Jump to content

Talk:2013 Atlantic hurricane season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured article2013 Atlantic hurricane season is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Good topic star2013 Atlantic hurricane season is the main article in the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 26, 2015.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 3, 2014Good article nomineeListed
June 17, 2014Good topic candidatePromoted
July 19, 2014Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

other countries

[edit]

How about the probabilty of a storm hitting not only the US coast, but any other? 189.208.43.134 (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about you being more clearer about what you are asking. From what I understand, you want to know why the U.S. is really the only country included in this article. Before I answer I would like a clearer question. United States Man (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Barbara crosses over...

[edit]

It is looking like there is at least a chance of such. How would a Barbara crossover (maintaining its name) be treated in this article? It would be uncharted waters in the Wikipedia era... CrazyC83 (talk) 04:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be like a normal storm. We'll note the origins of it (aka brief history of its time in the EPac) and continue with more detailed information on time in the Gulf. Also depends how the NHC treats it. If it becomes/stays a TC in the Bay of Campeche, it'll either just be Barbara, or be Barbara-Andrea. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the wording of the 8 am PDT advisory, it should NOT be added as an Atlantic storm at this time since although it is near the Gulf, it may not be a TC anymore based on the discussion and the wording is ambiguous on where it is actually. CrazyC83 (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. They're still treating it as an East Pacific storm so we do the same. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its worth noting though that the JTWC reported that Babs had left the EPAC, even if the NHC reckons it didnt enter the GoM.Jason Rees (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I don't think worth including in the Atlantic season article (yet). Not until/unless the BT says Barbara crossed over. In that event (if it was remnants or something of the like), I think Barbara should be covered in the season summary, and not get its own section, since it's looking like it won't be counted as an Atlantic tropical cyclone in 2013. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lets wait and see what happens over the next couple of days rather than making up decisions like these on the hoof - it still could regenerate and be Barbara (He thinks while pointing to Maka 2009).Jason Rees (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well obviously, if we get word to the country, such as NHC re-initiating advisories on Barbara or something, then yea, it'll be different. IMO though, if there are no advisories, and Barbara is only treated as a remnant low, it shouldn't get its own section. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea still active? Use current infobox?

[edit]

The NHC is still issuing advisory. They're just not calling it tropical. Should we use the infobox still, or not? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any harm in doing so, since they are still issuing position fixes. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. As long as there are continuous updates we should provide them. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have the means to do so (similar to how the HPC/WPC provided info once the NHC discontinued) so why not. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. I took it off before I realized that they were continuing. United States Man (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox and current section should continue IMO, but the dissipation date should read June 7. We had the same issue with Sandy. I wonder how it will turn out with a remnant low that is not extratropical (i.e. Erin 2007 in Oklahoma) in the future? CrazyC83 (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WPC still provides info until the system dissipates or is no longer a threat to the US. We can get the info from there Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Season effects

[edit]

I've noticed that the line under Tropical Storm Barry in the Season Effects section is missing. Not sure how to fix, but a small problem. Can someone else please fix? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.206.40 (talk) 03:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

[edit]

Again, not another big issue, but can someone update the picture with all of the tracks please. I don't know how to, I'm new to this. Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.206.40 (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Storm

[edit]

Assuming that all of this information is correct, then both tropical storms Andrea and Chantal are currently the strongest storms to have yet formed. This is going based upon the given wind speeds. 72.198.89.119 (talk) 03:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Anonymous[reply]

Here, we go by lowest pressure. It is a more accurate way to measure how strong it is. United States Man (talk) 03:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except we go by pressure, not wind speed. YE Pacific Hurricane 05:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Track map

[edit]

Can someone tell me how to edit the track map? There's a small update I need to add to the remnants of Chantal and I don't know how to do it. Thanks! ManhattanSandyFurystorm (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the NHC best track data, both the season summary map and Chantal's track map appear to be fully updated. [1] — Iune(talk) 17:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Poor or deceptive wording

[edit]

Seems like an editorial comment:"This continued a pattern of unusually early starting hurricane seasons" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.142.239.11 (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As of 2013 August 08 1210EDT the introductory paragraph contains this sentence:

Chantal, the next cyclone, developed on July 8, not making landfall as a hurricane, but it caused flooding in the Antilles, causing 1 death in Maimón

Since neither Chantal nor any other system has to date become a hurricane in 2013, I think the phrase "not making landfall as a hurricane" is misleading at best. Perhaps that was meant to read, "not making landfall as a tropical storm"? 157.185.95.61 (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)mjd[reply]

Update to Seasonal Summary

[edit]

Would there be any way to show when a storm hits the different stages in the Seasonal Summary? Currently, a long storm that may become a hurricane for only the last few days, displays as if it was a hurricane for the whole time. It would be interesting to see when it went from TD, to TS, to Cat 1, etc. Those stages are already being tracked, so just change the color when it hits the new stage, instead of changing the whole bar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.94.220 (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a way but it would take a lot of coding and i doubt it would be worth it.Jason Rees (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't you just start a new bar, using the new color, instead of extending the current bar and changing the color of the whole thing? It would be the same as when a storm stops, and then reforms later, but there would be no break between the bars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.94.220 (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I got what your referring to but like i said i doubt it would be worth it, since the size of this page would expand rapidly due to all the extra coding that would be needed (eg 26 lines for a system that has 13 intneisty changes eg: TD:TS:C1:C2:C3:C4:C5:C4:C3:C2:C1:TS;TD).Jason Rees (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be impossible to do that, as Jason Rees said. It would take up far too much room. United States Man (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see now how the data plotting is done. That could get a bit messy. Maybe just one extra line per storm, showing where it changes from a tropical storm to a hurricane, assuming it does? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.94.220 (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now I REALLY see how the data plotting is done. You can't just continue on the same line with a different color bar. You have go to the next column, and keep track of where you would need to start the bar up again. Best to just keep referring to the description of the storm to get those kinds of details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.94.220 (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that would really make the table cramped for room. United States Man (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sectnum parameter

[edit]

I think this has changed somewhere down the years, but it now seems that with the Infobox hurricane current template it is never right to specify sectnum=1. Even when there are multiple active storms the tag on the first one remains #Current_storm_information, not #Current_storm_information_1; so the sectnum parameter should be omitted here, while still being sectnum=2 on the second storm, and so forth. Not that I imagine anyone ever actually clicks on the See more detailed information link!--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 17:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was designed so that when we have significant systems we dont have too fill out the seasonal article and the storm article properly. If you want to make any significant changes to the template id suggest that you wait until the TFD is over.Jason Rees (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrid deaths

[edit]

What is all the info we know on the deaths from Ingrid? I know there have been 13-15 so far from Ingrid and Manuel combined, but what did what? ManhattanSandyFurystorm (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Damage totals

[edit]

How long after a storm do the damage totals usually come in? Just want to know. ManhattanSandyFurystorm (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It varies from storm to storm, how significant it is and what country we are talking about: A significant system like Sandy or Katrina hitting the states may have damage totals almost immediately but these arent always considered that reliable. If it is a minor insignificant system hitting the states the NCDC publishes them a few months after the event.Jason Rees (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How long would it take things like Andrea, Fernand, or Ingrid to come out? ManhattanSandyFurystorm (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be surprised if Fernand goes damage total less. Andrea will be out when June NCDC is out. Ingrid, within a week or so probs. YE Pacific Hurricane 22:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any idea when the June NCDC would come out? 108.56.237.159 (talk) 23:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Usually it's three months afterward, so sometime this month or early October. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really, when will Ingrid's totals come out, and where will they come out? ManhattanSandyFurystorm (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If someone knew how they could get Andrea's damage total collated since the Storms Event Database was updated for June just before the shutdown (Maybe disable Java Script?) - As for Ingrid prob not until early 2014 now.Jason Rees (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When will Fernand's data come out? ManhattanSandyFurystorm (talk) 14:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe when its TCR comes out or it may not even have a damage total.Jason Rees (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone here think it's worth noting that Andrea only caused $40,000 in damage? ManhattanSandyFurystorm (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, no, it's a pretty minor total, and it's just a soft estimate. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Karen article

[edit]

I think Karen should get an article, but I want to see if it's ok to make one yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.253.188 (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really worth it. What little impact there was can be easily put into the season article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did create one a few of days ago, if you want to use it. You should be able to find it Tropical Storm Karen (2013). User:United States Man took it down. But, it didn't turn out to be much of a storm and didn't hit land. Up to others, I don't care. Kennvido (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Historically weak tropical season

[edit]

There's almost no indication in the article that this is turning out to be a record-breaking Atlantic tropical season: one of the weakest since modern record-keeping began. Of course the season isn't over yet, but there's not much time left. As of today, the season's Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) is 28. Only two seasons since 1950 years have had lower total ACE: 1977 and 1983 (with 1972 just barely higher). In addition, since several short-lived, marginal systems were declared and given names, the average ACE (cumulative ACE divided by the number of storms) is actually at an all-time low of 2.5 for the period from 1950 through the present. The previous record was 3.4 in 1970.

In contrast to the actual anemic nature of this tropical season, the article has a very long section on the predictions for an intense tropical season, which have turned out to seriously inaccurate. Why does the article need such long-winded predictions?2600:1000:B00A:3143:4EA:DBBE:DD09:DBB3 (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's what all of the hurricane season articles have. Each season's forecast sections are all about the same length, so this one's is not "long-winded." Such predictions from NOAA, etc. reach the standard of notability and give the articles more meaning. You said yourself the season is not over yet. So marking it now, with over a month and a half left to go in the season, as a 'historically weak' season is far too premature. Antoshi ☏ ★ 15:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. You mention that "all" hurricane season articles have long sections on predictions. Of course, that's been true lately, but it's only recent seasons, and I suggest it's heading toward "article bloat". You say that these "reach the standard of notability". During the season, especially at the beginning, this is certainly true. But we're now at the point where they have no more than minor historical value. There is no "notability" for predictions that are wrong, months after they were issued. Maybe we need to find a way to move these out after the season has concluded. Perhaps it's time to create an article on the topic of tropical season predictions history.
Meanwhile, the stunningly weak tropical season this year is certainly "notable" even before it's over. There are already numerous news articles talking about this weak season. If anyone is interested in following up, I suggest visiting Google News and searching on the phrase 'Atlantic hurricane season'. This is already news and therefore "notable" even though the season isn't over yet. It is a significant property of the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season that it has been extraordinarily weak --the weakest in two decades. In fact, the failure of the forecasts has been dramatic. Here's an article referring to the season as a "forecast bust": http://www.tampabay.com/news/weather/hurricanes/quietest-hurricane-season-in-two-decades-confounds-forecasters/2147560

2600:1000:B020:F51E:2D41:1A3D:B7BB:7670 (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do have the latest monthly summary confirming the below activity, but, the season is still active. I think we should wait to add so we can get some proper context (and maybe even some comparisons). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there have been small improvements in the article, but it is still conspicuously misleading suggesting only modest weakness and, with its emphasis on high forecasts, misses the most newsworthy aspect of this current tropical season. Consider this quote from NHC's Chris Landsea: “It’s not only quiet, but it’s got the potential to be near record quiet for the Atlantic Basin.” Or this: "While pre-season outlooks rarely, if ever, have pinpoint accuracy, they don’t usually miss by such a large margin." (both from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/16/2013-atlantic-hurricane-season-_n_4110279.html). And while I'm at it, from the same article "The absence of a major hurricane in the U.S. this season means the continuation of a record-long streak. On Oct. 24, it will be exactly 8 years since the last major hurricane of Category 3 strength or greater made landfall. Scientists fear this streak of good luck is leading to more severe cases of “hurricane amnesia,” which can complicate emergency preparation efforts the next time a monster storm threatens." But reading this article, one would never guess that we're looking at a hurricane season that is historically exceedingly weak. The total ACE is among the lowest ever. The ACE per storm is in fact the lowest since modern record-keeping began. And it's eight years since a major hurricane struck the US. These are amazing statistics, but the article barely hints at them.2600:1000:B112:ACAD:B8C7:F597:619A:C17A (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You say that the predictions are "wrong" but i would argue that at least the NOAA, UKMO, FSU Coaps are all within a reasonable margin error on some of their parameters as things stand with only 1-3 storms needed before the predictions are met. It is also worth noting that some people have told me in the past off wiki, that it is interesting to some people to see what was predicted before the season and as the season progressed. However i am in agreement that the section needs cutting down. Also some of the stuff on the weak season, could go into the the seasonal summary section.Jason Rees (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just me saying that the predictions have been wrong. Go read some of the news articles discussing this season. Here's an article from over three weeks ago talking about forecasters being 'humbled' by this season: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-24/atlantic-season-with-no-major-storm-humbling-forecasters.html. From that article: “The season looks to be a huge bust,” said Phil Klotzbach, lead author of Colorado State University’s annual storm forecast. “That’s one of the fun things about being in the weather business. It definitely keeps you humble.” 2600:1000:B112:ACAD:B8C7:F597:619A:C17A (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The predictions are what the predictions are. Just because the season didn't match them, doesn't mean we cut down on the information. What inevitably will be done, is a fleshed out section on "Season activity" that describes why the predictions didn't pan out, rather than just remove information that is fine as is. Forecasting is not an exact science, they can be wrong and frequently are. Meteorology is a constantly developing field, and this just happens to be a recent example of a major bust in a forecast. They happen more than the media would lead you to believe (media is a terrible tool in my opinion...too manipulative, but I digress). Regardless, removing material that has merit within the article doesn't make sense. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 06:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the predictions are what they are. But are they "notable" after the season is over, or mostly over, as it is right now? The predictions are certainly "notable" early in the season, and the mid-season revisions are notable at that time, but now? There is some minor interest in terms of forecast reliability, but that's not a feature of the individual tropical season. What I am suggesting, and it is only a suggestion, is that the details of these predictions should be retired to some other article on "Atlantic Tropical Forecast Skill" maybe. There is nothing "notable" to this article about completely wrong predictions --except maybe a simple statement to that effect. 2600:1000:B112:ACAD:B8C7:F597:619A:C17A (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"completely wrong predictions." That's why they're predictions -- they're not supposed to be accurate, even if their expectations are met and/or succeeded. That's called Weather forecasting. Antoshi ☏ ★ 23:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, THAT's what weather forecasting is. Thank you so much for explaining. Actually, of course, predictive skill does matter. In fact, it's the whole point of the predictions. Here's some reading on that topic for your entertainment: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/04/23/how-accurate-are-pre-season-hurricane-landfall-forecasts/ 2600:1000:B00B:30F1:701B:9921:52F2:5D69 (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're being far too combative about this to ever hope to reach a resolution. It feels like you're taking this personally at this point. I'd advise you to be cool and not react so snarky to people who disagree with your opinion/POV. Antoshi ☏ ★ 17:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Combative?" I'm so sorry. I must have said something that offended you. I do apologize, and again, I'm sorry that you took this personally. 2600:1000:B029:DAB0:9473:F989:3972:F751 (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add the point of view of a general user. My interest in Atlantic hurricane activity stems from the fact that there seems to be a connection between this and the weather in North-West Europe, specifically Iceland (where many hurricanes end up after they degenerate into remnant lows). For any season between 1950 and 2013 classified as “above normal”, there is a 90 percent chance that summer temperatures in Reykjavík were above average. Reliable forecasts for Atlantic hurricane activity might therefore make it possible to predict summer temperatures in Iceland with some accuracy. For this reason, I follow the predictions for and actual outcome of each Atlantic hurricane season very closely and find it useful being able to access both on the same page. Birnuson (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For wide-ranging reasons, many, many people are interested in the Atlantic tropical season predictions before and in mid-season. Of that there's no doubt. After the season is over, they are no longer "notable" as properties of the season itself. It's interesting to note that predictions (with good predictive skill) on individual storms are not normally included in these articles. For example, Tropical Storm Lorenzo is expected to dissipate quickly due to shear (and other causes). There is good model consensus on this. The storm will probably be gone in less than 48 hours. If that prediction were included in the article now, it would be "notable", but, of course, it would be replaced by the information giving the actual date and time of dissipation after the fact. Or, if the storm defies expectations and lasts a week, the prediction might be replaced by some language noting its unexpected longevity, and the previous forecast, having been blown away by reality, would no long be notable. That's normal. 2600:1000:B029:DAB0:9473:F989:3972:F751 (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/10/26/quiet-hurricane-season/3187621/ --Another Believer (Talk) 15:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the source: "This is the quietest season for Atlantic hurricanes since 1982." Right now if things stay on course two records will be tied and while I am not trying to go against WP:CRYSTAL here the more days go by the less chance there is for storms to form. I would consider this season to be overall below average. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Humberto 6 missing

[edit]

At what point are missing deaths from a storm confirmed? Is there a way to confirm those 6 missing people in Humberto? ManhattanSandyFurystorm (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It greatly depends on what happens - if the authorities find bodies then they can declare them dead straight away, if not then it can be anywhere up to 10/15 years before they can be officially declared dead.Jason Rees (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An Unforseeen Quiet Hurricane Season

[edit]

So why is this hurricane season so unusually quiet? And why weren't forecasters able to predict this? I think that we need to dig up some information concerning the answers to those questions and add them to the article. I'm pretty sure that many readers would appreciate that as well. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are some clues in the story in USA Today referred to above. According to Klotzbach, the top reasons include "an increased amount of dry, dusty air from the Sahara Desert as well as "sinking" air over the Atlantic". And Feltgen says that what was not anticipated was "all the sinking motion and resulting dryness—factors that occasionally disrupt what would otherwise be an active season—but which are impossible to predict" (my emphasis). So there are explanations for the low activity. However, what seems to be extraordinary about this season is that although there is an average number of named storms, only two hurricanes formed, neither of them a major one. Birnuson (talk) 11:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right. The ACE per storm this year is an all-time record low. In other words, the number of named storms is not unusual, but they have all been weak and short-lived.
While I'm at it, here's a nice "quotable" from Science magazine: "The current Atlantic hurricane season looks to be a near no-show with just two short-lived, minimal hurricanes (Category 1) so far with a month to go in the season and nothing stirring in the tropical Atlantic. And no major hurricane (Category 3 to 5) has struck the U.S. coast since 2005. (Sandy may have been a “super” storm, but it wasn’t a major hurricane.)" --Science, "In the Hot Seat", Richard A. Kerr, Nov.8, 2013 2600:1000:B110:BA71:7136:C737:430:472D (talk) 02:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we add this to the main article? I'm sure that plenty of people would like to know this. LightandDark2000 (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add anything that you feel is relevant to the article, as long as it is sourced. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest storm is a tie?

[edit]

When the infobox says strongest storm is it going by pressure or windspeed? If it is by pressure then it shares the lead with Tropical Storm Melissa both of which maxed out at 980 mbar. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of a tie, the strongest would then be determined by winds which still leaves Humberto as the strongest. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect ACE Total comparison

[edit]

The average Atlantic total ACE is just over 100, depending on what period is used to define it, so this season (assuming the 33 value calculated by wiki-folk is correct --other sources, however, list 31) is less than 33% of average. It's currently described in the article as 67%.

Also a reminder: the ACE per storm in 2013 stands at a record low, 2.5, for the entire period of modern record-keeping (1950-2013). The previous record was 3.4 set in 1970. 2600:1000:B02A:B447:8D1E:E299:A753:658E (talk) 04:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 67% is what NHC used within the November end off month summary.Jason Rees (talk) 05:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see that it's been fixed now. It previously said "67% of average" and now reads "67% below average" (which is, I suppose, equivalent to 33% of average, which was what I suggested). 2600:1000:B013:72C9:DC8B:9EE1:7D2C:F612 (talk) 08:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the 31 vs. 33 discrepancy noted above is due to whether sub-tropical values for Melissa should be included. ACE is apparently undergoing (or has undergone) a definition change. Anyway, the final number could be adjusted slightly as best-track reports for each storm are completed and the calculations are shifted from 03/09/15/21 UTC to 00/06/12/18 UTC. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources for dry air?

[edit]

Do we have other sources for the "multiple sources of dry air" theory? Brazil contributions to hurricane activity are not established and as far as I can tell, Master's heard it from another person doing research that hasn't been published. "Dry air" is a chicken/egg problem for hurricanes and tropical storms. Of course the air is dry when there are no storms and low wind shear allows moisture from sea level to rise and condense into a storm. If that doesn't happen, the air is dry by definition. SAL can affect tropical wave cyclone formation. A peer reviewed article on dry air in low sheer conditions that affects cyclone genesis is needed, especially the Brazil claim which is novel. --DHeyward (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Season Analysis Unnamed Tropical Storms

[edit]

Why is it that the NHC is starting to miss more tropical cyclones, especially those that don't seem to fit TC criteria at first, or those storms that develop just outside of the seasonal boundaries? Within the past 3 years, the NHC has identified a total of 2 unnamed Atlantic tropical storms, which is significantly higher than I expected the count to be, but in the past, it has caught every single known tropical cyclone, including those that formed during December or January (like in late 2005-early 2006). LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2013 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contribs) 19:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Particularly hit was Mexico, where tropical storms Barry, Fernand, Tropical Depression Eight, and Hurricane Ingrid all made landfall. Ingrid in particular brought severe impacts, with at least 23 deaths and $1.5 billion (2013 USD) in damage." - there's some repetition here since you use "particularly" in the first sentence and "particular" in the second.
  • "On April 10, Colorado State University (CSU) forecast 18 named storms, nine hurricanes, and four major hurricanes." - maintain consistency. Spell out the numbers for all or don't do it for any.
  • "On May 23, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) predicted a range of 13 to 20 named storms, 7 to 11 hurricanes, and three to six major hurricanes. Following less activity than forecast, both agencies reduced their seasonal predictions in early August; CSU predicted 18 named storms, eight hurricanes, and three major hurricanes, while NOAA called for 13 to 19 named storms, six to nine hurricanes, and three to five major hurricanes. Despite the revisions, activity remained far below predictions, at 13 named storms, two hurricanes, and 0 major hurricanes." - Same here.
  • "Nonetheless, activity fell far below predictions." - Using nonetheless is weird. Reword this.
  • "It was an above average season in which 15 tropical cyclones formed." - dash between "above" and "average" since they're modifying "season".
  • 'The season was above average most likely because of a lack of El Niño, warmer sea surface temperatures, lower than average sea-level pressures, and near-normal wind shear." - I'd put "most likely" before "above-average".
  • "The most intense tropical cyclone – Hurricane Humberto – peaked with maximum sustained winds of 90 mph (150 km/h) on September 11, which is only Category 1 on the Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale." - only? Just put "a Category 1 on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane wind scale" after the comma.
  • "After meandering for two days, it degenerated into a remnant low pressure area on December 7,[21] about a week after the official end of hurricane season on November 30." - you already noted it was a week after the official end of the season, remove that part.
  • "Although 15 tropical cyclones developed, the season set several records due to the weak nature of these systems" - "these" -> "the"
  • "The 2013 Atlantic hurricane season was the first since 1994 to feature no major hurricanes." - "The 2013 Atlantic hurricane season" -> "it"
  • "The season's activity was reflected with an accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) rating of 36" - ACE should be capitalized.
  • "Despite strong wind shear and an abundance of dry air, the storm strengthened while initially heading north-northeastward, before re-curving northeastward later that day." - recurving is one word despite what the computer dictionary says.
  • "Andrea transitioned into an extratropical cyclone over South Carolina on June 7, though the remnants continued to move along the East Coast of the United States, until being absorbed by another extratropical system offshore Maine on June 10." - no need for the comma after "United States".
  • "The system moved westward and developed into an area of low pressure over the southwestern Caribbean Sea on June 16." - A wave doesn't develop into a low, a low forms in association with the wave.
  • "Despite weakening inland, the circulation became better-defined." - This is confusing; by weakening, do you mean the winds lowered? If so, note that so it makes more sense.
  • You say "Barry" a lot in its section; switch up the wording.
  • Seriously? I only count 3 uses. FWIW, in most of other sections, the storm name is used 4 times or more. In fact, I think only Dorian is used fewer times in its section.--12george1 (talk) 03:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd rather not nitpick much more, so I'll go through and make minor edits that I think might be needed.
  • I don't think the second note is necessary.

"Records" + other comment(s)

[edit]

The claim of "records" in the season summary seems dubious at best. It merely states several "first since [year]" occurrences. The date of Humberto becoming a hurricane is sneakily worded as well to make it seem more indicative of a record, whereas in actuality 2002 still retains the record in question. Please redo this section as to not give undue weight to non-notable occurrences.

Another thing that popped out to me was earlier in the season summary section there is this statement "...operationally unnoticed subtropical storm..." which is false using that wording. It was noticed operationally, just not warned upon. I might go through this more later to see if there are other issues that I feel need to be addressed.

Cyclonebiskit (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unnamed - why was it unnamed?

[edit]

Can someone who has the time add text explaining why the storm was unnamed?

In typical cases, the storm isn't named because it's not recognized as being name-worthy until the post-season review. However, there's nothing in the article stating that this is the reason, and there are other possible reasons for not having a name. The article does say "The NHC operationally treated it as a non-tropical low" but it's not clear when the NHC realized they had a name-able storm on their hands - was it during the storm, shortly after the storm, or during post-season analysis? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Chantal (2013 Storm) listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tropical Storm Chantal (2013 Storm). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. CycloneYoris talk! 06:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs references regarding the Thermohaline Cirulation

[edit]

The connection between the Thermohaline Circulation and the weakening of 2013 cyclone strength is unclear. The discussion is too indirect.

References to modeling and research papers are required. Drbits (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A "Super La Niña" condition developed in 2013

[edit]

Does this belong in the article? If so, how much?

When the average Sea Surface (or Skin) Temperatures Anomalies (SSTAs) in the NINO 3.4 region (compared to the 30-year baseline period for the date) are between -0.5°C and -2.0°C for a 3 month period, that is defined as an La Niña Condition. When the SSTAs in the NINO 3.4 region are -2.0°C or below for a 3-month period that is known as a "Super La Niña" condition. While a La Niña condition normally decreases atmospheric shear over the Caribbean and increases cyclone strength, a Super La Niña condition moves the shear north into of the Caribbean and reduces cyclone strength.

During the 2013 Atlantic Hurricane season, both the NINO 3.4 region and the Atlantic equatorial region were more than 2°C below the baseline period (1991-2010). The increased Caribbean shear and is probably responsible for the surprisingly weak 2013 Atlantic Hurricane season.

While "Super La Niña" is not yet recognized by the NOAA, several research papers discuss the phenomenon. Drbits (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

merge Fernand article?

[edit]

The only thing in Tropical Storm Fernand (2013) that isn't in the main article is a bit more from the met history, so that is what I propose gets merged. The impact is literally an exact copy from the season section. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there no further information on the storm out there? I agree the article in its current form should be merged, but a cyclone that killed fourteen people and caused millions in damage strikes me as noteworthy and may have far more information about it out there. JayTee⛈️ 04:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible, but the information isn't there now, and hasn't been added since 2017. If anyone wanted to expand on it, they could, but the article as it is now shouldn't exist. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it. LemonJuiceIsSour (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i think if there really isn't any other information out there then we'll just merge it, it's only 8,500 bytes. SomeoneWiki04 (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i say we keep it 66.206.125.66 (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say merge it. AccordTM (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah lets merge it Joseph Ca98 (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_Atlantic_hurricane_season&oldid=1254611775"