Talk:Hurricane John (1994)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Hurricane John (1994) 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.
Featured topic star Hurricane John (1994) is part of the Category 5 Pacific hurricanes series, a featured topic. It is also part of the 1994 Pacific hurricane season series, a good topic. These are identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve them, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 11, 2014.
WikiProject Tropical cyclones / Storms / Eastern Pacific  (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which collaborates on tropical cyclones and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the storm articles task force (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Pacific hurricane articles task force (marked as Mid-importance).
Note icon
This article has been assessed by editors of the WikiProject.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Natural sciences.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Longest Lived Hurricane[edit]

NOAA says this is in fact the case [1]. They make no mention of Pancho. The disturbance stages are included in that storm's best track, which may be why there is a discrepancy. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 01:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


Some kind of stucture...maybe a separate "records" section, I dunno. Jdorje 02:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It's lacking any sources or an external links section! Jdorje 19:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


The most interesting part is the ACE of this storm. It was a long lived cat 5 hurricane. Maybe the hurricane with highest ACE. juan andrés 21:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Accumulated Cyclone Energy#Historical_ACE_data and talk:Accumulated_Cyclone_Energy/EPac_by_ACE. — jdorje (talk) 08:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That proves me I'm wrong. Typhoon John had the 3rd biggest ACE overall. But the biggest East Pacific ACE. Thank you, really I was curious for the info. juan andrés 01:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that John was both a hurricane and a typhoon. Note also that the Nancy ACE is overinflated because it's taken from the advisory data (Nancy was credited with 215mph winds). So probably John ranks 2nd. — jdorje (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
San Ciriaco had an ACE higher than 73, which, according to the above tabulation, would be larger than John. (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

A Class[edit]

Call me a bit biased, but I'm upping this one to A class since it's under consideration for a FAC. —CuiviénenT|C|@ on Thursday, 1 June 2006 at 20:13 UTC

No problem, as I was coming to do that myself. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Got another one! Great job Cuivienen. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


There is a variable with Ophelia's record: the disturbance stage is included in the best track. I don't know if that would reduce the distance it is estimated to have traveled because I don't know if the disturbance stage was included in the measurement but it could be an X-factor with regards to that record. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 23:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the best data we have gives Ophelia an edge on John. If we could dig up a report on Ophelia, we could use that to check the data. —Cuiviénen 03:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

WPac storm history[edit]

WPac storm history is really lacking. Not a single use of the JTWC ATCR - it's important because the JTWC failed miserably operationally with John (see 1994 Pacific typhoon season#Typhoon John) – Chacor 14:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added a separate section on forecasting difficulties. I don't feel it really belongs in the storm history itself, and the storm history in the WPac was uneventful to say the least. —Cuiviénen 03:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

John's lowest pressure[edit]

@Cyclonebiskit: @Supportstorm: @Yellow Evan: @Hurricanehink: @Jason Rees: @Typhoon2013: @Jasper Deng:

I know that this is operational data, but should we take it into account? ABC paulista (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Since you have provided a source, I believe this should be the minimum pressure for John and should be clearly stated in the article and its infobox. Just check with other users just in case they have something to say. Typhoon2013 (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
It's not in the best track for some reason or another so I'd be hesitant to include it. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
It should at least be given a mention in the text of the article.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to add that in, with a source. Also if that's the case, and to note, then John would be the strongest storm in the 1994 PHS since Gilma had only 920 hPa. Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
@Jasper Deng: @Hurricanehink: This might be a problem and I might rv my own edit. If John's pressure was 910mbar estimated (in that source), then therefore it would be the strongest TC in the CPac basin, beating Ioke by 5mbar. We need to do some rewording in the "Records" section. Typhoon2013 (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
A record like this needs to be verified with the NHC/CPHC since it's not explicitly in HURDAT. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
@Cyclonebiskit: Sorry I accidentally pinged the wrong person. Anyways, what should we do now? Do we just leave it? Should we discuss this with other users? Typhoon2013 (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
@Typhoon2013: Nothing should be done with the article for now. Next step would be to email the NHC/CPHC to verify if the pressure is reasonable or if there's a reason it's excluded from HURDAT. I'll ask around at the NHC and see if anyone knows what's up, though. I suspect that it's simply all non-observed pressures being excluded but we have to be certain. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
@Cyclonebiskit: @Typhoon2013: @Jasper Deng: In this case, would be wiser to ask CPHC directly about this source, since that the cited advisory came from Honolulu, and like I and @Jason Rees: showed for Cyclonebiskit, there are many discrepancies between NHC and CPHC best track anda data. ABC paulista (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
@Cyclonebiskit: Yeah. Try contact them. The problem is that when I contact some agencies like BoM and PAGASA, they don't reply/message you back. :( Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I think those pressures were rough estimates given operationally. Not really analyzed thoroughly enough to be included in HURDAT since they all appear to be in 10 millibar increments. Supportstorm (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Supportstorm: To be honest, I don't trust HURDAT when talking about CPAC data. That's why I prefer to check with CPHC first before doing any judgement. ABC paulista (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)