "Climate scientists at the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at University of East Anglia maintain the global climate record for the WMO. They say this figure is slightly down on earlier years this century partly because of the La Niña that developed in the Pacific Ocean during 2007." As far as I understand it, there was a significant La Nina until about the middle of 2008, and hence ENSO has been neutral. Nils Simon (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If this year was a La Nina, then the Pacific seasons wouldn't have been so active; the Pacific Hurricane Season had 17 storms, including Kika which is a tad above average, and the Atlantic Hurricane Season had 16. A Pacific Hurricane Season has about 9-13 storms or so in La Nina. 1992, come to think of it, was El Nino. The weather pattern changes each year, and in this case, it was destructive but neutral. 76.236.191.27 (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

TD 10?

Hi. I'm not sure where this info comes from, but on the Chinese Wikipedia version of this article, it says "Tropical Depression Ten formed north of Suriname on September 2, then dissapated on September 3. It gained maximum sustained winds of 45 km/h and minimum pressure of 1004 hPa." I have no idea where this info comes from, but is this an error, or is it possible it did form? Could it be mentioned in the final post-season analysis, and where does this info come from? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 02:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

its a mistake as TD 10L is JosephineJason Rees (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

might not a mistake.. depends who monitored the system. The number given to Maysak by CMA in the west pacific was designated TD10 and there has been more than ten depressions just not in that region. - グリフオーザー (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw nothing about a TD10 on the Chinese Wikipedia that isn't Josephine. -Ramisses (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Standby for records

If that storm that hit South Carolina back in September is upgraded (as it should be), 2008 will stand alone as the sixth most active season on record (behind 2005, 1933, 1887, 1995 and 1969). Only June did not see a major hurricane (that's never happened before). There have never been three consecutive storm names retired. If Gustav, Hanna and Ike don't do it this year, some people need to get lynched. Paloma just became the second latest Category 4 hurricane on record. Cuba got hit with 3 major hurricanes in a single season (also never happened before) and this list I'm sure will expand over the coming weeks. Ladies and gentlemen, the Atlantic is back. -- HurricaneERIC - Class of '08: XVII Maius MMVIII 07:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Eric has made a multitude of very valid points. I don't think we've had three consecutive candidates for retirement since 1955, with Hilda, Ione, and Janet (although only Ione and Janet were actually retired). And we have what, six candidates for retirement following this year? If Dolly, Fay, Gustav, Hanna, Ike, and Paloma are all retired, that'll smash 2005's record. I think that Eric and I have given enough reason to up this article's importance to High, and maybe even Top (although Top-importance might be a little iffy for this season). --Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 23:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

High importance should have already been given since this is the second costliest season on record. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Once the season Hits 19 Depressions then it will definatly be upgraded to High Jason Rees (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I also have Omar and Marco on my list then it would become top. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox[ 02:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I severly doubt that 2008 AHS will be top unless the names get to the Greek Alphabet again.Jason Rees (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a season should only get Top-importance if it surpasses 2005 (which would be downgraded to High-importance), as that should be reserved for THE most active season. CrazyC83 (talk) 04:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, the activity of a season has no corrilation to whether or not it deserves a spot as top importance. Even so, 1933 and 1995 were more active than this year, but those seasons aren't top articles. 99.52.153.15 (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I would think 2005 would stay top because of the devastation caused during the season, esp. Katrina. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it would break 2005's record, not to mention other records this season had set. We aren't even sure about how destructive Omar was. The storm off North Carolina which later recurved Hurricane Kyle might have not been a subtropical storm at all. The storm which formed in the far north central Pacific in November 2006 looked ominous, but it was only a possible subtropical storm, not actually one, and the same could be true with this one. This season could deserve a spot as a top-importance article because it was the second most destructive behind 2005. Only 3 Atlantic hurricane seasons, including this one, have had at least 50 billion in damage; the other 2 were 2004 and 2005, with 2004 being the third most destructive, the current year being in second place, and 2005, first. 99.52.153.15 (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Gah, please keep it on the Wikia, folks. Talk pages are for discussing the article itself. Not to serve as a forum. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

We were discussing about how important this article is. Some are saying it deserves a spot as a top-importance article. This is a MID importance article! This year had over 52 billion dollars in damage, over a thousand deaths, and set several records for early and late-season activity and you rate this a MID importance article?! It should deserve a high or top importance article, not a MID importance article! Even 1995 and 1933 are not as notable as this year, but those articles have a higher rating in article importance! 99.52.153.15 (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This is kept as a Mid importance article as the importance rankings are on number of depressions a season has - the standards here

1. {{Top-Importance}} - decided on a case-by-case basis
2. {{High-Importance}} - season had more than 19 storms
3. {{Mid-Importance}} - season had more than 14 storms, or was exceptional in some other way
4. {{Low-Importance}} - everything else

Jason Rees (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The number of storms in a season has nothing to do with the importance of the article. 1992, for example, wasn't very active, but is today considered the 4th most destructive season, behind 04, 05, and the current season. The 1930 season was very inactive, but is considered the 5th deadliest season today. You shouldn't judge a season by it's activity; you should judge it by what it really has. Why don't you do this? 1887 was very active, but because none of the storms that year were signifigantly notable, that year should deserve a mid or even low- importance article. You shouldn't care about whether or not a season is active or not; you should pay attention to the impact from it. It's like retiring a storm name that didn't affect land, but it formed in January. If a hurricane season had 25 or so storms, but none of them affected land and the storms were weak, you probrably wouldn't give it a top-importance article because no one was affected during the season. If a season had only 4 or 5 storms, but all of them caused catastrophic damage and dozens of deaths, you would rate it top importantce because it won't be forgotten for a long time. Therefore, in this case, I would rate this article top important, because it was very signifigant by damage and deaths. Why don't you agree? 99.52.153.15 (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll bring this up with WPTC and we'll get a consensus on this since it's becoming an issue. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I bet the notbily comes from the EPAC storms and Hurricanes Andrew and Inki. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox Happy Veterans day 02:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Because 2008 PTS has Double the amount of storms/Casualties than 2008 AHSJason Rees (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The 2008 Pacific typhoon season does not have twice the # of storms in the Atlantic; only 27 occured that year and 16 this year. There were over 1,000 casualties attributed to this season, and the Pacific typhoon season had at least 1,612. This season had more than 16 times as much damage as the typhoon season. What i'm saying is the activity of a season has nothing to do with it's impact. I'll give you an example:

• 1992 North Indian ocean cyclone season - most active season on record; few damages and deaths.

• 2008 North Indian ocean cyclone season - very inactive season; had over 146,000 deaths in the season and over 11 billion dollars in damage.

Which of these 2 articles would you rate top-importance? 76.235.222.163 (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The 2008 season by far, 1992 would be borderline high/top, but most likely high due to the lack of intense storms, which is usually the case for NIO. Also, the 2008 season is near average, 4 TS's one of which became a Very Severe Cyclonic Storm, marking the third year in a row that had one, a feat rarely achieved. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it marked the first time that a storm of at least category 4 strength formed there for 3 straight years. A very severe cyclonic storm has winds of 75 to 139 miles per hour (by IMD observations.) A storm's intensity has nothing to do with the importance of the article. I would give Hurricane Agnes of 1972 a higher rating than other storms, like Hurricane Cleo of 1958, for example. Agnes killed over 100 and did 2.1 billion in damage to the northeast due to flooding. Cleo was a category 5 which never affected any land. 76.235.222.163 (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

In other words, i'm saying a season's activity has nothing to do with it's rating. The 2007 NIO season is rated high-importance, but it should be top-importance. Same with other seasons, like the 04 AHS, 92 AHS, 99 NIO season, 91 NIO season, and this year's AHS. With PTS's, you should only rate exeptionally notable seasons top-importance. We should rate a season by it's impact - and this year is one such example. It should be top importance because of it's damage. Only 3 out of 157 Atlantic hurricane seasons since 1851 (including that year), have exeded having US $50 billion in damage; the only other ones are 04 and 05. That makes it exceptional - exceptional enough to give this season top-importance. 76.235.205.44 (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

There should only be one season with top-importance. That for now is 2005 (until it is broken). CrazyC83 (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

As with what I said, the activity of a season should not coorilate to it's rating in importance. Cyclone Nargis has a top-importance rating in it's article, so it's season should as well. If Hurricane Katrina was the only storm in 2005, would you rate it's season, 2005, top-importance, or would you not? 76.235.217.70 (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The 2008 North Indian Ocean cyclone season gets mid or high but definitely not top. If any season has that, it's 1970 due to the 1970 Bhola Cylcone. If Katrina was the only storm in the season, that season would probably get mid/low importance, mainly because the rating system is based off the number of storms. It is what it is, if things are in need of being changed, the project will discuss it as such. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess so, but other than 1970, 2008 could be the second worst season on record. Keep in mind that the final death toll from Nargis might never be known, possibly over a million people could have perished from that storm. If an Atlantic hurricane season had 30 named storms, but all of them were weak and none of the storms impacted land, the article should get a mid or low-importance rating because the season will not be remembered for a very long time to come. This year will be remembered for a long time to come because it's not every day you find a season like this one. This season also set a lot of records for early and late formation and also had a record # of landfalls, and I think that is good enough to make this year high or top-importance. It takes just one storm to form in a season to make that season memorable for a long time to come, and, in this case, Ike. Is there any big reason why you rate a season is rated by it's numbers, not it's powers? 76.235.217.70 (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The death toll from Nargis is almost finalized, 84,537 fatalities 53,836 missing. I'm just going by project standards. Personally, I feel that this year should be High Importance, it's not bad enough to be top (don't get me wrong, it was a really bad year), but that's not how the scale works. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but who even came up with the idea to rate a season like this? Why can't this policy be changed? If a storm doesn't affect land, it is of no importance whatsoever. I don't even get why a season is judged by it's looks. It's a bad way to rate it. Why can't this scale be changed? The number of storms in a season has absolutely nothing to do with the impact from the season (indeed, it is the case with some years, like 2005), but with other years, like 1887, it isn't. Just why is it like this?. 76.235.217.70 (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Nana needs it's own article

All of the other tropical cyclones of 2008, including the unnamed tropical depression, have their own articles, so why shouldn't Nana have it's own?--Snowman Guy (talk) 06:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I will make it soon--Kirk76 ^{1854 Atlantic Hurricane Season} 11:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Miss Madeline already has one in a sandbox, just waiting for the TCR before going further with it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Because it duration is to short to right one and is the only storm that did not effect land. TD 16 killed 22 people. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox Happy Veterans day 15:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You want "Articles For Every Storm" --Kirk76 ^{1854 Atlantic Hurricane Season} 19:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Every is not capitalized. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox Happy Veterans day 19:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Is that the name of an article, or are the quotation marks and capitalization merely gratuitous?--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not the point!--Kirk76 ^{1854 Atlantic Hurricane Season} 20:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes,I am fine with this leaving out a storm. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox Happy Veterans day 20:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Dare I reiterate my disagreement with creating articles on storms that did little more than exist? I've been overruled so many times, I just don't bother anymore. But my opinions haven't changed. -- HurricaneERIC - Class of '08: XVII Maius MMVIII 02:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Biggest problem with an article now is lack of information. Nana will definitely get an article, but it might have to wait for the TCR. CrazyC83 (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I just updated my sandbox to update the proto-article and incorporate references to the TCR. I can't move it myself because I'm not an administrator. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Best tracks issued?

Hi. I think the best tracks have now been issued, please take a look. Gustav up to 155 mph, Ike up to 155 mph and major hurricane landfall in Texas, and Omar category four. Can we update the articles now? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No, all of that (save the part about Omar) is false, please do not entire more vandals to this page without having ensured you checked the sources first. There's been a lot of numeric changes like that going on, sorry for the quick snippy response. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean that the best track numerical data (Gustav, Ike) often change after they're issued? ~AH1^(TCU) 00:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Where do you see 135kts on either of those two files? The highest I see is 125kts for both, however, Gustav remains at 130kts since it was an intermediate advisory thing. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The NRL Running Best tracks also have 125kts for Gustav and Ike. Jason Rees (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Gustav:

AL, 07, 2008083018,   , BEST,   0, 216N,  826W, 125,  943, HU,  34, NEQ,  150,  120,   75,  120, 1008,  250,  15, 155,   0,   L ...
AL, 07, 2008083018,   , BEST,   0, 216N,  826W, 125,  943, HU,  50, NEQ,   90,   90,   45,   60, 1008,  250,  15, 155,   0,   L ... 
AL, 07, 2008083018,   , BEST,   0, 216N,  826W, 125,  943, HU,  64, NEQ,   60,   45,   20,   30, 1008,  250,  15, 155,   0,   L ...
AL, 07, 2008083100,   , BEST,   0, 227N,  834W, 125,  948, HU,  34, NEQ,  150,  120,   90,  120, 1008,  275,  15, 155,   0,   L ...
AL, 07, 2008083100,   , BEST,   0, 227N,  834W, 125,  948, HU,  50, NEQ,   90,   75,   60,   60, 1008,  275,  15, 155,   0,   L ...
AL, 07, 2008083100,   , BEST,   0, 227N,  834W, 125,  948, HU,  64, NEQ,   60,   45,   30,   30, 1008,  275,  15, 155,   0,   L ...

Are these windspeeds in mph, or are they the windfield or something (sorry for any inconvenience)? ~AH1^(TCU) 01:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm almost positive the 155 are gusts. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It's also all in knots. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That column in bold is likely wind gusts. it fits with other data with 50 knots it says 60, 80 knots is 100 knots. - グリフオーザー (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Those are all false. The only BT that has been updated is Omar at 115 kt (which was well-hinted operationally as well). CrazyC83 (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Format for 2009 season

Given we still have people on here, I was hoping to initiate a discussion on the format of the 2009 AHS article. I believe there is a sandbox in place, but I was hoping for something different. What if we used the new format of season articles (2005, 2006, 2007) for the next season? The default is to convert it in the subsequent off-season, so why even wait till then? If we start straight away with the new format (having season summary, with just a few sentences on each storm, as well as an impact section), we could get new ideas with what to do, as opposed to just doing the default. Thoughts? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Using that format would be a bit tricky during the season. It's a bit more complex and may deter some people from editing. Also, when it's written in post-season, there is much more consistency in writing as (I think) very few people work on them. Also, what do you mean by "could get new ideas with what to do"? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea, but I say we wait until the TCRs come out so the information is verified, and the referencing is consistent. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2) I think staying as we are doing would be good but i maybe we should test this new policy out on one of the other seasons like the Australian Region or the South Pacifc before we change things here. Jason Rees (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, since things have calmed down on this article and a few TCR's are out, we could test it here to see what happens. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You're missing what I mean. I think that we are boxing ourselves in by using the list format. Earlier this season, having an impact section would've been great, when we had damage/death totals for the multiple Caribbean storms, but individually. It's not that much more complex, as it's simply splitting the info between the storm summary (which is where the met. history is) and the impact section. Additionally, we don't know how the public would react to it. Who knows, they might come up with some new ideas for the format, for sections to add, and ways to improve upon it. Hence my "could get new ideas with what to do." The public likely hasn't seen much of the new format, since it's always the list format they see in the current article. Basically, it's taking the old format, cramming the met. details into one paragraphs, and having an organized seasonal impact section. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ohhh, now I see. It makes much more sense now, seems like a good idea. Just reminded me of the effects on haiti thing that was discussed in September. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to un-merge the list article since I'm going to take a shot at this with Arthur-Dolly (May-July) and see what happens. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Before you do that, you might want to work on the format in sandbox. Juliancolton and I discussed this (and another user confirmed the position), that when doing the new format for the season article, you should actually move the old article to preserve the edit history. Think of it, the old version of the season article is basically the same as the list article, so the history should be preserved. Then, since the new format is basically a new article, why not call it that and move the new article in once finished? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I haven't saved anything on the main page just yet, so I'll copy what I have and put it in a sandbox. Also I brought back the list article and put the new info in it just so it's there for later. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous "Records"

I think things like this are ridiculous: "Other notable storms this year include Tropical Storm Arthur, which marked the first recorded time the Atlantic saw a named storm form in May in consecutive years, Tropical Storm Fay, which became the first Atlantic tropical cyclone to make landfall on the same U.S. state on 4 separate occasions;" What is so notable about that??? These "records" are all just made up and not interesting or notable to anyone. You can't call every second storm "notable", it just devalues the notion of "notable". I suggest to delete all this nonsense and only call "notable" things that _deserve_ to be noted...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.250.238.104 (talk • contribs)

Arthur was the first tropical storm to form in May since 1981 and Fay set a record by making landfall on Florida 4 times! There is no nonesense in these records--Neka 2008! 16:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Although some of the facts may well be notable, I would tend to agree that there is far too much "first time since...", "second time since...", etc.
Many purported facts are indeed statistical nonsense, the cited example and "only season in recorded history to feature a major hurricane (Category 3 or higher) in every month from July through November" – statistically they were certain to happen at some point, so frankly who cares?
Also, measuring damage in dollars is pointless without adjusting for inflation – if this has been done, it should be noted – otherwise the figures are almost certain to increase with time.
Inline citations for any "facts" wouldn't go amiss either, or are they in fact WP:OR?. --bigissue (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Statistically, everything is certain to happen at some point. Some of these are noise, but the only season in recorded history to feature a major hurricane in every month between July and November is interesting, a regular and abnormal pattern of major hurricanes. I'd agree Arthur is less than interesting, but while the record for Fay is a bit artificial, the pattern isn't; instead of hitting and running, Fay threw the car in reverse to back over Florida a couple times, which is pretty unusual.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This should give a closing to this conversation. Records via Dr. Jeff Masters (WUnderground.com). Some are notable, others are not.

Records

• 6th most active season on record with 16 named storms
• 25th most hurricanes in one season with 8 hurricanes
• 9th most major hurricanes with 5 major hurricanes
• 24th highest ACE with an ACE of 141. (Note My calculations using the best track and the running best track have this years ACE at 144, 6 short of hyperactivity)
• 13th highest named storm days with 84.75 days with a named storm
• 40th highest hurricane days with 29.5 days with an active hurricane
• 28th highest major hurricane days with 8.5 days with an active major hurricane

Other Notable records for 2008

• Fourth costliest hurricane season on record ($21 billion dollars in U.S. damage, according to ISO's Property Claim Services)
• First time major hurricanes have been observed in five separate months (Bertha, Gustav, Ike, Omar, Paloma occurred in July, August, September, October, and November, respectively)
• First time six consecutive storms made U.S. landfall (Dolly, Edouard, Fay, Gustav, Hanna, and Ike).
• First time three major hurricanes have hit Cuba (Gustav, Ike, Paloma)
• Costliest hurricane in Texas history (Ike, $16.2 billion)
• Second deadliest U.S. hurricane since 1972, and 26th deadliest in history (Ike, with 82 dead)
• Highest wind gust ever measured in a hurricane over land (Gustav, 212 mph in Pinar del Rio, Cuba)
• First storm ever to make four landfalls in one state (Fay, in Florida)
• Second strongest November hurricane (Paloma, 145 mph winds)
• Smallest tropical cyclone on record (Marco) (Note TCR verified that it was the smallest tropical storm, Cyclone Tracy still holds this record)
• Longest-lived July hurricane on record, longest-lived hurricane so early in the season, longest-lived tropical storm in July and so early in the season (Bertha, which was a hurricane 7.75 days, eclipsing the previous record of 7 days held by Hurricane Emily of 2005. Bertha was at tropical storm strength for 17.25 days).
• Farthest east forming tropical storm and hurricane for so early in the season (Bertha)

Others

• Second strongest storm to affect Grand Turk Island, South Caicos Island, and Great Inagua Island, Hurricane Ike- Cat:4 135mph

Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Actually, I do think the Arthur record could be trivial, only in that we likely had a tropical storm hit Haiti in May 2004, and other May systems since 1981 could have been named/numbered, but weren't, for unknown reasons. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

But... there is still a need to establish notability of any facts before including them in the article, all the while ensuring reliable sources are cited – blogs are not considered reliable sources, as you are no doubt aware.
As for your "Others", as interesting as it may be for those that live there, start down that road, and you could fill a library with useless crap. --bigissue (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, agree that blogs aren't considered reliable sources, but this blog is used throughout this article since Dr. Masters is a meteorologist. However, most of these records aren't that notable. The big ones (IMO) I've bolded in the list above. Mainly the "other notable records" seem to be the big ones. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

From what i have read i believe that certain blogs run by proffessionals like the BBC or the Hong Kong Observatory are fine Jason Rees (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

While the reliability of blogs is usually low, not all of them are inherently non-notable, namely those written by proven experts. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I put the other notable storms include, yada, yada, yada part. But Fay and Marco were #1 storms by their records, which is why they should be there. Paloma was notable in several ways and Omar, though not mentioned there, was only the 3rd hurricane on record to hit the leeward islands from the southwest side (the other 2 were Klaus of '84 and Lenny of '99), which makes it notable. But as typed above, this season has had several #1 records, but there is no need of saying it had the 28th highest # of days with major hurricanes or 40th highest number of days with hurricanes, because that's too low of a ranking to be notable. We're not even sure what retirement records this year might have, but that is yet to be announced. 76.235.217.70 (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Official records have been released. [3] Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Cyclonebiskit, only at least all of the official records are out. Come spring, retirement records could be set. We'll wait, though, on that. 76.253.127.25 (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

End of season?

I'm not sure that we should officially put the summary up and all yet. I think we should wait until January of 2009 to do it because a subtropical or tropical storm could still form in December. Therefore, it would count as part of the '08 season. Anyone agree? 76.236.181.2 (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Theres no harm in putting a seasonal Summury in now but it needs to be in a seperate section. Also to get this article up higher on the WPTC assessment scale the lead needs shortening down to 2 or 3 paragraphs. Jason Rees (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked, the lead can be up to 4 paragraphs for wikipedia articles. The first two could be easily combined. I agree with Jason regarding the annual summary being added at any time. Once this is added, and the lead down to 4 paragraphs, we could probably upgrade the article to C class. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 03:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Dealt with the apparent problem. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Same record put twice

One record in the summary has been put in the summary twice. It says in the second paragraph that "2008 was the fourth busiest year since 1944 and was the first season to feature a major hurricane in every month from July to November", and the last sentince of the last paragraph says "2008 is the only season on record to feature a major hurricane (Category 3 or higher) in every month from July to November". I think one of the 2 should be removed. Anyone Agree? 99.52.152.91 (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it was removed. -Ramisses (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

When I put it in (the first instance) there was a reference... I'm not sure who put in the other one. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The other one was put there before you added it, Andrusha, but there was no reference to prove it. It shouldn't have even been put there in the first place by then. 76.235.165.167 (talk) 03:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Restore 2000 Look

I dont know why but ever since 2001, the seasons have been put in a summary by month. The List of storms says the same thing as the summary does, as well as the storm articles themselves and I dont see why it needs to be put down a third time. I have heard it was because of 2005 and the large number of storms that year, okay if thats the case there should be a cutoff on how many storms there are in a season for the article to have a monthly summary, just look at 2006 when there was only 10. Knowledgekid87 17:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a much better format. The impact and Meteorological history are separated (save 2005 which needs to be fixed), allowing for easier structuring of the articles. The list keeps each storm separate and doesn't have a defined impact section (as it is split into each storm). The old format is still kept as you have stated but it is not used as the final format anymore. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on, but I prefer consistency of the old look which includes all pictures and tracks. I don't think making articles for every storm is a worthwhile goal, and I also don't think any articles should be converted if they cover dates before the widespread availability of internet sources. How can a timeline be complete if all the information has already been reanalyzed? This would limit it to 1998 (or maybe 1996) Potapych (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It depends season to season, one for 1994 has already been done, which is at FAC, but it most likely wont go any further back. The old format is used in the Lists article as previously stated. The article for every storm isn't really a goal, it just happened. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Edouard Is edward Can some change that?

I looked up edward on google and I only say one thing that said edouard! can some change that it will take a will though! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.9.101.200 (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Edouard isn't edward if you look at seasons 84, 90, 96, and 02 edouard had been the specific name for the naming list not edward. The luigi kart assasions 2:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

When will the next TCR be released

I know it's been three week's but shouldn't another TCR have been released now and I have been waiting for another one but they need to post one up so we could finish the 2008 ahs article. The luigi kart assasions 8:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There was a TCR released a couple of days ago by the NHC. Dont forget they have untill April to get their reports done, and they are reliant on any reports from NMHSS.Jason Rees (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, most of the remaining ones are likely to be long due to increased data and impacts and longer-lived storms. Hanna probably took a while to compile, and those of Fay, Gustav and Ike (and to a lesser extent Dolly, Omar and Paloma) will also take a while. Laura is likely the only quick one left in the Atlantic. CrazyC83 (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If for a long time no TCR had released, NHC is probably working on a long one. HurricaneSpin (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe 2 TCR is coming out. I think is Dolly and Laura will coming out soon. HurricaneSpin (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

We aren't sure about anything, HurricaneSpin. There is no timescale for the TCR; it might not come out until the last second, by April. 76.235.207.61 (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, the TCR has no deadline. Season summaries can be (and are) released well before the various TCRs are issued. People are only saying April after the 2005 season and Erin in 2007. Before that, they were generally done by January or February. Speculation about release of TCRs should be constrained to the Hurricane Wikia, as the lack of a TCR as of a certain date is meaningless to this article itself. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Um Thegreatdr i said April as thats when the WMO is meeting for this region Jason Rees (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In the grand scheme of things, a chili contest in April is just as meaningful to the production of the TCRs as the WMO meeting, where only a general summary of the previous season is presented (and pretty much all that information is available in December). There is no requirement for the time of issuance of TCRs. One would think that with twice as many hurricane specialists employed over the past few seasons, they'd be coming out quicker rather than more delayed. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I was ACCURATE!! [[4]] HurricaneSpin (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ike's report is coming out!!!!!! HurricaneSpin (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I said is going to be a longgggg one!!!! HurricaneSpin (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Please keep comments like those to hurricanes.wikia as they are not useful towards the improvement of the article, nor is this a site for regular talking. Thanks. Cyclonebiskit 19:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ike's size

Why does it say that the tropical storm-force winds extend out to 600 miles? The reference (WU) says it extended out to 550 miles. Weatherlover819 (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Because someone either used to blog to come up with this number (which isn't supposed to be allowed), or they merely doubled the maximum extent in one radius, and doubled it. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Weatherlover819 (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected?

Hi. Why is this article like this? There doesn't appear to be any problems going on in it - exept recent TCR's (Dolly's and Ike's). Why is it locked from edits? 76.235.170.181 (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It was protected to prevent vandalism and unsourced changes, but the semi-protection has since expired. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)