Quick note reguarding Katrina damage estimate. $100-200 billion IS just the damage/clean up estimate to rebuild everything. This is not an economic impact estimate. -- 72.240.238.243 23:45 September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Should we group the hurricanse by year? Or just all of them alphabetically? (I'd like to see them in reverse chrono order, myself. Y'know, most recent one at the top of the page.) -- Ed Poor
They actually repeat often enough that I think we should pre-emptively add the year--it also provides some historical context. "Hurricane Camille (1969)" (which I happened to live through, BTW) already gives the reader an impression that this was before fancy warning systems, for example. -- LDC
---
! Just to clarify how the naming conventions work here, hurricane names do regularly repeat, about every five years or so. (In fact, want information on this? See
hurricane, and the 'naming' section. The issue is that only some hurricanes are, to be honest, noteworthy. Many spiral off into the Atlantic and noone cares about them because they never make landfall.
The only way to be absolutely, completely unique, as a groundrule, is to organize the hurricanes WITH the year in the name (as someone said, 'Hurricane Andrew (1992)' ). But considering that in the listing of the retired Atlantic hurricanes from 1950 when naming began, that on 16 September 2002, only six actually have articles written, we should probably worry about that when all the notable storms have been written about, and well. We're a long way from that at this point.
If, eventually, someone wants to write about the year 2000 incarnation of Hurricane Alberto (unique mostly because of the length of time it existed, nearly three weeks), we can crack that egg when we come to it, or simply say that retired hurricanes don't need year designations, because those are implicit anyway - and names that haven't been retired do.
On the other hand, if we're GOING to make that change, a serious naming restructuring of the existing articles will need to be done that's beyond my general abilities to do, and should be done sooner than later. But...whatever works for people.
Okay, okay. I'm just considering it really unlikely at this point that we're needing for articles on the storms that were never retired. Yet.
-65.200.x
Every six years the names are recycled. Past 1979 atleast. I dont know what they did in the 50's - 70's Cyclone1 15:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I hope Wikipedians aren't going to make tiny entry stubs for every tropical storm, simply because the formula Hurricame Name (Year) exists, instead of grouping them by season. Tropical storms whose names are retired are a different matter of course and deserve separate entries. Keep the reader in mind, and focus on information and context, rather than trivial minutiae. Always a good idea. Wetman 20:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
http://www.abc-7.com/articles/readnews.asp?articleid=2101&z=2&p=
It was quite obvious that Charley, Frances, Ivan and Jeanne going to be retired; any thoughts of replacement names? (Note it is the fourth straight year the "I" storm has been retired, I wonder if Irene will be 2005's monster?)
Any other names that should be retired? By storm, here is what I think:
My replacement name ideas: Charley ---> Clyde (a no-brainer!), Frances ---> Felicia, Ivan ---> Igor, Jeanne ---> Julia
I have some suggestions...
- E.Brown Hurricane enthusiast
Hugo doesn't sound that hokey actually, to me, it may to you. Igor sounds much hokier (is that a word?).
Hugo, Ivan, (Igor?), etc... Not too come off as insenstive, but is there some sort of quota for storms that sound like they were named for farmers in former Soviet republics? Hugo and Ivan don't sound very hokey if you think about it. After 50 years of being scared of 'big mean, Russkies from the Evil Empire', I think names like that scare people more than "Jeanne" and "Ophelia", which sound like names for soccer moms. -- Refugee621 01:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast
Despite Irene was about to be killed, she could survive and could become a category 2 hurricane. But she couldn't become a monster like Isabel or Ivan and she will never be retired in 2005. I think the name Irene is too modest to be a intense storm: "Irene" means "goddess" and I wonder if the name is suitable for a storm. In 1947, Tropical Storm Irene occurred, but Japan Meteorological Agency analyzed her as a tropical depression, not as a tropical storm: she couln't become "Taifuu". So I thought Irene couldn't become a notable storm... I think Ingrid or Ida will be able to become a stronger storm than Irene: Cyclone Ingrid in 2005 and Typhoon Ida in 1958 are very famous storms. (Super Typhoon Ivan in 1997 (Narsing) was also a very strong storm: he was one of the strongest storm in 1997.) By the way, how about Isaac ? Issac in 1988 was very weak but the one in 2000 could become a category 4... And I wonder if the strength of 'I' storms from 2001 to 2004 is true or false. -- HERB 16:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
The South Atlantic isn't really a basin (yet), is it?
P.S: I developed a naming list for tropical cyclones in the South Atlantic.
- E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast
Guys, I said in the message that I made it up. Note the use of the words "I developed". Not to be rude, but read the message before you rumage through Google trying to find a list that is scribbled on a sheet of notebook paper sitting in my home office. I never tried to pass it off as official. I guess the confusion lies in the introduction, which is (or was) almost a direct copy from the introduction to the list of Central Pacific names on the NHC website because that's what I modeled it after. I understand the possible confusion, but oi! The main focus of the message was the simple question at the top that I guess nobody bothered to read.
- E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast 3 February 2005
Guys, listen. I disagree, but I'm not going to sit here and argue about it with my main question still unanswered. So forget the names list. I just wanted to share my creative ideas with anybody interested (I mean, Cyrius, you did it in the header above) which I thought was perfectly legal but aparently not. Now, back to the question: The South Atlantic technically isn't a basin is it?
- E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast
What!, I'll have you know that ALL my information comes direct from UNISYS and the NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER. Now I did not create an account in Wikipeda to be accused of lying, stealing information, and broadcasting falsehoods! That could not be less true and if you continued accusing me of these terrible crimes, I will leave for good, and I have alread contributed nearly three decades worth of hurricane data. I always try to make sure that every detail I post is truthful. That is why, when I shared my names list, I went out of my way to make sure that it was understood that I made it up and it should not be presented as true. I was going to post it and once you guys had read it, I would remove it (delete the info and erase the link). This has infuriated me to a point beyond comprehension. If you wish to get into a screaming match with me, that can be aranged on my talk page. But for the sake of everyone reading this discussion page, I would like my question to be heard and the names list topic dropped.
- E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast
Should this list be adjusted for inflation? -- Golbez 15:42, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
These were real events. They really happened. The figures listed there are not ridiculous, they merely give people an idea of the impact that the disasters had back then. In other words, it is saying that if the hurricane had hit the exact same spot at the exact same intensity, this is what the bill would come to. I don't see what's ridiculous about that. These disasters are not nearly as old as the examples you gave and I doubt any reliable estimates exist for those. The Great Miami Hurricane happened in 1926 and caused $100 million in damage there. Simply adjusting that for inflation doesn't give you an idea of the impact that had on the city of Miami. The figure given in the list is $98 billion. That lists the likly damage figure if the hurricane had hit today. This system is meant to equalize everything, not just wealth.
- E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast ( Squawk Box) 8 May, 2005
I've been looking at some tracks in UNISYS and I was just curious if anyone else had noticed how monumentally weird some of them are. Take Tropical Storm Olaf of 1997 for example. [2]. That's just one of the weirdest ones. There are plenty of other hurricanes, most in the Eastern Pacific, that can't seem to make up their minds.
Also, I've added a section on significant hurricanes that no one seems to have heard of. It's a wonder to think how some of them are not more well known. (By the way, that reminds me, I think I need to change the designation of one of the unnamed storms. I think the factual accuracy of it is a bit off).
- E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast
I Agree, User E. Brown. I love UNISYS. It's on my favorites list. Anyway, I had noticed Olaf's path and how completly weird it was! My favorite hurricane track to date is and always has been Hurricane Gordon! We all remember that stubborn hurricane, dont we? [3] And Hurricane John? The longest laster? I have seen at least two cyclones in the South Indian Ocean that matched, or even surpassed that record. [4] (click that link and look for Cyclone #19)
-Cyclone1, Hopeful Meteorologist (only 14 years old-can you beleive it?)
(Ahh, my first edit to a talk page... good memories... →Cycl one1→ 14:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC))
Indian ocean cyclones are just cyclones (as opposed to hurricanes or typhoones). They also aren't given names. Probably because of this, I've found records on the internet are pretty sketchy and on wikipedia there's even less information. But obviously these should be included as well. All of the deadliest cyclones are Indian Ocean ones (for instance the so-called 1970 Bhola Cyclone).
I guess the biggest question is what to name them. There was a huge 1991 cyclone that hit Bangladesh but I can find no entry for this one anywhere. What could it be called? The same sort of convention as applied to other cyclones should be used (year + name) but in this case the name has to be made up.
For the moment I'll just add a new section as a stub.
Jdorje 09:49, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Links ( Jdorje 10:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)):
At List of wars and disasters by death toll there is a (very inaccurate) list of the globally deadliest cyclones. This is odd since this article itself doesn't have such a list. Should that list be moved over? Should a section be added saying that such a list isn't possible? Assembling such a list seems very difficult since there are no sources that track data worldwide, but as long as someone's going to make a list it might as well be in this article. Jdorje 03:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Uh, not to be rude, but what you just said made a grand total of no sense. 'This article has a very inaccurate list of the deadliest tropical cyclones. But the article itself doesn't have such a list'. Huh? You go from saying that it has a very inaccurate list to saying that it doesn't have one at all. Which is it?
- E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast ( Squawk Box) 8 May, 2005
List of wars and disasters by death toll has a very inaccurate list. This article doesn't have a list at all. Jdorje 18:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Oh. Now that makes more sense.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 20:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You're right it was inaccurate. I fixed it.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 18:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Guys I've just come up with a figure for Western Pacific category 5's. Get this: since 1945, 151 typhoons have reached Category 5 strength! In that same period of time, the Atlantic saw just 21. That's unbelievable! Trust me, I'm not making this up. I counted them myself. The monsoons of Asia fuel monsters of unimaginable intensity. Tip, Nancy, Vera, Karen...geezz
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 19:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The people of the Philippines, Taiwan and Japan might disagree with that. In 2000, Super Typhoon Bilis creamed Taiwan as a Category 5. Vera killed hundreds in Japan and the Philippines have been hit by a score of Fives in the past half century. Nida grazed them as one just last year. Japan's typhoon history goes back centuries (ever wonder where the term 'Kamakaze' came from). Yes many storms do vent their fury over the open Pacific, there's a lot of water out there, but the Asian shorelines are a typhoon-battered bunch. They get their fair share of bad ones.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 21:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just a nit pick, Mitch actually made landfall as a Category 1, but that point is renedered moot by the fact that it stalled off the coast as a Category 5, killing nearly 20,000 people. Typhoon Vera still killed thousands in Japan, as mentioned earlier. Typhoons Nanmadol and Muifa killed hundreds in the Philippines last year and they weren't even 5's. The Filipinos however, don't have million-dollar estates packed like sardines along the oceanfront.
Jdorje, Allen hit Texas as a three, not a two.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 22:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I beg to differ with some of those. The '47 storm hit as a strong Category 4. The Bahamas Hurricane only affected the Bahamas. I don't think that qualifies as a landfall. My list counts ten, and that includes many you failed to list: Lake Okeechobee Hurricane (1928), Labor Day Hurricane (1935), Hurricane Janet (1955), Hurricane Beulah (1967), Hurricane Camille (1969), Hurricane Edith (1971), Hurricane Anita (1977), Hurricane David (1979), Hurricane Gilbert (1988), Hurricane Andrew (1992). Hurricane Beulah hit Mexico and Texas as a 5. That's blatantly obvious on the UNISYS track. Anita hit Mexico in the rural La Plata area as a 5. And David obliterated Hispaniola as a 5, killing over 2,000 people. Jdorje, there isn't alot of information about what the Lake Okeechobee hurricane did in Puerto Rico. It killed between 1,000 and 2,000 people there. According to the best track, it struck PR as a 5.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 18:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Guys, this is agrivating. Look at the Unisys best track [6].Beulah is clearly shown making landfall as a Category 5. All the sites that I've seen that conradict UNISYs still put landfalling wind speeds at at least 136 MPH. That's a Category 4 gentlemen, not a three. 130 mph surface wind speeds along with 140 mph gusts were measured by the ship Shirley Lykes near Corpus Christi. Near Corpus Christi! That's roughly 100 miles from where the center made landfall and surface readings are generally lower than the actual wind speed. A surface reading of 130 mph 100 miles away from the center is not good. That means that wind speeds near the center are no less than 150 mph and more likely 155-160 mph. Also known as a Category 5.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 21:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Cyclone 1 (14 year-old meteorologist)
Hurricane Andrew - Clearly shown as a four.
Cyclone 1
See this site-- [8]. It is a report done by NOAA. I quote: "At landfall winds near the center were about 136 mph...". 132 is the Category 4 threshold. You're telling me that's wrong? With the Shirley Lykes report, even if it was in Brownsville, the hurricane made landfall 50 miles to the south in between Brownsville and Matamoros, Mexico. The 130 mph reading that far away would still correspond to at least 145 mph surface wind at landfall. Clearly there's some inconsistancy here. Using NHC reasoning, we take the median of the two reports: 140 mph (rounded down). Well gee, I guess that makes us both wrong ;).
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 02:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
The article
List of Category 5 Atlantic Hurricanes shows 11 hurricanes making landfall at category 5. The difference is two "Bahamas" landfalls for the 1932 and 1947 storms. Now you can argue (as some did above) that the Bahamas don't count as landfall. But then I would like to argue back that the Keys don't count as landfall either. How do you draw the line? The answer is we don't. We look at NOAA or other sources. And unfortunately there are no sources given for either list so no way to verify. Whoever made these lists, if you're reading this: please find the source you made the list from and add a reference to it.
Jdorje
03:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
How should we handle 2005 storms on here? Obviously they aren't officially retired, but if it is clear they are going to be, should we have a section saying the following:
Hurricane names likely to be retired, but not officially retired yet; a decision will be made by the WMO in the spring of 2006:
That line would be repeated for each name that is likely to be retired. That seemed to be the standard used for 2004. CrazyC83 8 July 2005 00:20 (UTC)
The gut reactions from the casual users has already began! It is likely that newbies will continue to add Dennis (and other 2005 names later in the season) that are likely to be retired...looks like you'll be doing a lot of reverting! However, Dennis is likely to be an obvious pick to be sent to the dustbin, so once it dies and everything becomes official, (and it will likely be joinedw by several other names later in the season) we can put it in the separate mention. (Not in a list format until the NHC makes the case to retire it) CrazyC83 9 July 2005 03:37 (UTC)
NO NO NO NO. No 2005 storms! No speculation! -- Cyrius| ✎ 04:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Cyrius, I don't mean to be cynical, but no matter how many times we tell them not to, some idiots are still going to do it. I'll wager that more than one person is going to stick Dennis onto the list in the next few weeks. Bob, I agree 100 percent with that last comment. The WMO is a fickle organization (to put it mildly). Those rusting, buereaucratic desk-jockeys have no concept of reason. Their ridiculous reason for not retiring Gordon was that Haiti's warning system sucked. I find it a gross disrespect for those who died. It just amplified my hatred of bureaucrats. It's a subject that I try not to think about much because it arouses so much anger in me.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 19:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Would I be able to make a note like "While the names of the 2005 season won't be retired by the WMO until Spring 2006, there is heavy speculation these names will be retired." Fableheroesguild 18:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I noticed that in the off-season storms listing, it says Hurrican Alice formed in December in the 50s, the a couple entries down it lists two storms from recent years as the "first to form in December for 115 years." What's with the conflicting info?
Only one storm formed in December, 1954, Bob.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 02:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Someone needs to verify the listing of this hurricane at 31 days longevity. The sources I've seen don't seem to be consistent with this: it is reported to have struck Puerto Rico without warning on August 8, 1899, and made landfall in North Carolina on August 16-17th. This accounts only for 8-9 days. Since hurricanes mostly could be tracked only by landfall in those days, that leaves a question as to how the 31-day interval was determined. (Part of the confusion may be due to the fact that a second hurricane struck Puerto Rico on August 22nd, and that it is recorded that it rained in Puerto Rico for 28 days straight.) CoyneT talk 02:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Did you use unisys? http://www.weather.unisys.com/hurricane gives the most accurate information, and this time, they are somewhat correct. From its birth on August 3rd to its death on September 3rd, it was 31 days. However, for 4 of the days, it was extratropical. Be sure that the website you use was used after the hurricane re-analisys. Hurricanehink 21:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Today the Associated Press circulated a list (in anticipation of Katrina making it obsolete) of the fifteen costliest tropical cyclones to hit the mainland USA.It is stated to be corrected for inflation with dollar values adjusted to the year 2004.It differs in some respects with this article.
Not saying replace,but perhaps these numbers should be taken into account?--Louis E./le@put.com/ 12.144.5.2 20:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the current list of should be replaced, and this looks like a good option. I just don't think it makes sense to report the Great Miami Hurricane as having caused almost $100B in damage, when that figure actually assumes that it hit today with today's development. That would be like saying a hurricane caused $200B in damage because it ravaged Manhattan Island in 1586. -- DavidK93 15:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
If we must have the cost-in-original-dollars and adjusted-for-population lists, then I guess the current three-list system is best. Personally I think the only list needed is the adjusted-for-inflation one. And, although I don't want to pick a fight about this I have to again rebuke any argument in favor of the adjusted-for-population list. Saying this list indicates how the hurricane was viewed by people of the day is not only unfounded (since none of us were alive in 1926, I assume) but just plain wrong. From all the documentation I've seen the 1928 hurricane was viewed as much more of a tragedy than the 1926 one. And a hurricane that was intense enough would have a *lower* cost on this list. Why, you ask? Simply because a hurricane that destroyed a large part of an area reduces the population/infrastructure of that area permanently, thus reducing the adjusted cost. A good example of this is the Galveston Hurricane of 1900. Had this hurricane not struck and encouraged everyone to emmigrate to Houston, perhaps Galveston would today be a city of 5 million people and then the adjusted-for-population cost of that hurricane would today be $100 billion. Another hypothetical example is Katrina. If tomorrow we decided to leave the lower half of louisiana uninhabited, then by next year the adjusted-for-population cost of this hurricane (in louisiana only, of course) would be zero. Jdorje 07:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Has anyone noticed that, of the top 5 costliest hurricanes, 4 of them have occured in the past 2 years (Katrina, Andrew, Charley, Ivan, and Frances) with Jeanne ranking seventh behind Hugo? That is chilling.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 00:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
It is difficult to find what the daggers and double-daggers refer to since they are first references at the very top of the article but aren't described until the very bottom of the article in the Notes section. I was trying to think of a way to make their references easier to find. My first thought was to use the old footnote template {{fn}} and {{fnb}}} but this template is rarely used. Also I couldn't get it to work using the dagger symbols. A thought would be to use the newer footnote format {{ref}} and {{note}}, but the default text for this template is to use the text "Note 1". An alternative would be instead of using footnotes, just to provide a link to the #Notes section for each instance of the dagger or double-dagger. Does anyone have any suggestions? — Brim 17:42, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
As I suggested at Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season I'd like to better organize work on hurricanes. My initial suggestion is that we use a template, which I have put at Template:hurricane, on the talk page of hurricane and hurricane season articles. We should then have one centralized place for discussion of standards (for naming, season layout, etc.). (This place need not be/should not be the template talk page; it's easy to point the template to somewhere more permanent once we have such a location). Unless there are objections I will add this template to some talk pages. Jdorje 18:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I found this rather interesting. There have been 12 Typhoon Ninas in the north-west pacific [13]. Only pressure and tracking data is given here so the below is interpretation. (This is a story, not an encyclopedia...but see the references for the full background.)
After all of this, the name doesn't seem to be retired. Do they retire names in the Pacific? The name was last used in 1995.
Jdorje 04:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
The name Nina in the western Pacific name list has been used thirteen times: Twelve Ninas occurred in the western Pacific and one Nina occurred in the eastern Pacific in 1957. In other word, Nina in 1957 was not in the eastern Pacific name list but in the western Pacific name list. Japan Meteorological Agency didn't regard Nina in 1957 as "Taifuu". -- HERB 11:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone know why these names were retired from the Eastern Pacific?
Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
One other thing to remember: if it can easily be mistaken for a non-tropical rain event (which can have high death tolls in less-developed areas), it has less of a case for retirement. On the names missed, here is my take (bold names - should have been retired IMO):
CrazyC83 04:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Crazy C, Gert in 1993 was the same intensity as Diana in 1990 at final landfall in Mexico. The first Alice of 1954 was the killer. Plus, people back then weren't that stupid. They would know that the rain was caused by a tropical system, they could see it on the satellie imagery. A possible reason Gordon wasn't retired in 2000: all but 1 of the deaths occured when it hit the Yucatan peninsula as a tropical depression. The other death was a surfer that drowned in Florida.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 18:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
From the List of previous tropical cyclone names article:
I don't know why. Was a TS at landfall. Perhaps because of the horrible Atlantic storm?
I can't find this at Unisys. Maybe a mistake?
Didn't make landfall.
I don't know why. Didn't make landfall.
Definitely because it flooded Ocotillo, California and killed three people.
Should these be added to the retired names in the article? And should we add that Dalilia was "accidentally" removed due to an error in documents?
The only 2 of these the WMO appears to recognize [16]] are Hazel and Adele. Ha Ha. The WMO doesn't know why either was retired!
They also mention that names may have been retired because of "pronunciation ambiguity or a socially unacceptable meaning" in one of the languages.
Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
In addition to knowing what the busiest years for tropical cyclone activity were, is there anyway of knowing what day had the most active storms? I've read that August 22, 1869 had 4 active storms (that is, tropical storm or greater). Is this the record? If not, it would probably make for, at the very least, an interesting factoid.
Refugee621 01:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
From the Hurricane Ginger article;
The closest other time this happened was on August 29th, 1995, when Hurricanes Humberto and Iris, Tropical Storms Karen and Luis, and the renmants of T.D. Jerry existed. From the 27th to the 28th, there were 5 tropical systems, but 3 were TD's.... 1971 holds the record for storms. On September 25th, 1998, there were 4 hurricanes for the second time ever, the other on August 19th, 1893. Hurricanehink 01:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I added these names to the article as the deadliest EPac storms:
I am pretty confident that the top three members are accurate, but does anyone have a better list? Possible candidates:
Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Should that be moved to a separate article, i.e. Hurricanes in Canada? There have been many hurricanes or tropical storms that have affected Canada (either directly or - in the case of Fabian - destructive offshore) at considerable intensity - since 1995 alone, I can name 19 (including four in 2003). There could be more.
The list: 1995 - Barry, Luis, Opal; 1996 - Bertha, Hortense; 1997 - none; 1998 - none; 1999 - Floyd, Gert; 2000 - Florence, Leslie, Michael; 2001 - Gabrielle, Karen; 2002 - Gustav; 2003 - Fabian, Isabel, Juan, Kate; 2004 - Frances; 2005 - Ophelia. CrazyC83 04:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Most of these, if not all, hit Canada as extratropical storms, so I'm not sure an article on them would be a good idea. Fableheroesguild 04:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Just a few minor problems with it. First, it should be Total tropical storms/total hurricanes/total major hurricanes, not just storms that only reached storm strength. For example, 2005 should be:
21/12/5, rather than, 11/5/5.
The latter makes it seem that there are only 5 hurricanes, of which all 5 became major hurricanes. Having 21/12/5 shows that there were 12 hurricanes, of which the 5 became m.h.'s. If it is to go by my format, they should go by Most T.S.'s, and if they are tied, then the most hurricanes (2005 would go first because they had more hurricanes).
Second, it is fine to mention that there was a subtropical storm, but the subtropical storms were included in the total. The 1969 season, for example, had 18 storms, 17 of which were tropical. I'm not sure how you should differentiate them, but when you say + 1 subtropical storm, it is actually incorrect, as the subtropical storm was already included in the total. That's basically it... Hurricanehink 19:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
OK, the new layout makes sense. Good work Wikipedians, especially Fxer, it makes more sense now. Hurricanehink 22:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
What is the appropriate order of these when there is a tie for number of storms? Is it oldest season first? Should it be by most major huricanes then by most hurricanes? Should this even be in this article which is about notable cyclones not about notable seasons? crandles 13:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Pacific Typhoon recon flights were discontinued in 1988. Almost all typhoon minimum central pressure reports after that day are based on Dvorak numbers and windspeed/air pressure relationship estimates. This would include almost all typhoons on that list, except for Tip, Forrest and (possibly) Nancy. This is why same pressure number is given to many different typhoons. Methods have margin of error about 10mbar or so.
I think, at minimum, list should put a note next to all typhoons whichs' readings are estimates, not actually measured numbers. In addition, there is no real reason to disqualify Southern Hemisphere cyclons from the list, as their central pressures are measured by exact same method. Possible candidates would include at least Cyclone Zoe, Cyclone Gafilo and 1991 Bangladesh cyclone.
If we have to exclude storms from the list to get representation from all basins, it's a sign that the list isn't a good idea. Either the list should be accurate or it should not exist. We can always have separate lists for each basin (which the Atlantic has anyway). Jdorje 23:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
That's right. I came across this report online, so here: http://www.typhoon2000.ph/karl/hoarau001.pdf. It is quite interesting and says that Angela and Gay have all indications of being stronger than Tip at max intensity (in regard to pressure). Also, there are a lot of super typhoons that are stronger than the ones listed in Wikipedia's records, I propose we update this. I'm also interested in starting a articles for the major super typhoons like Gay that need to have their own article. As soon as I have some time and desire to research it, I will get started. If you are interested then help out. The great kawa 18:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
According to UNISYS, no tropical cyclone ever struck New England in August of 1934 [25], like the article says. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 03:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Just setting up the chart for the inevitable. Some numbers will change with the final reports. I doubled the middle of the insured estimates for Rita and Wilma to get somewhat accurate damage totals. I'm assuming that the damages listed for Dennis and Emily are total, not insured, as their articles do not indicate otherwise. Death tolls for Katrina and Stan are my own estimates for what the final declarations will be.
-- 69.86.16.61 05:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Name | Year | Location | Deaths | Damage (2005 $US) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Dennis | 2005 | Cuba, Florida | 71 | $4-6 billion |
Emily | 2005 | Grenada, Cayman Islands, Mexico | 14 | $420 million |
Katrina | 2005 | South Florida, U.S. Gulf Coast | 1,383+ | $75 billion+ |
Rita | 2005 | Louisiana, Texas | 119 | $9.4 billion |
Stan | 2005 | Central America, Mexico | 100-2,500 | "Severe" |
Wilma | 2005 | Cuba, Yucatán Peninsula, Florida | 60 | $18-22 billion |
Just in case:
Name | Year | Location | Deaths | Damage (2005 $US) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Ophelia | 2005 | Florida, North Carolina | 3 | $1.6 billion |
- Cuivienen 23:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Unlike last season, when the NHC made all the cases, it seems to be harder to find the cases made for retirement, as foreign agencies will likely make at least two (possibly up to four) of the expected retirement cases. AFAIK, the NHC has only publicly suggested that Katrina will be retired - quote from the NHC's Daniel Brown: "Hurricane Katrina will "absolutely" be retired". [26] Of course, I expect many more names to be removed from the list and replaced for 2011. CrazyC83 22:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
We have most intense cyclones worldwide, so I propose having a worldwide longevity one, which would look something like this. Only storms lasting more than 20 days (so 20 days aren't listed here) are here, with the exception of Faith so you could see her true longevity. For accuracy purposes the Southern Hemisphere only goes to 1980.
Just a note, these dates are when the storm was tropical or subtropical. Hurricane Ivan, for example, included its extratropical stage, which goes against the word tropical in the title. Faith, I have no idea how that was done. I included it here so you see it wasn't as long as once thought. It existed for 26 days as some sort of cyclone, but only 16 of those were as a tropical cyclone. Would something like work in the article? Hurricanehink 15:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
What tropical cyclone is the second largest? I think it is Typhoon Lupit. Irfan Faiz Cyclone/Aviation Expert - Even tough i know about cyclones but some stuff i didn't know yet...
Even though the threshold for a typhoon being mentioned as particularly intense has been raised from 895 mb to 890, the most intense list is still swamped by typhoons. I have changed the threshold be raised again to 885 mb. This way, after the first couple of non-typhoons (Zoe and Wilma) appear, the list is devoid of typhoons, making it easier to see the relative intensities of storms in the less intense basins. - Cuivienen 02:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
The headings need to be changed so anchors such as List of notable tropical cyclones#Off-season storms don't collide. There needs to be a way to jump to the Pacific off-season storms section, for example. -- AySz88^ - ^ 03:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Agnes (1972), Bill (2003), Christine (1973), Subtrop 3 (1976). All of these formed over land! Every Hurricane 101 book tells you this is impossible! Help me! Cyclone1 05:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
The unusual landfalls section is not useful and should be removed or cut down. Note that there is already an *identical* section in the tropical cyclone article. It should be sufficient just to give a list of areas that are not usually affected by hurricanes, with a link to the category or list giving the storms for each section. Jdorje 19:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The article says these are not economic impact estimates, and yet they are still far larger than the direct damage estimates reported by SHELDUS [28] [29]. As I understand it, SHELDUS figures attempt to incorporate only the cost of destroyed and damaged property and crops. So that they do not include costs associated with cleanup, emergency supplies and services, or any of the more nebulous economic impact costs. According to SHELDUS, Hurricane Andrew rated only $2B (1992 dollars) in terms of their direct damage costs. As this is only a few percent of the $45B (2004 dollars) cost reported here for Andrew, I am wondering what all is included in the difference?
For perspective, the worst SHELDUS year for severe weather was only ~$16B (2004 dollars) incorporating the direct damage costs of all hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods, etc. affecting the US in that year (1995).
Dragons flight 10:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
This page is getting a little long. I propose we move the Atlantic section to its own article, which on its own is half the article. Hurricanehink 17:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, here it is. List of notable Atlantic tropical cyclones. I didn't link it yet, cause I wasn't sure how it should've been done. I added a section about Atlantic-EPAC crossovers, if that's all right. Now there's more room for expansion, if needed. Hurricanehink 20:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Sooo, can we link it? What should be kept on the main page? Hurricanehink 20:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
What about sections like Unusual landfalls? Some of that is in the Atlanic notables. Should all Atlantic storms be left (like Europe or Atlantic Canada), or move all Atlantic ones over? The same problem is with extreme latitudes... Hurricanehink 16:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
The EPac section was over 6 pages long, so I split it off into a separate article as well. We should, however, try to make the different articles follow a similar structure. — jdorje ( talk) 07:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Why is Delta included as a storm which hit the Canaries? Delta was EXTRAtropical when it made landfall there. 200.119.236.216 19:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
The following text is currently in the article. The symbols don't seem to be used, but I got reverted.
The symbols are indeed used again in the page, but the seem to be redefined in those sections. -- AySz88^ - ^ 03:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
There are way too many sections. Here's some that I think can go elsewhere-
Hurricanehink 17:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Entirely agreed. (1) move to Atlantic (the best-track actually has info about this so we can verify it eventually). (2) Move to atlantic (same reasoning). (3) This is completely unverifiable and should be deleted. (4) Again, PoV and unverifiable - should be deleted. (5) I already changed this to be most storms...however this list is useless and should be split into per-basin lists of most active seasons (as already exists for the Atlantic). — jdorje ( talk) 22:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
In the "most intense" section, Zoe's data uses the JTWC estimate at a time when RSMC Fiji was already official while Monica's data uses the BoM Darwin estimate rather than JTWC estimate. We should be consistent in our usage of JTWC vs. local data; personally, I would prefer to see Zoe use RSMC Fiji, but either possibility (using JTWC or RSMC Fiji and BoM Darwin) works. — Cuivi é nen T| C, Sunday, 14 May 2006 @ 03:35 UTC
This system is being revisited in the Atlantic Hurricane reanalysis. The question is not whether or not it had tropical storm force winds (it did), it is whether or not it was even a tropical cyclone. Back then, and rarely this rule is used nowadays, NHC had responsibility eastward to 35W, with the Navy having responsibility east of that longitude. Kendra was that far east. This is why Kendra was removed from list of tropical cyclones that year, and why I just removed it from this article which stated it was a named tropical depression. By the way...just for reference...the name Mike was used during the 1950 season and it is also not in any of the databases, probably for a similar reason. The reanalysis will address this mystery as well. Thegreatdr 20:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The term "notable" is POV. None of these factors are synonymous with "worthy of taking note," which is a value judgement. It would be more accurate and neutral to describe these as tropical cyclone superlatives (costliest, deadliest, most powerful), as we do with automobiles. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 16:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... I'm thinking the list is probably too long and is bordering on being an indiscriminate collection of info/listcruft. I'd prefer a shorter one, say, top 5 from each basin, listed by basin. That would give 35 (WPac, EPac/CPac, Atl, NIO, SWIO, SEIO/Australia, SPac). As it stands only the section on the North Atlantic has a list of most intense storms within the basin. We could probably move that down to this section. That would solve the problem that we have right now, not knowing when/whether to list storms. Also, right now there's far too much emphasis on the WPac in this section. Splitting by basin would be better and remove any sign of systemic bias. – Chacor 15:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm still getting used to adding in info in "boxes", so my latest edits took a while to actually get it right. Apologies... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gavirulax ( talk • contribs) 03:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
...but I left the no reference tag at the top of the page. Considering how many "facts" are on this page, we should have more than 9 references for the page. If everything was well referenced, this page could become B class. Of course, some entries like Isobel would be gone, for the page's benefit. Thegreatdr 19:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... I read somewhere that Keith's 872 mb pressure was measured by a plane but I wanted to confirm it before I changed the article. -- § Hurricane E RIC § archive 22:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that Typhoon Man-Yi should be part of the Significant Typhoon list, but I am not sure where to put it. It is significant because, according to Japanese national broadcasting company NHK, it is the 'strongest typhoon to hit the country in July since recording started after WWII'.
I am currently in Japan, and getting updated on this information by use of Japanese Weather website Tenki.JP. It is, however, only classed as a Category 1 typhoon, and that could cause controversy. lallous 20:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the 1856 Last Island hurricane be added to 10th place in the most intense U.S. landfalling hurricanes list? It says in the main article "it tied with Hurricane Hugo as the 10th most intense hurricane to hit the United states." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.206.250 ( talk) 14:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
With some intense tropical cyclones in the most intense tropical cyclones list, there is no article for them, so, for example, for cyclone Orson in 1989, can you put 1985-1990 southern hemisphere tropical cyclone seasons#Cyclone Orson instead of saying Cyclone Orson (1989)? it just says next to this (Page does not exist). It says this with lots of storms. Also, in the "list of most intense tropical cyclones", there is a cyclone named Theodore in 1994, but I can't find any info on this storm and it should be deleted; I did find a storm in Unisys in 1994 hurricane/tropical data for southern Indian Ocean that reached a 145 mph peak and lasted 25 days, but it does not say if it was Theodore or not, but later I found a best track for the 1990-1995 storms, and that storm was Rewa, but I couldn't find any info on cyclone Theodore so I could assume there is no such thing. In the most intense Pacific hurricane list, it says, for example, Hurricane Trudy (1990) (Page does not exist), but if you Put 1990 Pacific hurricane season#Hurricane Trudy, it works and refers right to it, so you should put this instead, because there is no main article for Hurricane Trudy, and you should do this with several other storms. With Hurricane John in 1994, it first says in big black letters "Hurricane John" and below that, it says Main article: Hurricane John (1994). It doesn't say this below Hurricane Olivia in 1994, and it is only essential to put hurricane Olivia (1994) if it says the above article below the big letters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.206.250 ( talk) 14:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I also changed the list of most intense tropical cyclones, and if you take a look, there are no storms in that list that don't have a main article, or if you click on any of the storms, data is provided about them, instead of saying "Wikipedia does not have an article with this title," if you click on them. In the most intense Pacific hurricanes list, for example, it says for 3 storms, Trudy, Olivia, and Annette, (page does not exist) next to them. You should put the hurricane season they formed in and then#Hurricane Annette,Trudy, or Olivia, or any other storm, like this: 1994 Pacific hurricane season#Hurricane Olivia, as an example, because putting in Hurricane Olivia (1994) doesn't work, because it doesn't show a Main Article below the big black letters Hurricane Olivia. Can't you at least say thanks to me for having the list of most intense tropical cyclones changed? It looks a lot better now, and it took me nearly 2 hours to do it!
Also, for some reason with some storms, like Hurricane Lane in 1994, if you put 115 knots into the computer, it shows up at 130 mph. You should put 116 or 117 knots down because the computer just rounds 115 knots down to 130 mph, but 130 mph is upper cat. 3, not low-end cat 4; that is 135 mph, and above Hurricane Lain in 1994 it says category 4 hurricane, but it shows 130 mph below that, and that would make it a cat 3, so you should put 116 or 117 knots in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.171.54 ( talk) 16:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
This should be renamed, either back to list of tropical cyclones or to lists of tropical cyclones (hmm where does that redirect to?). See Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Naming_conventions Kappa 07:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys, I'm planning to edit the section titled "Tropical cyclones and Airplane crashes". If you come to think of it, not only an airplane crash would be a tragedy associated to tropical cyclones. And to name one, there is a whole bunch of Maritime disasters associated with the ravaging of tropical cyclones. So I guess it would be nice to use a "general" word so there will be greater chances of expansion. What do you think? -- Rex 1213 ( talk) 08:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
One of Accuweather.com's blogs cited this article for a Cyclone Nargis statistic. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
December 3rd, 1999 there was a hurricane landfall in denmark, with a wind power of 150 km/h. Information is scarce in the english world, heres what i could find: http://www.winddata.com/hurricane/
The hurricane is known as Anatol in Germany and Adam in Denmark, i added it but it was removed, should be added.-- 77.213.191.134 ( talk) 16:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
There are quite a few landfalls there. I think this section should be removed. Does anyone else agree with this? Rye998 ( talk) 16:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Currently, the article lists storms by region in separate tables. Wouldn't it be nice if one table could list the top ten most intense/devastating/costliest/ect storm in the world? Rehman( +) 09:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Here it says the diameter of Wilma is that of 1065 km gale-wise, but in this advisory the diameter can be seen to be 1390 km storm-wise, and this is two advisories before it turned extratropical. Explanations? I am not familiar with the data listed in the table as a source, but from the NHC I gather that since the radius of storm-force winds is 695 km, it would be more logical that the diameter of gale-force winds be greater than the 1065 km listed. Furthermore, the maximum extent of Igor's storm-force winds according to the NHC here is identical to that of the gale one listed here as 1480 km. Why list the winds in terms of gale-force measurements if the NHC tends to list the same or higher (at least for those two storms, unless they're just odd coincidences and exceptions) in terms of storm-force winds? UltimateDarkloid ( talk) 23:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a list for storms that formed in an unusual way(I mean a storm that didn't form the way hurricanes usually do.)? 32ieww ( talk) 20:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC) 32ieww ( talk) 20:38, 17 December 2016 (
Quick note reguarding Katrina damage estimate. $100-200 billion IS just the damage/clean up estimate to rebuild everything. This is not an economic impact estimate. -- 72.240.238.243 23:45 September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Should we group the hurricanse by year? Or just all of them alphabetically? (I'd like to see them in reverse chrono order, myself. Y'know, most recent one at the top of the page.) -- Ed Poor
They actually repeat often enough that I think we should pre-emptively add the year--it also provides some historical context. "Hurricane Camille (1969)" (which I happened to live through, BTW) already gives the reader an impression that this was before fancy warning systems, for example. -- LDC
---
! Just to clarify how the naming conventions work here, hurricane names do regularly repeat, about every five years or so. (In fact, want information on this? See
hurricane, and the 'naming' section. The issue is that only some hurricanes are, to be honest, noteworthy. Many spiral off into the Atlantic and noone cares about them because they never make landfall.
The only way to be absolutely, completely unique, as a groundrule, is to organize the hurricanes WITH the year in the name (as someone said, 'Hurricane Andrew (1992)' ). But considering that in the listing of the retired Atlantic hurricanes from 1950 when naming began, that on 16 September 2002, only six actually have articles written, we should probably worry about that when all the notable storms have been written about, and well. We're a long way from that at this point.
If, eventually, someone wants to write about the year 2000 incarnation of Hurricane Alberto (unique mostly because of the length of time it existed, nearly three weeks), we can crack that egg when we come to it, or simply say that retired hurricanes don't need year designations, because those are implicit anyway - and names that haven't been retired do.
On the other hand, if we're GOING to make that change, a serious naming restructuring of the existing articles will need to be done that's beyond my general abilities to do, and should be done sooner than later. But...whatever works for people.
Okay, okay. I'm just considering it really unlikely at this point that we're needing for articles on the storms that were never retired. Yet.
-65.200.x
Every six years the names are recycled. Past 1979 atleast. I dont know what they did in the 50's - 70's Cyclone1 15:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I hope Wikipedians aren't going to make tiny entry stubs for every tropical storm, simply because the formula Hurricame Name (Year) exists, instead of grouping them by season. Tropical storms whose names are retired are a different matter of course and deserve separate entries. Keep the reader in mind, and focus on information and context, rather than trivial minutiae. Always a good idea. Wetman 20:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
http://www.abc-7.com/articles/readnews.asp?articleid=2101&z=2&p=
It was quite obvious that Charley, Frances, Ivan and Jeanne going to be retired; any thoughts of replacement names? (Note it is the fourth straight year the "I" storm has been retired, I wonder if Irene will be 2005's monster?)
Any other names that should be retired? By storm, here is what I think:
My replacement name ideas: Charley ---> Clyde (a no-brainer!), Frances ---> Felicia, Ivan ---> Igor, Jeanne ---> Julia
I have some suggestions...
- E.Brown Hurricane enthusiast
Hugo doesn't sound that hokey actually, to me, it may to you. Igor sounds much hokier (is that a word?).
Hugo, Ivan, (Igor?), etc... Not too come off as insenstive, but is there some sort of quota for storms that sound like they were named for farmers in former Soviet republics? Hugo and Ivan don't sound very hokey if you think about it. After 50 years of being scared of 'big mean, Russkies from the Evil Empire', I think names like that scare people more than "Jeanne" and "Ophelia", which sound like names for soccer moms. -- Refugee621 01:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast
Despite Irene was about to be killed, she could survive and could become a category 2 hurricane. But she couldn't become a monster like Isabel or Ivan and she will never be retired in 2005. I think the name Irene is too modest to be a intense storm: "Irene" means "goddess" and I wonder if the name is suitable for a storm. In 1947, Tropical Storm Irene occurred, but Japan Meteorological Agency analyzed her as a tropical depression, not as a tropical storm: she couln't become "Taifuu". So I thought Irene couldn't become a notable storm... I think Ingrid or Ida will be able to become a stronger storm than Irene: Cyclone Ingrid in 2005 and Typhoon Ida in 1958 are very famous storms. (Super Typhoon Ivan in 1997 (Narsing) was also a very strong storm: he was one of the strongest storm in 1997.) By the way, how about Isaac ? Issac in 1988 was very weak but the one in 2000 could become a category 4... And I wonder if the strength of 'I' storms from 2001 to 2004 is true or false. -- HERB 16:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
The South Atlantic isn't really a basin (yet), is it?
P.S: I developed a naming list for tropical cyclones in the South Atlantic.
- E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast
Guys, I said in the message that I made it up. Note the use of the words "I developed". Not to be rude, but read the message before you rumage through Google trying to find a list that is scribbled on a sheet of notebook paper sitting in my home office. I never tried to pass it off as official. I guess the confusion lies in the introduction, which is (or was) almost a direct copy from the introduction to the list of Central Pacific names on the NHC website because that's what I modeled it after. I understand the possible confusion, but oi! The main focus of the message was the simple question at the top that I guess nobody bothered to read.
- E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast 3 February 2005
Guys, listen. I disagree, but I'm not going to sit here and argue about it with my main question still unanswered. So forget the names list. I just wanted to share my creative ideas with anybody interested (I mean, Cyrius, you did it in the header above) which I thought was perfectly legal but aparently not. Now, back to the question: The South Atlantic technically isn't a basin is it?
- E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast
What!, I'll have you know that ALL my information comes direct from UNISYS and the NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER. Now I did not create an account in Wikipeda to be accused of lying, stealing information, and broadcasting falsehoods! That could not be less true and if you continued accusing me of these terrible crimes, I will leave for good, and I have alread contributed nearly three decades worth of hurricane data. I always try to make sure that every detail I post is truthful. That is why, when I shared my names list, I went out of my way to make sure that it was understood that I made it up and it should not be presented as true. I was going to post it and once you guys had read it, I would remove it (delete the info and erase the link). This has infuriated me to a point beyond comprehension. If you wish to get into a screaming match with me, that can be aranged on my talk page. But for the sake of everyone reading this discussion page, I would like my question to be heard and the names list topic dropped.
- E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast
Should this list be adjusted for inflation? -- Golbez 15:42, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
These were real events. They really happened. The figures listed there are not ridiculous, they merely give people an idea of the impact that the disasters had back then. In other words, it is saying that if the hurricane had hit the exact same spot at the exact same intensity, this is what the bill would come to. I don't see what's ridiculous about that. These disasters are not nearly as old as the examples you gave and I doubt any reliable estimates exist for those. The Great Miami Hurricane happened in 1926 and caused $100 million in damage there. Simply adjusting that for inflation doesn't give you an idea of the impact that had on the city of Miami. The figure given in the list is $98 billion. That lists the likly damage figure if the hurricane had hit today. This system is meant to equalize everything, not just wealth.
- E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast ( Squawk Box) 8 May, 2005
I've been looking at some tracks in UNISYS and I was just curious if anyone else had noticed how monumentally weird some of them are. Take Tropical Storm Olaf of 1997 for example. [2]. That's just one of the weirdest ones. There are plenty of other hurricanes, most in the Eastern Pacific, that can't seem to make up their minds.
Also, I've added a section on significant hurricanes that no one seems to have heard of. It's a wonder to think how some of them are not more well known. (By the way, that reminds me, I think I need to change the designation of one of the unnamed storms. I think the factual accuracy of it is a bit off).
- E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast
I Agree, User E. Brown. I love UNISYS. It's on my favorites list. Anyway, I had noticed Olaf's path and how completly weird it was! My favorite hurricane track to date is and always has been Hurricane Gordon! We all remember that stubborn hurricane, dont we? [3] And Hurricane John? The longest laster? I have seen at least two cyclones in the South Indian Ocean that matched, or even surpassed that record. [4] (click that link and look for Cyclone #19)
-Cyclone1, Hopeful Meteorologist (only 14 years old-can you beleive it?)
(Ahh, my first edit to a talk page... good memories... →Cycl one1→ 14:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC))
Indian ocean cyclones are just cyclones (as opposed to hurricanes or typhoones). They also aren't given names. Probably because of this, I've found records on the internet are pretty sketchy and on wikipedia there's even less information. But obviously these should be included as well. All of the deadliest cyclones are Indian Ocean ones (for instance the so-called 1970 Bhola Cyclone).
I guess the biggest question is what to name them. There was a huge 1991 cyclone that hit Bangladesh but I can find no entry for this one anywhere. What could it be called? The same sort of convention as applied to other cyclones should be used (year + name) but in this case the name has to be made up.
For the moment I'll just add a new section as a stub.
Jdorje 09:49, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Links ( Jdorje 10:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)):
At List of wars and disasters by death toll there is a (very inaccurate) list of the globally deadliest cyclones. This is odd since this article itself doesn't have such a list. Should that list be moved over? Should a section be added saying that such a list isn't possible? Assembling such a list seems very difficult since there are no sources that track data worldwide, but as long as someone's going to make a list it might as well be in this article. Jdorje 03:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Uh, not to be rude, but what you just said made a grand total of no sense. 'This article has a very inaccurate list of the deadliest tropical cyclones. But the article itself doesn't have such a list'. Huh? You go from saying that it has a very inaccurate list to saying that it doesn't have one at all. Which is it?
- E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast ( Squawk Box) 8 May, 2005
List of wars and disasters by death toll has a very inaccurate list. This article doesn't have a list at all. Jdorje 18:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Oh. Now that makes more sense.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 20:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You're right it was inaccurate. I fixed it.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 18:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Guys I've just come up with a figure for Western Pacific category 5's. Get this: since 1945, 151 typhoons have reached Category 5 strength! In that same period of time, the Atlantic saw just 21. That's unbelievable! Trust me, I'm not making this up. I counted them myself. The monsoons of Asia fuel monsters of unimaginable intensity. Tip, Nancy, Vera, Karen...geezz
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 19:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The people of the Philippines, Taiwan and Japan might disagree with that. In 2000, Super Typhoon Bilis creamed Taiwan as a Category 5. Vera killed hundreds in Japan and the Philippines have been hit by a score of Fives in the past half century. Nida grazed them as one just last year. Japan's typhoon history goes back centuries (ever wonder where the term 'Kamakaze' came from). Yes many storms do vent their fury over the open Pacific, there's a lot of water out there, but the Asian shorelines are a typhoon-battered bunch. They get their fair share of bad ones.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 21:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just a nit pick, Mitch actually made landfall as a Category 1, but that point is renedered moot by the fact that it stalled off the coast as a Category 5, killing nearly 20,000 people. Typhoon Vera still killed thousands in Japan, as mentioned earlier. Typhoons Nanmadol and Muifa killed hundreds in the Philippines last year and they weren't even 5's. The Filipinos however, don't have million-dollar estates packed like sardines along the oceanfront.
Jdorje, Allen hit Texas as a three, not a two.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 22:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I beg to differ with some of those. The '47 storm hit as a strong Category 4. The Bahamas Hurricane only affected the Bahamas. I don't think that qualifies as a landfall. My list counts ten, and that includes many you failed to list: Lake Okeechobee Hurricane (1928), Labor Day Hurricane (1935), Hurricane Janet (1955), Hurricane Beulah (1967), Hurricane Camille (1969), Hurricane Edith (1971), Hurricane Anita (1977), Hurricane David (1979), Hurricane Gilbert (1988), Hurricane Andrew (1992). Hurricane Beulah hit Mexico and Texas as a 5. That's blatantly obvious on the UNISYS track. Anita hit Mexico in the rural La Plata area as a 5. And David obliterated Hispaniola as a 5, killing over 2,000 people. Jdorje, there isn't alot of information about what the Lake Okeechobee hurricane did in Puerto Rico. It killed between 1,000 and 2,000 people there. According to the best track, it struck PR as a 5.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 18:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Guys, this is agrivating. Look at the Unisys best track [6].Beulah is clearly shown making landfall as a Category 5. All the sites that I've seen that conradict UNISYs still put landfalling wind speeds at at least 136 MPH. That's a Category 4 gentlemen, not a three. 130 mph surface wind speeds along with 140 mph gusts were measured by the ship Shirley Lykes near Corpus Christi. Near Corpus Christi! That's roughly 100 miles from where the center made landfall and surface readings are generally lower than the actual wind speed. A surface reading of 130 mph 100 miles away from the center is not good. That means that wind speeds near the center are no less than 150 mph and more likely 155-160 mph. Also known as a Category 5.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 21:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Cyclone 1 (14 year-old meteorologist)
Hurricane Andrew - Clearly shown as a four.
Cyclone 1
See this site-- [8]. It is a report done by NOAA. I quote: "At landfall winds near the center were about 136 mph...". 132 is the Category 4 threshold. You're telling me that's wrong? With the Shirley Lykes report, even if it was in Brownsville, the hurricane made landfall 50 miles to the south in between Brownsville and Matamoros, Mexico. The 130 mph reading that far away would still correspond to at least 145 mph surface wind at landfall. Clearly there's some inconsistancy here. Using NHC reasoning, we take the median of the two reports: 140 mph (rounded down). Well gee, I guess that makes us both wrong ;).
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 02:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
The article
List of Category 5 Atlantic Hurricanes shows 11 hurricanes making landfall at category 5. The difference is two "Bahamas" landfalls for the 1932 and 1947 storms. Now you can argue (as some did above) that the Bahamas don't count as landfall. But then I would like to argue back that the Keys don't count as landfall either. How do you draw the line? The answer is we don't. We look at NOAA or other sources. And unfortunately there are no sources given for either list so no way to verify. Whoever made these lists, if you're reading this: please find the source you made the list from and add a reference to it.
Jdorje
03:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
How should we handle 2005 storms on here? Obviously they aren't officially retired, but if it is clear they are going to be, should we have a section saying the following:
Hurricane names likely to be retired, but not officially retired yet; a decision will be made by the WMO in the spring of 2006:
That line would be repeated for each name that is likely to be retired. That seemed to be the standard used for 2004. CrazyC83 8 July 2005 00:20 (UTC)
The gut reactions from the casual users has already began! It is likely that newbies will continue to add Dennis (and other 2005 names later in the season) that are likely to be retired...looks like you'll be doing a lot of reverting! However, Dennis is likely to be an obvious pick to be sent to the dustbin, so once it dies and everything becomes official, (and it will likely be joinedw by several other names later in the season) we can put it in the separate mention. (Not in a list format until the NHC makes the case to retire it) CrazyC83 9 July 2005 03:37 (UTC)
NO NO NO NO. No 2005 storms! No speculation! -- Cyrius| ✎ 04:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Cyrius, I don't mean to be cynical, but no matter how many times we tell them not to, some idiots are still going to do it. I'll wager that more than one person is going to stick Dennis onto the list in the next few weeks. Bob, I agree 100 percent with that last comment. The WMO is a fickle organization (to put it mildly). Those rusting, buereaucratic desk-jockeys have no concept of reason. Their ridiculous reason for not retiring Gordon was that Haiti's warning system sucked. I find it a gross disrespect for those who died. It just amplified my hatred of bureaucrats. It's a subject that I try not to think about much because it arouses so much anger in me.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 19:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Would I be able to make a note like "While the names of the 2005 season won't be retired by the WMO until Spring 2006, there is heavy speculation these names will be retired." Fableheroesguild 18:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I noticed that in the off-season storms listing, it says Hurrican Alice formed in December in the 50s, the a couple entries down it lists two storms from recent years as the "first to form in December for 115 years." What's with the conflicting info?
Only one storm formed in December, 1954, Bob.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 02:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Someone needs to verify the listing of this hurricane at 31 days longevity. The sources I've seen don't seem to be consistent with this: it is reported to have struck Puerto Rico without warning on August 8, 1899, and made landfall in North Carolina on August 16-17th. This accounts only for 8-9 days. Since hurricanes mostly could be tracked only by landfall in those days, that leaves a question as to how the 31-day interval was determined. (Part of the confusion may be due to the fact that a second hurricane struck Puerto Rico on August 22nd, and that it is recorded that it rained in Puerto Rico for 28 days straight.) CoyneT talk 02:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Did you use unisys? http://www.weather.unisys.com/hurricane gives the most accurate information, and this time, they are somewhat correct. From its birth on August 3rd to its death on September 3rd, it was 31 days. However, for 4 of the days, it was extratropical. Be sure that the website you use was used after the hurricane re-analisys. Hurricanehink 21:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Today the Associated Press circulated a list (in anticipation of Katrina making it obsolete) of the fifteen costliest tropical cyclones to hit the mainland USA.It is stated to be corrected for inflation with dollar values adjusted to the year 2004.It differs in some respects with this article.
Not saying replace,but perhaps these numbers should be taken into account?--Louis E./le@put.com/ 12.144.5.2 20:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the current list of should be replaced, and this looks like a good option. I just don't think it makes sense to report the Great Miami Hurricane as having caused almost $100B in damage, when that figure actually assumes that it hit today with today's development. That would be like saying a hurricane caused $200B in damage because it ravaged Manhattan Island in 1586. -- DavidK93 15:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
If we must have the cost-in-original-dollars and adjusted-for-population lists, then I guess the current three-list system is best. Personally I think the only list needed is the adjusted-for-inflation one. And, although I don't want to pick a fight about this I have to again rebuke any argument in favor of the adjusted-for-population list. Saying this list indicates how the hurricane was viewed by people of the day is not only unfounded (since none of us were alive in 1926, I assume) but just plain wrong. From all the documentation I've seen the 1928 hurricane was viewed as much more of a tragedy than the 1926 one. And a hurricane that was intense enough would have a *lower* cost on this list. Why, you ask? Simply because a hurricane that destroyed a large part of an area reduces the population/infrastructure of that area permanently, thus reducing the adjusted cost. A good example of this is the Galveston Hurricane of 1900. Had this hurricane not struck and encouraged everyone to emmigrate to Houston, perhaps Galveston would today be a city of 5 million people and then the adjusted-for-population cost of that hurricane would today be $100 billion. Another hypothetical example is Katrina. If tomorrow we decided to leave the lower half of louisiana uninhabited, then by next year the adjusted-for-population cost of this hurricane (in louisiana only, of course) would be zero. Jdorje 07:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Has anyone noticed that, of the top 5 costliest hurricanes, 4 of them have occured in the past 2 years (Katrina, Andrew, Charley, Ivan, and Frances) with Jeanne ranking seventh behind Hugo? That is chilling.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 00:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
It is difficult to find what the daggers and double-daggers refer to since they are first references at the very top of the article but aren't described until the very bottom of the article in the Notes section. I was trying to think of a way to make their references easier to find. My first thought was to use the old footnote template {{fn}} and {{fnb}}} but this template is rarely used. Also I couldn't get it to work using the dagger symbols. A thought would be to use the newer footnote format {{ref}} and {{note}}, but the default text for this template is to use the text "Note 1". An alternative would be instead of using footnotes, just to provide a link to the #Notes section for each instance of the dagger or double-dagger. Does anyone have any suggestions? — Brim 17:42, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
As I suggested at Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season I'd like to better organize work on hurricanes. My initial suggestion is that we use a template, which I have put at Template:hurricane, on the talk page of hurricane and hurricane season articles. We should then have one centralized place for discussion of standards (for naming, season layout, etc.). (This place need not be/should not be the template talk page; it's easy to point the template to somewhere more permanent once we have such a location). Unless there are objections I will add this template to some talk pages. Jdorje 18:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I found this rather interesting. There have been 12 Typhoon Ninas in the north-west pacific [13]. Only pressure and tracking data is given here so the below is interpretation. (This is a story, not an encyclopedia...but see the references for the full background.)
After all of this, the name doesn't seem to be retired. Do they retire names in the Pacific? The name was last used in 1995.
Jdorje 04:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
The name Nina in the western Pacific name list has been used thirteen times: Twelve Ninas occurred in the western Pacific and one Nina occurred in the eastern Pacific in 1957. In other word, Nina in 1957 was not in the eastern Pacific name list but in the western Pacific name list. Japan Meteorological Agency didn't regard Nina in 1957 as "Taifuu". -- HERB 11:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone know why these names were retired from the Eastern Pacific?
Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
One other thing to remember: if it can easily be mistaken for a non-tropical rain event (which can have high death tolls in less-developed areas), it has less of a case for retirement. On the names missed, here is my take (bold names - should have been retired IMO):
CrazyC83 04:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Crazy C, Gert in 1993 was the same intensity as Diana in 1990 at final landfall in Mexico. The first Alice of 1954 was the killer. Plus, people back then weren't that stupid. They would know that the rain was caused by a tropical system, they could see it on the satellie imagery. A possible reason Gordon wasn't retired in 2000: all but 1 of the deaths occured when it hit the Yucatan peninsula as a tropical depression. The other death was a surfer that drowned in Florida.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 18:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
From the List of previous tropical cyclone names article:
I don't know why. Was a TS at landfall. Perhaps because of the horrible Atlantic storm?
I can't find this at Unisys. Maybe a mistake?
Didn't make landfall.
I don't know why. Didn't make landfall.
Definitely because it flooded Ocotillo, California and killed three people.
Should these be added to the retired names in the article? And should we add that Dalilia was "accidentally" removed due to an error in documents?
The only 2 of these the WMO appears to recognize [16]] are Hazel and Adele. Ha Ha. The WMO doesn't know why either was retired!
They also mention that names may have been retired because of "pronunciation ambiguity or a socially unacceptable meaning" in one of the languages.
Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
In addition to knowing what the busiest years for tropical cyclone activity were, is there anyway of knowing what day had the most active storms? I've read that August 22, 1869 had 4 active storms (that is, tropical storm or greater). Is this the record? If not, it would probably make for, at the very least, an interesting factoid.
Refugee621 01:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
From the Hurricane Ginger article;
The closest other time this happened was on August 29th, 1995, when Hurricanes Humberto and Iris, Tropical Storms Karen and Luis, and the renmants of T.D. Jerry existed. From the 27th to the 28th, there were 5 tropical systems, but 3 were TD's.... 1971 holds the record for storms. On September 25th, 1998, there were 4 hurricanes for the second time ever, the other on August 19th, 1893. Hurricanehink 01:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I added these names to the article as the deadliest EPac storms:
I am pretty confident that the top three members are accurate, but does anyone have a better list? Possible candidates:
Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Should that be moved to a separate article, i.e. Hurricanes in Canada? There have been many hurricanes or tropical storms that have affected Canada (either directly or - in the case of Fabian - destructive offshore) at considerable intensity - since 1995 alone, I can name 19 (including four in 2003). There could be more.
The list: 1995 - Barry, Luis, Opal; 1996 - Bertha, Hortense; 1997 - none; 1998 - none; 1999 - Floyd, Gert; 2000 - Florence, Leslie, Michael; 2001 - Gabrielle, Karen; 2002 - Gustav; 2003 - Fabian, Isabel, Juan, Kate; 2004 - Frances; 2005 - Ophelia. CrazyC83 04:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Most of these, if not all, hit Canada as extratropical storms, so I'm not sure an article on them would be a good idea. Fableheroesguild 04:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Just a few minor problems with it. First, it should be Total tropical storms/total hurricanes/total major hurricanes, not just storms that only reached storm strength. For example, 2005 should be:
21/12/5, rather than, 11/5/5.
The latter makes it seem that there are only 5 hurricanes, of which all 5 became major hurricanes. Having 21/12/5 shows that there were 12 hurricanes, of which the 5 became m.h.'s. If it is to go by my format, they should go by Most T.S.'s, and if they are tied, then the most hurricanes (2005 would go first because they had more hurricanes).
Second, it is fine to mention that there was a subtropical storm, but the subtropical storms were included in the total. The 1969 season, for example, had 18 storms, 17 of which were tropical. I'm not sure how you should differentiate them, but when you say + 1 subtropical storm, it is actually incorrect, as the subtropical storm was already included in the total. That's basically it... Hurricanehink 19:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
OK, the new layout makes sense. Good work Wikipedians, especially Fxer, it makes more sense now. Hurricanehink 22:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
What is the appropriate order of these when there is a tie for number of storms? Is it oldest season first? Should it be by most major huricanes then by most hurricanes? Should this even be in this article which is about notable cyclones not about notable seasons? crandles 13:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Pacific Typhoon recon flights were discontinued in 1988. Almost all typhoon minimum central pressure reports after that day are based on Dvorak numbers and windspeed/air pressure relationship estimates. This would include almost all typhoons on that list, except for Tip, Forrest and (possibly) Nancy. This is why same pressure number is given to many different typhoons. Methods have margin of error about 10mbar or so.
I think, at minimum, list should put a note next to all typhoons whichs' readings are estimates, not actually measured numbers. In addition, there is no real reason to disqualify Southern Hemisphere cyclons from the list, as their central pressures are measured by exact same method. Possible candidates would include at least Cyclone Zoe, Cyclone Gafilo and 1991 Bangladesh cyclone.
If we have to exclude storms from the list to get representation from all basins, it's a sign that the list isn't a good idea. Either the list should be accurate or it should not exist. We can always have separate lists for each basin (which the Atlantic has anyway). Jdorje 23:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
That's right. I came across this report online, so here: http://www.typhoon2000.ph/karl/hoarau001.pdf. It is quite interesting and says that Angela and Gay have all indications of being stronger than Tip at max intensity (in regard to pressure). Also, there are a lot of super typhoons that are stronger than the ones listed in Wikipedia's records, I propose we update this. I'm also interested in starting a articles for the major super typhoons like Gay that need to have their own article. As soon as I have some time and desire to research it, I will get started. If you are interested then help out. The great kawa 18:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
According to UNISYS, no tropical cyclone ever struck New England in August of 1934 [25], like the article says. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 03:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Just setting up the chart for the inevitable. Some numbers will change with the final reports. I doubled the middle of the insured estimates for Rita and Wilma to get somewhat accurate damage totals. I'm assuming that the damages listed for Dennis and Emily are total, not insured, as their articles do not indicate otherwise. Death tolls for Katrina and Stan are my own estimates for what the final declarations will be.
-- 69.86.16.61 05:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Name | Year | Location | Deaths | Damage (2005 $US) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Dennis | 2005 | Cuba, Florida | 71 | $4-6 billion |
Emily | 2005 | Grenada, Cayman Islands, Mexico | 14 | $420 million |
Katrina | 2005 | South Florida, U.S. Gulf Coast | 1,383+ | $75 billion+ |
Rita | 2005 | Louisiana, Texas | 119 | $9.4 billion |
Stan | 2005 | Central America, Mexico | 100-2,500 | "Severe" |
Wilma | 2005 | Cuba, Yucatán Peninsula, Florida | 60 | $18-22 billion |
Just in case:
Name | Year | Location | Deaths | Damage (2005 $US) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Ophelia | 2005 | Florida, North Carolina | 3 | $1.6 billion |
- Cuivienen 23:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Unlike last season, when the NHC made all the cases, it seems to be harder to find the cases made for retirement, as foreign agencies will likely make at least two (possibly up to four) of the expected retirement cases. AFAIK, the NHC has only publicly suggested that Katrina will be retired - quote from the NHC's Daniel Brown: "Hurricane Katrina will "absolutely" be retired". [26] Of course, I expect many more names to be removed from the list and replaced for 2011. CrazyC83 22:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
We have most intense cyclones worldwide, so I propose having a worldwide longevity one, which would look something like this. Only storms lasting more than 20 days (so 20 days aren't listed here) are here, with the exception of Faith so you could see her true longevity. For accuracy purposes the Southern Hemisphere only goes to 1980.
Just a note, these dates are when the storm was tropical or subtropical. Hurricane Ivan, for example, included its extratropical stage, which goes against the word tropical in the title. Faith, I have no idea how that was done. I included it here so you see it wasn't as long as once thought. It existed for 26 days as some sort of cyclone, but only 16 of those were as a tropical cyclone. Would something like work in the article? Hurricanehink 15:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
What tropical cyclone is the second largest? I think it is Typhoon Lupit. Irfan Faiz Cyclone/Aviation Expert - Even tough i know about cyclones but some stuff i didn't know yet...
Even though the threshold for a typhoon being mentioned as particularly intense has been raised from 895 mb to 890, the most intense list is still swamped by typhoons. I have changed the threshold be raised again to 885 mb. This way, after the first couple of non-typhoons (Zoe and Wilma) appear, the list is devoid of typhoons, making it easier to see the relative intensities of storms in the less intense basins. - Cuivienen 02:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
The headings need to be changed so anchors such as List of notable tropical cyclones#Off-season storms don't collide. There needs to be a way to jump to the Pacific off-season storms section, for example. -- AySz88^ - ^ 03:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Agnes (1972), Bill (2003), Christine (1973), Subtrop 3 (1976). All of these formed over land! Every Hurricane 101 book tells you this is impossible! Help me! Cyclone1 05:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
The unusual landfalls section is not useful and should be removed or cut down. Note that there is already an *identical* section in the tropical cyclone article. It should be sufficient just to give a list of areas that are not usually affected by hurricanes, with a link to the category or list giving the storms for each section. Jdorje 19:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The article says these are not economic impact estimates, and yet they are still far larger than the direct damage estimates reported by SHELDUS [28] [29]. As I understand it, SHELDUS figures attempt to incorporate only the cost of destroyed and damaged property and crops. So that they do not include costs associated with cleanup, emergency supplies and services, or any of the more nebulous economic impact costs. According to SHELDUS, Hurricane Andrew rated only $2B (1992 dollars) in terms of their direct damage costs. As this is only a few percent of the $45B (2004 dollars) cost reported here for Andrew, I am wondering what all is included in the difference?
For perspective, the worst SHELDUS year for severe weather was only ~$16B (2004 dollars) incorporating the direct damage costs of all hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods, etc. affecting the US in that year (1995).
Dragons flight 10:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
This page is getting a little long. I propose we move the Atlantic section to its own article, which on its own is half the article. Hurricanehink 17:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, here it is. List of notable Atlantic tropical cyclones. I didn't link it yet, cause I wasn't sure how it should've been done. I added a section about Atlantic-EPAC crossovers, if that's all right. Now there's more room for expansion, if needed. Hurricanehink 20:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Sooo, can we link it? What should be kept on the main page? Hurricanehink 20:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
What about sections like Unusual landfalls? Some of that is in the Atlanic notables. Should all Atlantic storms be left (like Europe or Atlantic Canada), or move all Atlantic ones over? The same problem is with extreme latitudes... Hurricanehink 16:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
The EPac section was over 6 pages long, so I split it off into a separate article as well. We should, however, try to make the different articles follow a similar structure. — jdorje ( talk) 07:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Why is Delta included as a storm which hit the Canaries? Delta was EXTRAtropical when it made landfall there. 200.119.236.216 19:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
The following text is currently in the article. The symbols don't seem to be used, but I got reverted.
The symbols are indeed used again in the page, but the seem to be redefined in those sections. -- AySz88^ - ^ 03:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
There are way too many sections. Here's some that I think can go elsewhere-
Hurricanehink 17:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Entirely agreed. (1) move to Atlantic (the best-track actually has info about this so we can verify it eventually). (2) Move to atlantic (same reasoning). (3) This is completely unverifiable and should be deleted. (4) Again, PoV and unverifiable - should be deleted. (5) I already changed this to be most storms...however this list is useless and should be split into per-basin lists of most active seasons (as already exists for the Atlantic). — jdorje ( talk) 22:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
In the "most intense" section, Zoe's data uses the JTWC estimate at a time when RSMC Fiji was already official while Monica's data uses the BoM Darwin estimate rather than JTWC estimate. We should be consistent in our usage of JTWC vs. local data; personally, I would prefer to see Zoe use RSMC Fiji, but either possibility (using JTWC or RSMC Fiji and BoM Darwin) works. — Cuivi é nen T| C, Sunday, 14 May 2006 @ 03:35 UTC
This system is being revisited in the Atlantic Hurricane reanalysis. The question is not whether or not it had tropical storm force winds (it did), it is whether or not it was even a tropical cyclone. Back then, and rarely this rule is used nowadays, NHC had responsibility eastward to 35W, with the Navy having responsibility east of that longitude. Kendra was that far east. This is why Kendra was removed from list of tropical cyclones that year, and why I just removed it from this article which stated it was a named tropical depression. By the way...just for reference...the name Mike was used during the 1950 season and it is also not in any of the databases, probably for a similar reason. The reanalysis will address this mystery as well. Thegreatdr 20:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The term "notable" is POV. None of these factors are synonymous with "worthy of taking note," which is a value judgement. It would be more accurate and neutral to describe these as tropical cyclone superlatives (costliest, deadliest, most powerful), as we do with automobiles. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 16:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... I'm thinking the list is probably too long and is bordering on being an indiscriminate collection of info/listcruft. I'd prefer a shorter one, say, top 5 from each basin, listed by basin. That would give 35 (WPac, EPac/CPac, Atl, NIO, SWIO, SEIO/Australia, SPac). As it stands only the section on the North Atlantic has a list of most intense storms within the basin. We could probably move that down to this section. That would solve the problem that we have right now, not knowing when/whether to list storms. Also, right now there's far too much emphasis on the WPac in this section. Splitting by basin would be better and remove any sign of systemic bias. – Chacor 15:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm still getting used to adding in info in "boxes", so my latest edits took a while to actually get it right. Apologies... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gavirulax ( talk • contribs) 03:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
...but I left the no reference tag at the top of the page. Considering how many "facts" are on this page, we should have more than 9 references for the page. If everything was well referenced, this page could become B class. Of course, some entries like Isobel would be gone, for the page's benefit. Thegreatdr 19:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... I read somewhere that Keith's 872 mb pressure was measured by a plane but I wanted to confirm it before I changed the article. -- § Hurricane E RIC § archive 22:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that Typhoon Man-Yi should be part of the Significant Typhoon list, but I am not sure where to put it. It is significant because, according to Japanese national broadcasting company NHK, it is the 'strongest typhoon to hit the country in July since recording started after WWII'.
I am currently in Japan, and getting updated on this information by use of Japanese Weather website Tenki.JP. It is, however, only classed as a Category 1 typhoon, and that could cause controversy. lallous 20:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the 1856 Last Island hurricane be added to 10th place in the most intense U.S. landfalling hurricanes list? It says in the main article "it tied with Hurricane Hugo as the 10th most intense hurricane to hit the United states." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.206.250 ( talk) 14:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
With some intense tropical cyclones in the most intense tropical cyclones list, there is no article for them, so, for example, for cyclone Orson in 1989, can you put 1985-1990 southern hemisphere tropical cyclone seasons#Cyclone Orson instead of saying Cyclone Orson (1989)? it just says next to this (Page does not exist). It says this with lots of storms. Also, in the "list of most intense tropical cyclones", there is a cyclone named Theodore in 1994, but I can't find any info on this storm and it should be deleted; I did find a storm in Unisys in 1994 hurricane/tropical data for southern Indian Ocean that reached a 145 mph peak and lasted 25 days, but it does not say if it was Theodore or not, but later I found a best track for the 1990-1995 storms, and that storm was Rewa, but I couldn't find any info on cyclone Theodore so I could assume there is no such thing. In the most intense Pacific hurricane list, it says, for example, Hurricane Trudy (1990) (Page does not exist), but if you Put 1990 Pacific hurricane season#Hurricane Trudy, it works and refers right to it, so you should put this instead, because there is no main article for Hurricane Trudy, and you should do this with several other storms. With Hurricane John in 1994, it first says in big black letters "Hurricane John" and below that, it says Main article: Hurricane John (1994). It doesn't say this below Hurricane Olivia in 1994, and it is only essential to put hurricane Olivia (1994) if it says the above article below the big letters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.206.250 ( talk) 14:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I also changed the list of most intense tropical cyclones, and if you take a look, there are no storms in that list that don't have a main article, or if you click on any of the storms, data is provided about them, instead of saying "Wikipedia does not have an article with this title," if you click on them. In the most intense Pacific hurricanes list, for example, it says for 3 storms, Trudy, Olivia, and Annette, (page does not exist) next to them. You should put the hurricane season they formed in and then#Hurricane Annette,Trudy, or Olivia, or any other storm, like this: 1994 Pacific hurricane season#Hurricane Olivia, as an example, because putting in Hurricane Olivia (1994) doesn't work, because it doesn't show a Main Article below the big black letters Hurricane Olivia. Can't you at least say thanks to me for having the list of most intense tropical cyclones changed? It looks a lot better now, and it took me nearly 2 hours to do it!
Also, for some reason with some storms, like Hurricane Lane in 1994, if you put 115 knots into the computer, it shows up at 130 mph. You should put 116 or 117 knots down because the computer just rounds 115 knots down to 130 mph, but 130 mph is upper cat. 3, not low-end cat 4; that is 135 mph, and above Hurricane Lain in 1994 it says category 4 hurricane, but it shows 130 mph below that, and that would make it a cat 3, so you should put 116 or 117 knots in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.171.54 ( talk) 16:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
This should be renamed, either back to list of tropical cyclones or to lists of tropical cyclones (hmm where does that redirect to?). See Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Naming_conventions Kappa 07:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys, I'm planning to edit the section titled "Tropical cyclones and Airplane crashes". If you come to think of it, not only an airplane crash would be a tragedy associated to tropical cyclones. And to name one, there is a whole bunch of Maritime disasters associated with the ravaging of tropical cyclones. So I guess it would be nice to use a "general" word so there will be greater chances of expansion. What do you think? -- Rex 1213 ( talk) 08:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
One of Accuweather.com's blogs cited this article for a Cyclone Nargis statistic. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
December 3rd, 1999 there was a hurricane landfall in denmark, with a wind power of 150 km/h. Information is scarce in the english world, heres what i could find: http://www.winddata.com/hurricane/
The hurricane is known as Anatol in Germany and Adam in Denmark, i added it but it was removed, should be added.-- 77.213.191.134 ( talk) 16:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
There are quite a few landfalls there. I think this section should be removed. Does anyone else agree with this? Rye998 ( talk) 16:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Currently, the article lists storms by region in separate tables. Wouldn't it be nice if one table could list the top ten most intense/devastating/costliest/ect storm in the world? Rehman( +) 09:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Here it says the diameter of Wilma is that of 1065 km gale-wise, but in this advisory the diameter can be seen to be 1390 km storm-wise, and this is two advisories before it turned extratropical. Explanations? I am not familiar with the data listed in the table as a source, but from the NHC I gather that since the radius of storm-force winds is 695 km, it would be more logical that the diameter of gale-force winds be greater than the 1065 km listed. Furthermore, the maximum extent of Igor's storm-force winds according to the NHC here is identical to that of the gale one listed here as 1480 km. Why list the winds in terms of gale-force measurements if the NHC tends to list the same or higher (at least for those two storms, unless they're just odd coincidences and exceptions) in terms of storm-force winds? UltimateDarkloid ( talk) 23:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a list for storms that formed in an unusual way(I mean a storm that didn't form the way hurricanes usually do.)? 32ieww ( talk) 20:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC) 32ieww ( talk) 20:38, 17 December 2016 (