Jump to content

Talk:List of the most intense tropical cyclones

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lower W. Pacific Threshold

[edit]

I noticed that the list of the strongest cyclones on record in the western Pacific is significantly longer than the other basin's lists. I was wondering if we should lower the threshold to make the list to 890 hPa? This would remove roughly half of the systems on the list. 900 hPa is no doubt a powerful hurricane (typhoon), but there are just too many of them in this region of the world to list them all. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.229.254.215 (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Possible Improvements?

[edit]

Hi, just a casual reader here… not sure if this is the right place to put this. Anyway, I think this article could be improved. The tables are inconsistent and kinda hard to quickly get info from. Why not group everything into a single table and allow the user to sot by categories eg. Name, Region, Date, Intensity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.18.134 (talk) 09:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC) What about hurricane Michael cat 5 you left it out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.164.50 (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Super Typhoon Haiyan

[edit]

I have slowly been updating this as storm has been progressing through the Philippines. Please help with edits and it is official now 858mb pressure. Can someone Move Haiyan to the top of the list and change the pic to Haiyan instead of Tip or add Haiyan's Sat pic to that section thanks. Also we need to change any references to Tip being strongest. Though Tip is still "Largest"

Thanks, Shawn

Hi Shawn - im afraid that pressure estimate is completely unoffical since it comes from NOAA and not the WMO RSMC for the region which is the JMA.Jason Rees (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So how long usually until http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/jma-eng/jma-center/rsmc-hp-pub-eg/Besttracks/bst2013.txt updates it has no data for Haiyan, nor anything after mid Oct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.183.164 (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally the JMA puts their best track out about 4- 8 weeks after the storm has dissipated.Jason Rees (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North Indian Ocean Basin Question

[edit]

I have a doubt. I have seen that 1999 BOB 07 (1999 Orissa Cyclone) has been listed as the strongest cyclone in NIO basin with a pressure of < 912 mbar. But, Typhoon Gay (1989) had a pressure of 898 mbar and it hit the Indian coast near Chennai.

Why is it not listed as the strongest storm in the NIO basin when it is stronger than BOB 07? Note: BOB 07 and Gay both had 260km/h winds (1 min sustained). Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See here for why.Jason Rees (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work

[edit]

I'm setting this to high importance. I really liked how you used the best track source for the southern hemisphere cyclones! How come there is no best track file for RSMC Nadi? RaNdOm26 05:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Regarding the last comment, Fiji did not have a best track file, at least to my knowledge, so I relied on what I had. Is it a possible FL candidate? Hurricanehink (talk) 05:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's very close to being an FL. Expand the lead so it has good coverage of all basins. :) RaNdOm26 05:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Not that it is up to me, but i think this should be a FL. Good work! Juliancolton 19:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page appears out of date and doesn't include data from late 2006 or more recent. For example Monica (2006-23P) 879 mbar (mslp), c.f. http://metocph.nmci.navy.mil/jtwc/atcr/2006atcr/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.182.1.4 (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other article

[edit]

Seeing this, I have the urge to write an article, "List of weakest Tropical Cyclones" Any thoughts? Juliancolton 00:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly oppose that, as it would be a pointless list of tropical depressions (which would be an impossible list, since stats for depressions are horrible worldwide). --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going for the weakest tropical storms, not including tropical depressions. -- Juliancolton (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then it would be a pointless list of 40 mph tropical storms. Please do not make such a list. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Juliancolton (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this isn't adding up

[edit]

Some of JMA's pressures seem high and their winds seem low, are they measuring directly in the core of the storm at peak intensity? Gay in 1992 is listed at 900 mb and Angela from 1995 isn't even on the list. Both of those two had Dvorak T-numbers of 8, the highest possible reading and it has been suggested that either could have been stronger than Tip (as Tip's T-numbers were a little lower than both Gay's and Angela's, see Tip's article). If a storm has T-number of 8 in the Western Pacific Ocean, I can guarantee you that it will have a pressure lower than 900 millibars. I could almost guarantee that in the Atlantic, where pressures average higher (Wilma was a 7.2 or 7.5 I think. Tip was 7.5-7.8, something like that). JMA gives Gay's winds as 110 knots. That's something like 130 knots in 1-minute mean. A storm with a T-number of 8 will not have winds that low. Ask any expert who studies hurricanes and they will tell you the same thing. Angela's numbers don't make sense either. JMA gives 115 knot winds with a 910 millibar pressure. 115 knots in 10-min mean is roughly 135-140 in 1-min mean. Those figures are far too low for a T-8 storm. See NOAA's Dvorak chart for more info. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 22:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Season" column

[edit]

I'm finding a bit confusing the "Season" column. It indicates just one year, which seems to be the starting year of the season, but it's easy to assume instead that it's the year of the hurricane itself. There seem to be a few mistakes there, e.g. Gafilo is from the 2003-04 season but year 2004 is listed, which is the year of the hurricane. OTOH Kalunde, which happened in 2003, shows year 2002 in the Season column, which is correct if that's to be the start year of the season.

I'd suggest that either the whole season is indicated to reduce ambiguity (e.g. 2003-04), or just the year in which the hurricane started forming, reached peak intensity, or some fixed criterium, so that just one year is listed. --pgimeno (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Typhoon "Gay" and "Zeb" data is wrong, and "Mike" should be added

[edit]

Guys, anyone who can edit the info about Super Typhoon "Gay" and "Zeb" of the Western North Pacific basin? According to Wikipedia articles of respective typhoons, both have a minimun central pressure of 872 millibars. And how about adding Super Typhoon "Mike" of the 1990 Pacific typhoon season? It had a minimum pressure of 875 millibars and had winds of up to 300 km/h. Also, it's surprising to see that Super Typhoon "Angela" of 1995 isn't even listed. It should be there. Please anyone can edit it? I'm a first-time editor so I wouldn't edit it unless I know how to. --Rex 1213 (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All data here is per the RSMC for the region (NHC, CPHC, JMA, IMD, MFR, BOM, BMG, FMS). For the WPAC the RSMC is the JMA whcih reports that Angela and Mike have peak pressures of 910 and 915 hPa respectively. To make it on to the list for the WPAC a storm has to have an offical pressure of under 901 hPa by JMA which means that Gay and Zeb are both featured as their peak pressures were 900 hPa.Jason Rees (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what about Paka? From Paka's page: "microbarographs are less exposed than wind sensors, pressure readings on the island are considered accurate; the lowest reading on the island was 948 mbar (hPa) at Andersen Air Force Base." I don't understand any of this, but if Paka qualifies, I'd like to see it added.Rhodesisland (talk) 08:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't qualify as to make it on to the list for the WPAC a storm has to have an official pressure of under 901 hPa (ie 900 899 etc) by the JMA who are the official monitoring agency for the WPAC.Jason Rees (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and so what does the JMA rate Paka at? Where is this info? Just trying to learn more about it! Thanks!Rhodesisland (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The JMA reports that Paka had a peak pressure of 920hpa, Ref.Jason Rees (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy

[edit]

I am surprised that Cyclone Tracy was omitted. Tracy was small in diameter, very compact, but its force was immense. Tracy killed 71 people, sank a navy patrol boat and all but wiped out Darwin (Australia). Top wind speed was recorded as 217 kilometres per hour (135 mph). I think that the "Australia Region" needs revisionHistorygypsy (talk)

Maps

[edit]

A map showing the location of these cyclones would be a useful addition. 155.192.161.28 (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SATL?

[edit]

Should it be included? It's not a real basin. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This boils down essentially to how we should cover the SHEM. IMO the best way to go would be to do it as a whole since the basin definitions have changed with time (eg: SWIO-Aus used to be 75/80E). However if we are doing it basin by basin then they should be included but we would need to set some ground rules - ie only named ones to go in and pressures have to be sourced back to a reliable source (eg:IBTRACS).Jason Rees (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IDK, in the NIO that would preclude one of the most power cyclones. Keep in mind, the CPAC is lumped with the EPAC. The only consistency we have is that it's the strongest based on the individual cyclone season articles we have. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I generally meant that if we are doing it basin by basin that the SATL should be included subject to some ground rules - eg: only named ones to go in and pressures have to be sourced back to a reliable source (eg:IBTRACS).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Rees (talk • contribs)
Only Catarina is in IBTRACS though. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of those situations, we are dammed if we dont include them since we have reliable sources calling certain systems tropical storms (eg: 90Q + NASA) and if we do we have to face the fact that they might not be tropical storms.Jason Rees (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest North Indian Cyclone

[edit]

I was going through some of my weather books and came across a section talking about lowest barometric pressures by ocean region. For the Indian ocean a pressure of 26.30" (891 mbar) was recorded by the vessal S.S. Duke of York, in May of 1833, while in an eye of a cyclone. I had trouble locating more sources about this ship or the record on Google. Was woundering if this should be counted or atleast mentioned somewhere? Supportstorm (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1-minute winds

[edit]

Why should the 1-minute winds be within the tables for the WPAC/NIO, since they are totally unofficial and just confuses the reader further.Jason Rees (talk) 07:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Im still waiting for an explanation @NONOCHANG2013:, if no response is received i will revert the addition as they are unofficial, unsourced and just confuse the reader.Jason Rees (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

collage

[edit]

Please add the new hurricane on the list as that hurricane is the strongest on record ever stronger than typhoon tip 65.175.243.206 (talk) 11:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of the most intense tropical cyclones. 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) 10:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Minimum pressure requirements for Atlantic cyclones

[edit]

Currently (as of September 19, 2017), the minimum pressure required to be on the list is 925 hPa. However, I request that it should be 935 hPa. This would include hurricanes Felix (2007) and Matthew (2016) in it. Felix would be a great fit in the list because of it's strength and being together with Dean in it. INeedSupport (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But neither were exceptionally strong storms. This list is for the strongest of the strong. If we continue getting strong storms like Irma and Marie, I'd push for the opposite, eventually culling it back to 910/915 mbar, if it gets too long. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 23:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am in full agreement with Hurricanehink, and thus in disagreement with you INeedSupport unfortunately. 935 would include too many storms. I agree with Jason's recent edits to pare it down to 920 mb, in line with other basins (and believe the EPac should likewise move that way). We have a list of category 5 hurricanes where both storms fit quite rightly in with their vicious intensity. But I count 7 other storms just on that list that would be added if it were extended to 935, and there's many others. Cheers for the try, but going that deep, you'd need to take a look at a dynamic site to find such a list, as otherwise it would just be excessively long and blur out the truly standout storms. JeopardyTempest (talk) 06:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ACE

[edit]

There should be an ACE Accumulated Cyclone Energy template, since that is the globally used index to assess storm intensity and duration. prokaryotes (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldnt go into this article until it is used globally by all the warning centres, since that is the data we will have to base the calculations on.Jason Rees (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ACE's calculations are based on existing storm data (wind speeds and duration). We already have ACE templates for the Atlantic basin. prokaryotes (talk) 06:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am already well aware of what ACE is and apart from being a pain in the butt. We shouldn’t be putting it into any basins where it isn’t used by the official warning centre since they all use different averaging wind times and it would be OR to use the same calculation for those basins.Jason Rees (talk) 09:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Colorado University has this site http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime using satellite data for the other basins. The site notes, "The Dvorak technique is the primary technique currently used today to estimate tropical cyclone intensity from satellite imagery. This technique was first initiated in 1972; however, the quality of satellite data in the 1970s through the mid-1980s likely led to significant underestimates in intensity, especially for the most intense systems." Thus, cannot we use their ACE data for other basins, beginning around 1985? (Or from NHC) prokaryotes (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of the most intense tropical cyclones. 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) 06:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements?

[edit]

Yutu reminded me again... it seems hard to find a list of strongest TCs by basin by wind speed. The Atlantic category 5 list and similar pages for the EPac and cat 3/4 in each basin seem about all there is. @Jason Rees: you spend more time on other basins and the local regional centers... is the data out there to do this for most/all basins? If so, would you think it worthwhile to do (Lord willing I have time, I wouldn't mind doing some of the legwork).

Also, a minor tweak I wanted to run by you and any others reading: think we maybe should sort each existing table by default by pressure rather than by year? Also the article is long, but perhaps we could add a combined table to the top (maybe we could auto collapse all other tables???).

Just thoughts. Always interested in trying to make articles like these better. Thanks for all your work Jason and all others who work on these pages.JeopardyTempest (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, there is a gap on Wikipedia on storms with high wind speed. We need articles on List of violent typhoons, List of super cyclonic storms, List of very intense tropical cyclones, and C5 cyclones (AUS scale) in AUS and SPAC (which are the highest category for each basin). Eventually, Wikipedia should have list articles for every storm in every basin of every intensity, but I think the top of the scale would be a good place to start. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At minimum, someone can quickly make a template like what we have in the ATL and EPAC. YE Pacific Hurricane 22:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the data to make pages like Cat 5 Atlantic and EPAC for other basins is there for most basins, thanks to projects like IBTRACS and SPEARTC. I feel that its a project worth doing and I have made a start on SPAC and Aus. As for this list, there would only be three TC's that would make the overall list (Zoe, Winston and Patricia outside the WPAC (I have my doubts over Mahina's pressure) so is it worth a combined table? However, I also wonder if we should have a clean up of this article and limit it to the top 10 in each basin, if we go down the route of having lists of TC's by Category.Jason Rees (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good work Jason on the C% in SPAC and AUS. And I agree, I don't think it's worth having a combined table for the most intense worldwide. Different areas have different regional pressures. This article is useful showing all storms under a certain pressure. Perhaps in the future, it'll be worth it to prune out some of the lesser intense storms, such as NIO down to 920 mbar like the rest of the basins, but for now, this article does a good job. Also, I wouldn't prune it to the top 10, because the top 10 on pressure is different than top 10 based on winds. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal - Raise the mininum to 950 mbar for every basin

[edit]

Right now, the NIO has a minimum of 950 mb, since they don't often go below 900 (if ever). Other basins have different limits, which is a shame, since we have Cyclone Harold as one of the strongest storms on record (by winds), but it's not listed because its pressure wasn't below 920 mbar. I believe it should be raised to 950 mbar everywhere worldwide. And yes, this will mean a lot of WPAC storms. But of course, all of those WPAC storms would count among the most intense tropical cyclones. Thoughts? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

950 mbar is for sure too much because that would mean possibly hundreds of typhoons and quite frankly I would not describe your average 950 mbar system (which is likely a Category 3 or 4 hurricane pending area of the world) as one of the "most intense tropical cyclones". The highest I'd go with this is 925 mbar. Anything higher borders WP:WHIM IMO. YE Pacific Hurricane 18:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I second exactly what YE has stated... hundreds of typhoons and EPAC storms means 950 isn't "most intense". NoahTalk 20:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This would oversaturate the page to the point where the WPac would need to be split off. It's best to keep it as-is, with a possible remedy of adding a table for wind speeds. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also oppose this proposal. This doesn't affect the record-holders so we are fine with what we have now.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal - Lower the mininum for NIO to 940 mbar

[edit]

@Hurricanehink, Jasper Deng, Yellow Evan, and Hurricane Noah: In recent days, I have been working through the IMD BT, which now extends back to 1982 as well as their reports which go back several years. As a result, I have come across a few systems and added them in, as a result I was wondering if we could lower the bar down to 940 hPa. This would mean losing the 1977 Andrah Pradesh Super Cyclonic Storm though as the IMD only estimated a peak pressure of 943 hPa.Jason Rees (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why omit storms with an artificial limit? I still believe we could better service the readers by having a common cutoff for all storms worldwide, say 950. Sure, it would be a lot in one basin, but it would be a good barometer among all basins (pun intended) for tropical storm strength. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes a common cut off maybe better but if we go to 950 are you really comfortable adding about 250+ systems to the WPAC section? I am working to an assumption of 250 based on there being 30 tropical storms per year of which about 1/2 would have a minimum pressure of 950. Maybe its better to limit it to the top 10 in each basin? Jason Rees (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If 250 WPAC storms had a pressure of 950, then that would be quite striking to see that compared to other basins. If it’s 50 in Atlantic (or whatever), then the number really shows a fair comparison more than having different numbers for each basin. A top 10 won’t mean much when WPAC’s #10 is 884 mb, but NIO is 932. The public might not understand that 50 mb difference when it’s just top 10, but they’ll really get the picture when they see all of the WPAC ones, they’ll realize the basin has stronger storms. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Rees and Hurricanehink: I think us making this decision constitutes OR. Who are we to decide what the most intense TCs are? NoahTalk 16:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then is the answer that we should do a top ten? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The 950 hPa was introduced for the North Indian Ocean as we supposedly had a lack of data, however, this is now in the process of being changed as we research the older seasons as more and more resources come online. As a result, I feel that it is appropriate to review where we put the bar for the NIO. @Hurricanehink:'s proposal to go to 950 hPa for all basins is interesting, but we also have to remember that this would I presume mean that we have about 250 systems for the WPAC at a minimum if not 500. As a result, that isn't really feasible especially, since we would end up covering the whole of Cat 3-5 on both Aus and SSHWS in this list. The same problem would occur if we went to 940, 930 or 920 and if we went any lower then we would risk not having any systems in various basins. @Noah: brings up a good point when they say who are we to decide what the most intense TCs over the basins are, especially since we deviate from what the JTWC and others think are the basins in the SHEM. As a result, the top 10 would make more sense, however, should that be by winds or by pressure? What period should we use bearing in mind that data from one region is not as reliable as from another? Jason Rees (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A top 10 for WPAC would have a pressure of 884 mbar and lower; Atl is 908, SWIO 910 (tied), AUS 910, SPAC 915, EPAC 920, and NIO 932 (tied). So I don't know what the answer is, whether top 10 is a reasonable cutoff. I still think that having those 250 WPAC systems would be fine so we get a reasonable metric across all basins. Yea WPAC tends to produce more intense storms, I think the page should show that. Maybe 950 is too high. 930 might be reasonable, since that would be the top 9 in NIO, wouldn't include any Cat 3 Atlantic hurricanes (and not that many C4's), just six additional EPAC storms to what we have, 19 more for AUS, whatnot. But then, 930 could be seen as OR. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pressures of WPAC systems

[edit]

Hello. I am currently using the data on this page for a personal project. Moreover, I wanted to point out some inconsistencies I have noted in the table for the most intense WPAC cyclones:

  1. The WPAC table lists the pressures of Typhoon Allyn in 1949 and Typhoon Clara in 1950 to be 884 mbar and 899 mbar, respectively. However, because the JMA best track database only goes back to 1951, I have not been able to confirm these values. Also, the JTWC best tracks for 1949 and 1950 do not reference any pressure values for these systems.
  2. The pressures for Typhoon Rita in 1978 and Typhoon Opal in 1964 are given as 878 mbar and 895 mbar, respectively. However, in the JMA best track, these values are 880 mbar and 900 mbar.
  3. According to this JTWC weather note, which confirms the value of the 1927 typhoon's lowest pressure of 887 mbar, the pressures of various WPAC typhoons listed on the second page are different than the reported values in the Wikipedia table (e.g. Nancy in 1961, Irma in 1971).
  4. The value of Typhoon Karen in 1962's pressure is given as 894 mbar. However, the source provided on its Wikipedia article is broken. Also, the JMA best track database's lowest pressure for Karen is 900 mbar. Is there another source that confirms the 894 mbar reading?

If someone could look into my concerns, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

Hurricane Andrew (444) 22:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AndrewPeterT: - I have quickly looked into Karen and tweaked its sources - it turns out the pressure listed on there is taken from the CMA. The same goes for Rita. Clara and Allyn's pressures appear to be taken from the TD9635 dataset in IBTRACS, which is basically a collection of best tracks that the NCDC has compiled and published over the years. I cant identify where Opals pressure comes from as the lowest IBTRACS has is 900. I can not see the paper that you have linked to but looking at IBTRACS, I see that Nancy is 890 and that Irma is 884 from the JMA. Now with regards to Rita, Karen and Clara, I have to ask the question should we really be taking the CMAs or the TD9635 pressure? Jason Rees (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Rees: - Here is another link to the JTWC paper I cited. If you click on "PDF", you will be redirected to a weather note that lists the JTWC pressures of some of the strongest WPAC typhoons. Hurricane Andrew (444) 02:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add Goni to the WPAC list?

[edit]

Goni's minimum pressure, as far as I can tell, is somewhere between 905mb and 884 mb. I think it's justified to add it, but wanted to hold off for the moment because I can't conclusively say it's 900mb or lower. Thoughts? 63.229.224.41 (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The list goes by JMA estimates so Goni does not meet the criteria for inclusion. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. That is stunning that the JMA estimate is going to keep Goni off this list! LOL! (I'm not saying its wrong, but I just think its funny.)ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mediterranean Tropical-like cyclones

[edit]

I think we should add medicanes to this list. 2003 LN6 (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, but are there any authoritative sources on such a list? AFAIK there are no meteorological agencies that specifically track cyclones in the Mediterranean like there are in more common cyclone basins. 2A01:799:BA1:5500:A0C0:A293:F3DB:58FF (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many figures for Mediterranean (S)TCs have to be dug up from papers analyzing individual storms. Regardless, the SATL doesn't have an RSMC of its own, so I don't see why the lack of a Mediterranean RSMC should bar the inclusion of such storms. ArkHyena (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raise Pressure for North Atlantic Hurricanes to allow Hurricane Andrew

[edit]

I'm getting a lot of pushback on including Hurricane Andrew in the North Atlantic list and I cannot understand why. It was one of the strongest and most destructive storms on record. The list should include it even if the lower limit for pressure needs to adjust to 922 (to match Andrew) or 925 if a nice round number is necessary. 922 would require adding "Bahamas" and Beulah in addition to Andrew. 925 would further require David and Lorenzo to additionally be added. Regardless of how it needs to be done, Andrew should absolutely be on the list. Kcollins7 (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is a list of most intense, not "most notorious", and having a higher cutoff would make the list too long. The cutoff has been lowered each time the list is deemed too long. Jasper Deng (talk) 09:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew was among one of the most intense by wind speeds. And the Western Pacific list has 46 storms in its list while the North Atlantic list has 26 currently. Accommodating an additional 5 storms by raising the threshold to 925 pressure is more than doable. Kcollins7 (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, the western Pacific one needs to be trimmed even more and 175 mph isn't even that remarkable in the Atlantic when you consider that 40% or so of Atlantic Cat 5's had winds at least that high. Jasper Deng (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are category 4 storms on the list so a 175 mph storm is remarkable enough to be on the list in my opinion. Especially one that actually did significant damage Kcollins7 (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the basins are 920, other than EPAC and NIO. So I guess there are a few options. One is to make every basin consistent - so if every basin was under 920, then WPAC would have far too many. If every basin was like the WPAC (under 900 mbar) then there would be very few for each basin (and none for NIO). Another option is just doing the 20 most intense for each basin, or some other number. That might end up being the best approach, since each basin is different with regards to comparing their strongest storms. If it was 20, the Atlantic would lose six storms, the EPAC is exactly at 20, the WPAC would lose 22, the NIO would lose 6, the SWIO wouldn't lose any (the 20th slot is a five-way tie), the AUS would lose 4, and the SPAC would gain one. I picked 20 kinda randomly, but that seems like a decent approach. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I'm going to try and implement it because getting this article to featured status would be beneficial to the project. Consistency is important. ZZZ'S 17:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jumped the gun. I can't tell if we should be listing storms by winds, pressure, or both. Any thoughts? ZZZ'S 17:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article has always been organized by pressure. The debate is whether it should be a top 10/20 thing, or have a set pressure for each basin. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is too subjective as is already and now you want to cut down the number of storms even further? When people go looking for Most Intense Storms they could be looking for any number of things. The intensity of the winds, the barometric pressure, or even the amount of damage. It doesn't help that there's a lot of storms on these lists from before reliable data was even possible. Heck, even Andrew had a post mortem study done that found it was stronger than the data at the time suggested.
As a result, I think these lists should include storms that readers would expect to see such as Andrew. I think that's more important than picking an arbitrary line in the sand using a certain barometric pressure as the cut off. Kcollins7 (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it’s worth, we have List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes if they specifically want the strongest Atlantic hurricanes, like Andrew. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Andrew qualifies for that list then why shouldn't it qualify for this list? It's wind speeds are higher than many on the current Atlantic list. Kcollins7 (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons for ranking by pressure rather than winds are explained in the very first paragraph of this article and I'm not going to repeat them here. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons listed are a poor excuse when multiple storms are on the list from before the use of dropsondes which didn't begin until the 1970s. Here's an entire article on Hurricane Andrew that repeatedly references the wind speed as the Intensity: https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/landseabams2004.pdf Kcollins7 (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extrapolating from 700 mb heights (the previous reconnaissance method of central pressure estimation) does not have enough uncertainty that we would need to rerank many storms on this list, and that reanalysis does not assert Andrew was one of the most intense Atlantic hurricanes, so your argument is invalid. You campaigning for one specific storm to be added is also contrary to WP:DUE; there are higher-impact storms than Andrew that could be added to the list by your argument. I might support moving this article to "List of deepest tropical cyclones" or "List of the most intense tropical cyclones by central pressure", but we are not going to include Andrew just because of its MSW. I should remind you that in a major hurricane, the rated category's winds occur over a very small area in the eyewall; the vast majority of the impact is not due to those winds.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's one of 4 storms that actually hit the United States at category 5 intensity, 7th lowest pressure storm to make landfall in the US, and among one of the most costly storms on record. It should frankly be the minimum barometer for other storms to be included on this list. Putting the minimum pressure at 925 would only add 5 storms to the list. Any cursory search on google has multiple articles saying Andrew was one of the most intense storms on record because there's lots that considered intensity by wind speeds and pressure. Kcollins7 (talk) 04:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a red herring and not the purpose of the article. This article needs to present a worldwide, not a US-centric, view. Your last sentence is patently false. You're not going to get any progress by continuing to argue with me so I suggest you stop and just allow consensus to form.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to add on that Andrew indeed was one of the strongest hurricanes to hit the United States. As such, it's listed in List of United States hurricanes, as well as List of Florida hurricanes (and Bahamas). Andrew also appears in List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes, because that was its status. But Andrew was not among the most intense tropical cyclones worldwide, period. There are at least 26 Atlantic hurricanes stronger than Andrew (by pressure), so I agree, there's no need to include Andrew in this list. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kcollins7: "Most intense" has a scientific definition and damage is emphatically not what any reliable sources rank by for "most intense". "Readers would expect to see Andrew" is also not justified; no one in the weather community considers Andrew to be among the most intense Atlantic hurricanes. We need to follow what reliable WP:SECONDARY sources say, not your opinion (since "I'm entitled to my opinion" is not an argument).--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your proof that "no one in the weather community considers Andrew to be among the most intense Atlantic hurricanes"? That's a mighty big claim. Kcollins7 (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:BURDEN of proof is on you, not me, as the proponent of the requested change. "No one" = no reliable sources I could find on specifically "most intense".--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_the_most_intense_tropical_cyclones&oldid=1255177103"