Talk:List of Atlantic hurricane records

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Tropical cyclones / Meteorology  (Rated Start-class, High-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the tropical meteorology articles task force (marked as High-importance).


That article is better, more appropriately named, and contains much the same information. Jdorje 20:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is opposed? Jdorje 16:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Merge. The two articles should remain seperate. Although there are overlapping data, not all notable hurricanes have records, so that article needs to stay. The records also needs to stay, because it is more precise as to what it contains, so it is easier to find records. Jamie|C Flag of the United Kingdom.svg 15:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Well then half or more of the List of notable Atlantic hurricanes needs to be moved over to this article. — jdorje (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Why can't the information remain in both articles? It seems releveant in both. Some things, like the list of hurricanes by intensity, belong better here IMO, some, like the list of category 5 hurricanes, belong in the other article. But some things, like the list of most easterly hurricanes/storms belong in both. Jamie|C Flag of the United Kingdom.svg 19:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
That kind of reasoning is why the articles should be merged. We should not have exact duplicates of information in separate articles. — jdorje (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Number of named storm occurrences by Month[edit]

What on earth is the 'Next' column for? TimL 21:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

A few notes for this table:

1) When it comes to counting storm occurrences in any given month, the rule of thumb is to use the month in which the storm originated. So any storm occurring at the end of a month and crossing over into the next month counts towards the previous month's total. (Ex. ALEX of 2004 formed on July 31, and lasted until August 6. Alex counts as a July storm, not August. FRANCES of 2004 formed on August 25, and lasted until September 8. Frances is an August storm, not September.)

2) The monthly records should read as follows: JUNE = 3 in 1886, 1909, 1936, and 1968; JULY = 5 in 2005; AUGUST = 7 in 1933, 1995, and 2004; SEPTEMBER = 8 in 2002; OCTOBER = 7 in 2005; NOVEMBER = 3 in 2005

In addition, the records for months outside of the regular hurricane season read as follows: DECEMBER = 2 in 1887 and 2003; JANUARY = 1 in 1978; FEBRUARY = 1 in 1952; MARCH = 1 in 1908; APRIL = 1 in 1992 and 2003; MAY = 2 in 1887

If the purpose of this table is to show the record number of storms TRACKED during a given month, then the title needs to reflect that.

And I agree with Tim above. Why is there a "Next" column? It makes no sense and should be removed. Thanx!!! Raffy85 20:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

2005 Records[edit]

There are a few storms that seem to be missing, partially from the alphabet soup that was the end of the 2005 hurricane season. I recall storms developing straight through December (the shear just didn't develop over the Carribean that usually does). Therefore, I think some of the records are at least partially obsolete. Misread/misunderstood some of the text of the article. Stupid me.

Earliest storms[edit]

Shouldn't 1978's Subtropical Storm One be the earliest-forming tropical storm (or the latest, I guess?), or is this some quirk of how seasons are defined? It's included in the list in the section on earliest-forming first storms of the season, but the Groundhog Day storm is still first on the earliest tropical storm list. -- (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hurricane Igor[edit]

I am not sure how to edit the page but now the size of Igor has grown to 500 NM which is 575 miles up from the 518 listed below...I can not figure out where the edit is for the table that is there Cwachal (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hurricane Alex 2010[edit]

Alex is tied with whichever is listed as most intense for june, with a pressure of 946 mbar.--Peanut.pookie (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hurricane Humberto[edit]

This is from the Wikipedia article about Humberto: "Hurricane Humberto was a minimal hurricane that formed and intensified faster than any other North Atlantic tropical cyclone on record before landfall." Based on this information, I believe that it should be listed as the fastest intensification of a storm. At minimum, it should be listed on the records page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Largest Hurricanes[edit]

I think that we should definitely revise this subject as many individual Hurricane pages (for example Ike|, Carla, and Greta) claim that their subject is the largest — Preceding unsigned comment added by FootyStavros (talkcontribs) 19:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hurricane Nadine[edit]

Are we going to add Hurricane Nadine when it's gonna reach the 19 days point in the longest hurricane section? It's gonna be soon I think, during the course of next week.

Fabzzz (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:V I dont think it should be acdded without an official source. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
What is the rule for adding a storm if it is not consistently a tropical storm? Afterall, there was a period of about a day where Nadine was considered post-tropical. Should it still be added here? If we do keep it in the list, perhaps a note should be added. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
To me, it should be recognized since it was issued as a potential tropical wave. Even though it was a post-tropical wave, it was still what led to what it is right now. Fabzzz (talk) 02:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Officially, the time that Nadine was post-tropical does not count... I've updated Nadine's total to reflect this. I've also added some hidden text next to Nadine's place on the table explaining how to update the total. Heelsrule1988 (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
From the article: "Significant amounts of convection formed in the next few hours, between late on September 11 and early on September 12. As a result, the depression was reclassified as Tropical Storm Nadine at 0300 UTC" The time it became a Tropical Storm was 0300 UTC on September 12, 2012 right now it is October 2, 2012 21:00+ UTC that makes it 20 days now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Easiest way to do this is take the advisory number and divide it by 4. For the latest advisory that would give 20.25 days. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
^ That's a useful formula which works most of the time. However... it doesn't work if the tropical cyclone's life was uninterrupted, and Nadine's obviously was. You have to subtract .25 because advisory 44 doesn't count towards the total... that's the point when Nadine was reclassified as a tropical cyclone, so you can't add time there. It's also no good if any special advisories are issued. And knowledgekid... a tropical cyclone's life is only defined by when advisories are being issued for it. That's how the numbers for the other cyclones in this list were compiled. Heelsrule1988 (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


I wonder if I'm the only one who has considered renaming this article? Strictly speaking these are not hurricane records, but tropical cyclone records; there are numerous storms in various lists here that never achieved hurricane status. Calling this a list of hurricane records may be potentially misleading. The distinction may be somewhat technical, but wouldn't List of Atlantic tropical cyclone records be a more accurate name? Shereth 15:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's for consistency, based off "List of Atlantic hurricane seasons", and so on. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the current name is more accurate since they are called hurricanes in this basin. United States Man (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Sure, if they reach hurricane status; but there are also numerous tropical storms listed on this page :) Shereth 19:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't matter, the official agaency (NHC) calls them hurricanes, not tropical cyclones. The current name is best, it is sort of hard to explain it any more. United States Man (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Hurricanes is the general term for tropical cyclones in the Atlantic. YE Pacific Hurricane 21:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Longest duration[edit]

An explicit definition of "lifetime" and of "what" (hurricanes, tropical storms, tropical depressions, post-tropical depression, extra-tropical depression, subtropical depression, pre(sub)tropical depression, etc. or any combination of these) seems helpful both to contributors and readers of the table entitled "Longest duration". We could do with clarity on e.g.:

   * whether only (at least) tropical-storm hours are counted;
   * whether all time a structure is deemed to be an entity (of whatever kind) is counted.

For example, Ginger (1971) may have existed for 27.75 days, but - according to what I understand from the text on - cannot have been a tropical storm for more than 21 days.

Thanks!Redav (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it the definition being used is essentially "This table is a list of systems that have spent the longest amount of time as a tropical or subtropical cyclone. Time spent as an extra- or post-tropical system is not included in the total." A similar sort of statement should probably be included in the following section (Farthest Travels) to indicate that the distance doesn't include distance covered while non-tropical. As a bit of an aside, I noticed that the table is not consistent with the given citation; the list being linked to does not include Storm 4 of 1926. Shereth 17:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Costliest Atlantic hurricanes[edit]

I changed Hurricane Sandy's number to ≥65.6 (billion) to match the amount on other articles mentioning it. User:Magneto10 (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Would like to see INFLATION ADJUSTED damage estimates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

HSI category title[edit]

Shouldn't the title "Most intense landfalling Atlantic hurricanes in the United States (HSI)" have the "intense" replaced with "severe". The Hurricane Severity Index is supposed to measure severity, not intensity, right. In any case, intensity is incorporated as a category in the index, along with size, so that is clearly not the same as intensity alone. (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


Given this article is slowly being pruned away (it's the rump article of List of notable tropical cyclones), I don't care too much whether there is a section on Bermuda landfalls, which is currently being discussed. I think it's time that we take whatever is useful here and merge it to Atlantic hurricane. I have that done that so far with Earliest/latest formations for each category (but only the relevant information on intensity and time of year) and Intensity. I think everything else is fairly trivial and extraneous, and if there is agreement, I think it should be merged to Atlantic hurricane (which should be the true parent article, anyway). I don't think this article can ever become featured or good, given the weird shape it's in, and so I think merger is the best option. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems like this article serves as a more comprehensive one specifically for records, whereas List of notable tropical cyclones and Atlantic hurricane are much more vague in that area. I don't really see the purpose of merging it as it might be more difficult to find records for Atlantic hurricanes under a page where "records" is not in the title. Certainly some of the information is trivial and extraneous, particularly the Latitude/Longitude records section which seems fairly long and in-definite, and is under-sourced. Undescribed (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
But not many are true records. The location ones are trivial (we have specific articles on easternmost and southernmost storms, but those are pretty tame in comprising to storms in the Pacific (Vamei and Pali both around 2° N). And most of the landfall locations already have articles for the truly rare landfall locations (Delta 05 in Morocco, Vince, and don't forget we have broader location articles like List of Bermuda hurricanes and Effects of tropical cyclones in Europe). For intensity, we have a bunch of tables, with the exception of the one by month, which I think is pretty trivial (few are backed up by a source saying they were strongest in a given month, and most are based on our interpretation of HURDAT, which we don't do anymore. Fastest intensification is largely about two different storms, which have articles (and would be better described in prose in an article on Atlantic hurricanes). I'm not convinced we need this article. Most of it is either redundant or trivial, and the bits that are interesting and sourced would do better being in other articles, like the vastly under-utilized Atlantic hurricane. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I would oppose a merger or deletion in favor of cleanup. You are right, thing like "furtherest southeast" ect... don't need to be included the list should be in a format like List of tropical cyclone records is. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Unusual landfall locations[edit]

I don't see anything wrong with having a Bermuda section on the page. Regardless of the reason as to why landfalls in Bermuda are unusual, I don't see why one section should be kept rather than another. Even though Bermuda gets a lot of direct hits, landfalls are fairly unusual. The last landfall before Fay of 2014 was Emily of 1987, which constitutes a lower landfall frequency than both the Azores and Cape Verde, despite the steering currents. --Undescribed (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

If there are no objections then I will be reinstating the Bermuda section to the article as per WP:SILENCE.Undescribed (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I said above I don't think we should have Bermuda. Having too many "unusual" locations makes the section useless. And honestly, Fabian 03 wasn't a technical landfall, but that's arguably the most important Bermuda hurricane, and that also makes it useless. No need for that section here when we already have an article for Bermuda TC's. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Earliest / Latest formation: anti-pivot at 1 April seems more logical than at 1 January[edit]

Whereas for January, February and March the table list records for the earliest, considering that the lowest activity between two consecutive climatologically averaged seasons' peaks seems to occur in / or between March and April (based on what I read in, it seems more logical to list the latest formation dates for January, February and March. So that is what I propose as a change.

The rationale behind this is that the closer a storm is to the climatological centre of levity of the lull between two seasons (or the more eloignated a storm is from the climatological centre of gravity of the preceding or the following season, which seems to be near 10 September according to based on numbers of storms), the more atypical, outlying, extraordinary and record-breaking it may be deemed. Even better might be a comparison to a climatology which takes into account the climatologically averaged power (i.e. in megawatts) generated by (sub)tropical storms as a function of the days of the year.

From visual inspection of a graph of the storm data (category, peak velocity, duration, minimum pressure) vs the date, the lull between two seasons seems to be approximately (as well as - for administrative reasons - conveniently) centred around midnight between 31 March and 1 April, in part since the longest time gap between dates with storms appears from 10 March to 13 April in the list in (after sorting with respect to dates active).

An extra reason for taking midnight of 1 April as the anti-pivot is that the climatological average in the decay of activity seems to be slower in the months before 1 April than the climatological average in the increase of activity after 31 March. Hence a (couple of) longer gap(s) before the anti-pivot (e.g. the empty 22-day interval from 10 to 31 March inclusive, and the empty 12.25-day interval from 22 February to 5 March inclusive) and a (couple of) shorter gap(s) (e.g. the empty 13-day interval 1 to 13 April inclusive, and the empty 1-day interval on 17 April) seem(s) understandable. From the data in the climatological onset (of the next season) after 31 March seems sharper that the decay (of the previous season) before 1 April.

From this perspective, not so much the 1938 Storm 1 - which was a category 1 hurricane on 4-5 January - is the most outlying category 1 hurricane in January, but the 2016 Alex - which was a category 1 hurricane on 14-15 January - is!Redav (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I guess the important thing to consider is how reliable sources treat this topic. As far as I know, I don't recall any such sources discussing earliest/latest-forming storms of the year. However, my understanding is that the practice of delineating records by the calendar year has been practiced on Wikipedia for years, at least since 2010. (Of course, mere precedent is no reason why we should continue this practice.) What is the general consensus on this issue? Can any experienced Tropical Cyclone editors give their thoughts? TSBonnie2010 (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of Atlantic hurricane records. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Irma's term at Cat 5[edit]

Philip Klotzbach (leader of the CSU tropical predictions team) is saying on Twitter that Irma has already tied the 1932 Cuba hurricane for time as a Cat 5...but the table in this article lists Irma at 3rd place well behind.Who's counting wrong?LE (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we will know for sure whether or not Irmas time as a Category 5 tied or surpassed the 1932 Cuba hurricane until its best track data comes out. Based on the current operational advisories given by NHC, Irma spent 75 hours as a Category 5, wheres 1932 Cuba spent 78 hours, or 3 days, 6 hours as a 5.--Undescribed (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Original research issue[edit]


There are parts of this article that imply that x hurricane fits x record because of x. In other words I want editors to draw their eyes to...

  • "Extreme latitudes and longitudes" - There are a lot of unsourced entries here, is this a collection of names or what?
  • "Unusual landfall locations" - How are these considered records?
  • Seasonal activity - What is the cutoff for the min/max activity for the tables?

Those are just some examples of what needs work done here. The main issue though is with the tables themselves, at one point does x hurricane become a "record"? Are we doing the tables by the top 5, top 10, top 20? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

You definitely bring up several good points here. In regards to the "Seasonal activity" section, it appears that the "cutoff" is the top 9 seasons. In addition, it seems that the "Extreme latitudes and longitudes" section lists not only storms that set a specific record, but also a wider spectrum of systems that were notable for forming at unusual latitude/longitudes. I think we could lessen the ambiguity if each entry explained why a storm forming at a given location is unusual. As for the "Unusual landfall locations" section, while these entries don't seem to qualify as records per se, they certainly seem to meet the overall notability criteria. Another page, List of Pacific hurricanes, also contains a similar section. Perhaps a title change could be in order here? I would suggest something along the lines of List of notable Atlantic hurricanes. --Undescribed (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
The seasonal activity can be cited to HURDAT but extreme latitudes and longitudes can probably go and unusual landfall location is even worse on the grounds of WP:LOOSELY. I'm also somewhat weary about including ranks in stuff like costliest Atlantic hurricanes, largely because we don't quite have a source to prove it was the Xth costliest storm. YE Pacific Hurricane 23:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@Undescribed: If you want to make an article called List of notable Atlantic hurricanes then go ahead. If you guys feel otherwise though I will remove the "Extreme latitudes and longitudes" section as well. I do think it is interesting, but too many things are being placed in this article to try and pass them off as new records. We go by the sources and not what we think might be a cool new record to invent for the list. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Uncertainty in Hurricane Season Data[edit]

Per NOAA, the data prior to 1965 is not really accurate; prior to the advent of satellite tracking, many tropical storms and hurricanes went unnoticed at sea. I added in NOAA's own chart which shows this, but it is kind of an ugly thing. I'm not too familiar with the bar graph stuff on Wikipedia, but is there any way to add uncertainty bars to them? The other possibility might be just graphing the data post-1965, as we are reasonably certain that the data after that point is accurate. Thoughts? Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)