This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Why the capital letters in "Hurricane Scale"? Michael Hardy 22:11 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
It would be good to add example storms to each category. Storms in the higher categories are likely to have their own articles that we can link to. Pcb21| Pete 11:28, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Something about the number in each category per decade or century would be nice. —wwoods 01:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
That's what it looks like after all: a cross section of the earth, ending at Hell. Why do Wikipedians strive toward Newsweek-like infographics instead of encyclopedic figures like in Britannica or any college textbook? The funny thing about is that it fails at both. It has neither the aesthetics and conciseness of a magazine graphic, nor the clarity of an academic reference. What should be a simple table of numbers has been warped into a fucking horrible, ugly mess of an article summary in table form. Here's one tip: tables should NOT contain paragraphs of text. That escapes the purpose of table, which is the easy comparison of quantitative data. --Herr Xtablenazi
I understand the definitions of cat 1-5 but why cant there be a cat 6? It seems that if there was a 200mph one would not fit into the ratio for cat 5... or 250mph? Just because there has not been one that bad in recorded history does not mean it can not happen. Should not the scale be flexible enough to handle the scaling up of winds?
If we're adding storms to the list based on landfall, why is Ophelia on it as it never officially made landfall? -- NSLE | Talk 01:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Katrina was a ctegory 4 at landdfall, but is considered to be damaging on a ctegory-5 scale. The Katrina example should be removed.
What storms made landfall as a Cat 5 Storm other than Mitch (i think)
Why is there a redirect for Catagory four but not for the other catagories? Am I missing something? Or are you guys, and this should be fixed? HereToHelp 18:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Why the resistance to adding Wilma? It's already mentioned on the Hurricane Gilbert page. Just honest curiosity. Turnstep 01:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Let me be more specific: why are storms only added based on strength at landfall? Turnstep 12:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Hurricane Katrina has been nominated to be improved by WP:IDRIVE. Support it with your vote and help us bring it up to featured standard! Vote here. -- Fenice 12:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Why it is in the Cat 5 section? It made landfall as a Cat 3 storm. Irfanfaiz 04:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I removed it because the sentence specifically states: "Historical examples that reached the Category 5 status and made landfall as such include..." And, as the previous post says, Katrina did not make landfall as a Cat 5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.114.195.84 ( talk) 19:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know what it is? Weatherman90 15:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The examples for each storm doesn't give a real example of what that category can do. I hardly would expect a Category 1, for example, to kill thousands of cause over $1 billion in damage. I propose this section be redone with some more realistic examples for each category. Hurricanehink 04:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Before the article becomes A-Class, there should be a few more things done:
Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 23:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
http://abcnews.go.com/US/Science/story?id=1986862&page=1 According to this news, someone out there is thinking about it. Probably just a lot of hype, but should there be a note in the article about Category 6, and what the cultural significance of it is, as well as the current discussion? SargeAbernathy 14:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I made a paragraph with a few citations. Edit it as you please, I'm not very good at finding mistakes in my own writing. SargeAbernathy 20:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Should we list hurricanes that would qualify under the proposed category?
Year | Hurricane | Highest sustained wind speed kph |
---|---|---|
1950 | Dog | 295 |
1955 | Janet | 280 |
1959 | Patsy | 280 |
1961 | Carla | 280 |
1969 | Camille | 305 |
1977 | Anita | 280 |
1979 | David | 280 |
1980 | Allen | 305 |
1988 | Gilbert | 295 |
1992 | Andrew | 280 |
1994 | John | 280 |
1997 | Linda | 300 |
1998 | Mitch | 285 |
2005 | Katrina | 280 |
2005 | Rita | 285 |
2005 | Wilma | 295 |
Is there a sortable list elsewhere? -- Jeandré, 2008-01-13 t08:02z
This is an excellent article, and it passes all aspects of a good article as mentioned in the good article criteria. I have no qualms about passing it. Consider nomination as a featured article, as it seems almost ready. It may fail on the first try, but that should; give you some tips for improvement. If it isn't feature worthy yet, it may be soon. This article is proof-positive that an article does not need to be excessively long or verbose in order to be of the highest quality. Good job, and good luck! -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 02:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
One sees
Typhoon Wipha (Goring) Super Typhoon 13W 4
and wants to know why it is called "super" but all one can click on is the "4" which lands one on this Saffir–Simpson scale/Archive 1 article where there is no mention of "super". Jidanni 07:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[moved from my jidanni talk page:] The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale was originally formulated for hurricanes in the Atlantic and Eastern(/Central) Pacific; the JTWC does not actually use it. Including super typhoons on the scale would be incorrect. Super typhoons are already accounted for on Tropical cyclone scales. -- Core desat 23:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I added the cat 6 section under the Cat heading. - munkee_madness talk 19:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
And I'm removing it. There's never been any large controversy over whether or not there should be a sixth category, and there obviously isn't one, so it shouldn't be mentioned.
TheNobleSith (
talk) 23:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Ok, I'll try to work it into a subsection of criticism or something like that. TheNobleSith ( talk) 02:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I edited it slightly to put Category 6 into the criticism section, and I made a minor change to an image caption. TheNobleSith ( talk) 03:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 04:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Since the forecasts only give wind speeds in knots, see http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCMAT4+shtml/.shtml, it would be very convenient if the table did as well. 213.66.17.161 ( talk) 19:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC) $
It seems unclear what the term "hurricane intensity index" even refers to. I did not easily find (in a google search) any article on the subject (and not even on wikipedia, as it seemed apropriate to de-wikify a circular link which simply redirected back to this article [about the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale]. Further, this (external) page had me even more confused: confusing page mentioning Dr. Lakshmi Kantha ... no idea what should be done here, I tried my best. -- Kuzetsa ( talk) 03:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Should we add it yet? Rockingbeat ( talk) 04:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
USA Today has this article which seems to give a little more detail into the formation of the scale than the current history on the page. Not sure how this compares with other history presentations because I came to this article after reading the USA Today one. Some comments here on the talk page and the current article refer to the scale as being based solely on the winds, but the USA Today article mentions that Simpson specifically correlated the winds to barometric pressure and estimated storm surge. -- Born2flie ( talk) 12:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I noticed these are changing every month. I picked a few for diversity and because they were the right sizes to make the tables even. There's one in the Atlantic, one in the Gulf of Mexico, one in the East Pacific, one in the Central Pacific, and one in the Caribbean. Potapych ( talk) 04:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
It is not always, it depends on the wind. HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 04:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
is an article by the name of "list of category 4 pacific hurricanes" be published? 99.60.49.225 ( talk) 01:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
According to the NHC, the scale has been experimentally changed to only account for windspeeds. Should we rename it, or wait until the new scale is no longer experimental? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
It [the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale] is fulling operating and has been working for the last year. They [scientists at the National Hurricane Center] have also removed storm surge height and central pressure, making the scale strictly categorizing on wind speed. The SS Team updated for that reason; more info is at the official website, http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/sshws.shtml. I like the idea of splitting it into two articles because I was looking for the SSHS, but it incorporated the SSHWS also, making it fairly confusing for me. The SSHWS is the ONLY scale used to categorize hurricanes in the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific. I think it should be changed ASAP. THANKS!! Kyle :) in Jax Beach, Fla. 12:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.81.30 ( talk)
Category 2 can lift a house, but category 3 can only cause structural damage to small residences? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justanothervisitor ( talk • contribs) 00:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
It would be helpful to add the difference between maximum sustained winds and gusts; the duration difference between gusts and sustained winds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.186.12 ( talk) 02:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Irene (2011) is listed both as a One and a Three, which seems odd. (Obviously, a three is at some point also a two and a one.) Maybe clean this up? - 216.15.115.141 ( talk) 12:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
wutz the vertical box (■) doin in the name?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.78.109 ( talk) 04:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
This hurricane is listed as an example Cat 1 hurricane despite the fact that it was at one stage a Cat 2 hurricane - and made landfall in Cuba as such. It is my understanding that hurricanes are usually classified according to their highest achieved category, not the one they held when they hit the USA or the category they hold as the article is edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.100.163 ( talk) 14:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
http://www.daviddalka.com/createvalue/2012/11/18/my-jim-bohannon-radio-show-appearance-discovering-the-hurricane-severity-index/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.206.244.43 ( talk) 18:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
So after thinking over it for several months and the disagreement over the title of this article, i think this article should be cut down and merged into Tropical Cyclone Scales. This is because i think all 5 scales used in TC tracking dont deserve separate articles with all of the history etc dealt with in the TC Scales article. Jason Rees ( talk) 19:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure. There isn't all that much history with the scale (an entire paragraph is devoted to a minor change in mph), and most of the article is just examples of damage and storms of that intensity. The criticism is important though, as are the alternate proposals, and I think that would be a bit much if it was merged. I think if the article were to stay, we should move it to Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind scale, and remove storm examples. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 18:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
This article serves as a useful, more detailed subarticle to Tropical Cyclone Scales, and the article is considered GA class. It deserves to stand on its own. I looked over the structure, and it's fine. I don't see any overweighting. Having the damage associated with each wind category is fine. I did notice that it didn't mention that pressure used to be associated with the categories. This was the part of the reason (surge the other) as to why the SS numbers for storms in HURDAT didn't quite match their corresponding maximum sustained winds before the Atlantic hurricane reanalysis project began. Thegreatdr ( talk) 22:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Those two have been there for nearly 2 years based on page history and I feel we should replace the Joan image and the Roxanne one.  -- åŠ å·žé£“é£Ž ( è¯´è¯ | 大清å¸å›½) 05:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that in the final sentence of this sentence at the bottom of the Category 5 section, that it says Historical examples of storms that made landfall at Category 5 status include the 1959 Mexico Hurricane, Camille (1969), Anita (1977), David (1979), Gilbert (1988), Andrew (1992), Katrina (2005), Dean and Felix (both in 2007), Rick (2009). I thought that Katrina was only a Category 5 while it was in the ocean, and made landfall as a Category 3 hurricane. Dustin talk 00:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi is it Normal central pressure original part of scale or is it just some kind of wiki improving? -- Jenda H. ( talk) 10:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that the minimum km/h for a Category 1 is 119 on this article, but many timeline boxes show it as 118 km/h (therefore showing the maximum km/h for tropical storms as 117). Is this just major error in those articles? Thanks, Rosalina2427 (talk to me) 04:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Since pressure and storm surge was removed from the Saffir scale, what scale or monitoring exists for pressure and storm surge? There is no reference to additional scales/monitoring, just that it was removed because the three factors combine provided somewhat inaccurate results. Editing to say, I did a little bit of research and apparently storm surge is now handled through SLOSH. There was a small SLOSH article, so I linked to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeropeRiddle ( talk • contribs) 22:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Should it really be used for the example of a Cat 3 storm? I think Hurricane Irene is much more notable 76.124.224.179 ( talk) 01:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Hurricane Bob may be a good example of Cat 3? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauterongo ( talk • contribs) 17:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Saffir–Simpson scale. No such user ( talk) 09:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale →
Saffir–Simpson scale – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk) 02:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes editors want to treat "Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Scale" as a proper name. But sources suggest that it is not. The scale was apparently proposed in 1973, and was referred to as the "Saffir–Simpson scale" for a long time (usually in the context of hurricanes, so it was understood what kind of scale). The first use I can find of "Saffir–Simpson hurricane scale" in a book is in 2000, and it's not capitalized, and has "Saffir-Simpson scale" on the same page:
[1]. I don't find it capitalized in a book until 2005. Most of the appearances of the capitalized form likely derive from wikipedia. So let's stop trying to make it a proper name, OK?
Dicklyon (
talk) 07:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be an additional level of "Tropical Disturbance" which is a pending weather depression with winds of less than 30 mph. This is what the weather reporters call the depression.
Dan Schwartz DanS1908a@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.19.183.15 ( talk) 22:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
hi my name is Jake from sate farm lol get trolled plebs
I have just modified one external link on Saffir–Simpson scale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Since the hurricanes in the images in the examples of the table are about the most recent, should we replace Felix with Irma since it is occurring now in the Category 5 section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephua ( talk • contribs) 22:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I wonder how is "Should Category 6 be added" criticism? It is more a suggestion than stating that the Saffir-Simpson scale is faulty (aka criticism). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephua ( talk • contribs) 22:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
The History section currently includes this sentence:
The phrase "with corresponding changes to the other units" implies that when the NHC changed the speed range of Category 4 in miles per hour, it made a separate decision to change that range in knots and in kilometers per hour. This is nonsense; the conversion between the three speed units is fixed. The National Hurricane Center chooses only a speed range, not s separate range in each unit.
I removed the phrase "with corresponding changes to the other units". Another editor reverted my edit. If anybody can articulate any utility that this phrase (which, as I note, is nonsense) provides, let's discuss it here. TypoBoy ( talk) 11:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Major Revision Needed
The initial section needs to be rewritten.
As described later in the article, the official scale is in knots, not mph. The numbers in mph, km/h, and m/s are approximations.
The boundaries for each range are a number of knots, but less than another number of knots. Using 34-63 kn for the range of a tropical storm means that there is no definition of what 63.6 kn means. The ranges must be in the form of 34<64 kn.
The table should be expressed as:
Tropical Depression < 34 kn ( < 39 mph or < 63 km/h or < 18 m/s)
Tropical storm 34 knots < 64 kn ( 39 mph < 74 mph or 63 < 119 km/h or 18 < 33 m/s)
and so on.
Drbits (
talk) 00:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Isaias is not the latest category 1 hurricane to make landfall at that intensity. But, when it approached its NC landfall, it didn't reach hurricane intensity until after dark, so we don't have any good visible-light images of Isaias as a hurricane near that landfall. Is there anything against having an IR image?
This is all we seem to have in the Commons for Isaias as a hurricane at or near its final landfall are these ones:
Unless we find something else, I favor the 0310 UTC image since it is at the time of landfall. TornadoLGS ( talk) 04:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
The category 3 and 5 sections are outdated and instead of Otto replace it with Epsilon and instead of Dorian replace that with Iota. I'm surprised that Otto is still there tbh since there was Humberto, Lee, and Ophelia after Otto. Not including epsilon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColinMorgan 56 ( talk • contribs)
There was already another Category 5 hurricane this year. I know that Hurricane Iota already formed into a Category 5. At Saffir–Simpson scale#Category 5, the file still shows Hurricane Dorian of 2019. I don't think that replacing Dorian with Iota would be a good idea, since Iota is still ongoing. Seventyfiveyears ( talk) 00:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Spending a really hard time with this, can we update the image to Iota at Providencia landfall? -- HurricaneTracker495 ( talk) 22:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't Category 5 be Chanthu (Ivana landfall) lol CycloneEditor ( talk) 12:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
I believe that this is strictly limited as an administrator function only, but there is currently an alert that is shown when you edit this article that says to only add storms that meet a certain set of criteria.
I would like to propose adding one more item to the list. Please maintain the same number of storms as the Category 5 section for each of the lower categories. Currently that number is eighteen. So please limit to 18 storms per category. The criteria can be worded in the most suitable manner possible.
This is a chronic issue and on multiple occasions in the past, my attempts to rectify this problem have been reverted. This matter was discussed quite some time ago and I believe concensus was strong to keep it this way. I don't think that the hidden message in each section is sufficient to inhibit editors who are unaware of this. -- Undescribed ( talk) 16:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
In the main table in the upper right corner, which uses the Template:Saffir–Simpson scale, the headings: m/s knots (kn) mph km/h
are shifted left one column
I took a quick glance at the template but did not immediately see how to fix it S Philbrick (Talk) 11:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Do we add hurricanes that meat the criteria (peaked at Category intensity and made landfall at that Category) after the storm dissipates or while it's active? BailiwickOfTheChannel ( talk) 22:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Why the capital letters in "Hurricane Scale"? Michael Hardy 22:11 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
It would be good to add example storms to each category. Storms in the higher categories are likely to have their own articles that we can link to. Pcb21| Pete 11:28, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Something about the number in each category per decade or century would be nice. —wwoods 01:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
That's what it looks like after all: a cross section of the earth, ending at Hell. Why do Wikipedians strive toward Newsweek-like infographics instead of encyclopedic figures like in Britannica or any college textbook? The funny thing about is that it fails at both. It has neither the aesthetics and conciseness of a magazine graphic, nor the clarity of an academic reference. What should be a simple table of numbers has been warped into a fucking horrible, ugly mess of an article summary in table form. Here's one tip: tables should NOT contain paragraphs of text. That escapes the purpose of table, which is the easy comparison of quantitative data. --Herr Xtablenazi
I understand the definitions of cat 1-5 but why cant there be a cat 6? It seems that if there was a 200mph one would not fit into the ratio for cat 5... or 250mph? Just because there has not been one that bad in recorded history does not mean it can not happen. Should not the scale be flexible enough to handle the scaling up of winds?
If we're adding storms to the list based on landfall, why is Ophelia on it as it never officially made landfall? -- NSLE | Talk 01:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Katrina was a ctegory 4 at landdfall, but is considered to be damaging on a ctegory-5 scale. The Katrina example should be removed.
What storms made landfall as a Cat 5 Storm other than Mitch (i think)
Why is there a redirect for Catagory four but not for the other catagories? Am I missing something? Or are you guys, and this should be fixed? HereToHelp 18:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Why the resistance to adding Wilma? It's already mentioned on the Hurricane Gilbert page. Just honest curiosity. Turnstep 01:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Let me be more specific: why are storms only added based on strength at landfall? Turnstep 12:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Hurricane Katrina has been nominated to be improved by WP:IDRIVE. Support it with your vote and help us bring it up to featured standard! Vote here. -- Fenice 12:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Why it is in the Cat 5 section? It made landfall as a Cat 3 storm. Irfanfaiz 04:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I removed it because the sentence specifically states: "Historical examples that reached the Category 5 status and made landfall as such include..." And, as the previous post says, Katrina did not make landfall as a Cat 5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.114.195.84 ( talk) 19:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know what it is? Weatherman90 15:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The examples for each storm doesn't give a real example of what that category can do. I hardly would expect a Category 1, for example, to kill thousands of cause over $1 billion in damage. I propose this section be redone with some more realistic examples for each category. Hurricanehink 04:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Before the article becomes A-Class, there should be a few more things done:
Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 23:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
http://abcnews.go.com/US/Science/story?id=1986862&page=1 According to this news, someone out there is thinking about it. Probably just a lot of hype, but should there be a note in the article about Category 6, and what the cultural significance of it is, as well as the current discussion? SargeAbernathy 14:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I made a paragraph with a few citations. Edit it as you please, I'm not very good at finding mistakes in my own writing. SargeAbernathy 20:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Should we list hurricanes that would qualify under the proposed category?
Year | Hurricane | Highest sustained wind speed kph |
---|---|---|
1950 | Dog | 295 |
1955 | Janet | 280 |
1959 | Patsy | 280 |
1961 | Carla | 280 |
1969 | Camille | 305 |
1977 | Anita | 280 |
1979 | David | 280 |
1980 | Allen | 305 |
1988 | Gilbert | 295 |
1992 | Andrew | 280 |
1994 | John | 280 |
1997 | Linda | 300 |
1998 | Mitch | 285 |
2005 | Katrina | 280 |
2005 | Rita | 285 |
2005 | Wilma | 295 |
Is there a sortable list elsewhere? -- Jeandré, 2008-01-13 t08:02z
This is an excellent article, and it passes all aspects of a good article as mentioned in the good article criteria. I have no qualms about passing it. Consider nomination as a featured article, as it seems almost ready. It may fail on the first try, but that should; give you some tips for improvement. If it isn't feature worthy yet, it may be soon. This article is proof-positive that an article does not need to be excessively long or verbose in order to be of the highest quality. Good job, and good luck! -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 02:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
One sees
Typhoon Wipha (Goring) Super Typhoon 13W 4
and wants to know why it is called "super" but all one can click on is the "4" which lands one on this Saffir–Simpson scale/Archive 1 article where there is no mention of "super". Jidanni 07:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[moved from my jidanni talk page:] The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale was originally formulated for hurricanes in the Atlantic and Eastern(/Central) Pacific; the JTWC does not actually use it. Including super typhoons on the scale would be incorrect. Super typhoons are already accounted for on Tropical cyclone scales. -- Core desat 23:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I added the cat 6 section under the Cat heading. - munkee_madness talk 19:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
And I'm removing it. There's never been any large controversy over whether or not there should be a sixth category, and there obviously isn't one, so it shouldn't be mentioned.
TheNobleSith (
talk) 23:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Ok, I'll try to work it into a subsection of criticism or something like that. TheNobleSith ( talk) 02:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I edited it slightly to put Category 6 into the criticism section, and I made a minor change to an image caption. TheNobleSith ( talk) 03:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 04:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Since the forecasts only give wind speeds in knots, see http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCMAT4+shtml/.shtml, it would be very convenient if the table did as well. 213.66.17.161 ( talk) 19:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC) $
It seems unclear what the term "hurricane intensity index" even refers to. I did not easily find (in a google search) any article on the subject (and not even on wikipedia, as it seemed apropriate to de-wikify a circular link which simply redirected back to this article [about the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale]. Further, this (external) page had me even more confused: confusing page mentioning Dr. Lakshmi Kantha ... no idea what should be done here, I tried my best. -- Kuzetsa ( talk) 03:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Should we add it yet? Rockingbeat ( talk) 04:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
USA Today has this article which seems to give a little more detail into the formation of the scale than the current history on the page. Not sure how this compares with other history presentations because I came to this article after reading the USA Today one. Some comments here on the talk page and the current article refer to the scale as being based solely on the winds, but the USA Today article mentions that Simpson specifically correlated the winds to barometric pressure and estimated storm surge. -- Born2flie ( talk) 12:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I noticed these are changing every month. I picked a few for diversity and because they were the right sizes to make the tables even. There's one in the Atlantic, one in the Gulf of Mexico, one in the East Pacific, one in the Central Pacific, and one in the Caribbean. Potapych ( talk) 04:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
It is not always, it depends on the wind. HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 04:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
is an article by the name of "list of category 4 pacific hurricanes" be published? 99.60.49.225 ( talk) 01:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
According to the NHC, the scale has been experimentally changed to only account for windspeeds. Should we rename it, or wait until the new scale is no longer experimental? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
It [the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale] is fulling operating and has been working for the last year. They [scientists at the National Hurricane Center] have also removed storm surge height and central pressure, making the scale strictly categorizing on wind speed. The SS Team updated for that reason; more info is at the official website, http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/sshws.shtml. I like the idea of splitting it into two articles because I was looking for the SSHS, but it incorporated the SSHWS also, making it fairly confusing for me. The SSHWS is the ONLY scale used to categorize hurricanes in the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific. I think it should be changed ASAP. THANKS!! Kyle :) in Jax Beach, Fla. 12:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.81.30 ( talk)
Category 2 can lift a house, but category 3 can only cause structural damage to small residences? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justanothervisitor ( talk • contribs) 00:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
It would be helpful to add the difference between maximum sustained winds and gusts; the duration difference between gusts and sustained winds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.186.12 ( talk) 02:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Irene (2011) is listed both as a One and a Three, which seems odd. (Obviously, a three is at some point also a two and a one.) Maybe clean this up? - 216.15.115.141 ( talk) 12:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
wutz the vertical box (■) doin in the name?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.78.109 ( talk) 04:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
This hurricane is listed as an example Cat 1 hurricane despite the fact that it was at one stage a Cat 2 hurricane - and made landfall in Cuba as such. It is my understanding that hurricanes are usually classified according to their highest achieved category, not the one they held when they hit the USA or the category they hold as the article is edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.100.163 ( talk) 14:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
http://www.daviddalka.com/createvalue/2012/11/18/my-jim-bohannon-radio-show-appearance-discovering-the-hurricane-severity-index/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.206.244.43 ( talk) 18:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
So after thinking over it for several months and the disagreement over the title of this article, i think this article should be cut down and merged into Tropical Cyclone Scales. This is because i think all 5 scales used in TC tracking dont deserve separate articles with all of the history etc dealt with in the TC Scales article. Jason Rees ( talk) 19:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure. There isn't all that much history with the scale (an entire paragraph is devoted to a minor change in mph), and most of the article is just examples of damage and storms of that intensity. The criticism is important though, as are the alternate proposals, and I think that would be a bit much if it was merged. I think if the article were to stay, we should move it to Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind scale, and remove storm examples. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 18:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
This article serves as a useful, more detailed subarticle to Tropical Cyclone Scales, and the article is considered GA class. It deserves to stand on its own. I looked over the structure, and it's fine. I don't see any overweighting. Having the damage associated with each wind category is fine. I did notice that it didn't mention that pressure used to be associated with the categories. This was the part of the reason (surge the other) as to why the SS numbers for storms in HURDAT didn't quite match their corresponding maximum sustained winds before the Atlantic hurricane reanalysis project began. Thegreatdr ( talk) 22:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Those two have been there for nearly 2 years based on page history and I feel we should replace the Joan image and the Roxanne one.  -- åŠ å·žé£“é£Ž ( è¯´è¯ | 大清å¸å›½) 05:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that in the final sentence of this sentence at the bottom of the Category 5 section, that it says Historical examples of storms that made landfall at Category 5 status include the 1959 Mexico Hurricane, Camille (1969), Anita (1977), David (1979), Gilbert (1988), Andrew (1992), Katrina (2005), Dean and Felix (both in 2007), Rick (2009). I thought that Katrina was only a Category 5 while it was in the ocean, and made landfall as a Category 3 hurricane. Dustin talk 00:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi is it Normal central pressure original part of scale or is it just some kind of wiki improving? -- Jenda H. ( talk) 10:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that the minimum km/h for a Category 1 is 119 on this article, but many timeline boxes show it as 118 km/h (therefore showing the maximum km/h for tropical storms as 117). Is this just major error in those articles? Thanks, Rosalina2427 (talk to me) 04:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Since pressure and storm surge was removed from the Saffir scale, what scale or monitoring exists for pressure and storm surge? There is no reference to additional scales/monitoring, just that it was removed because the three factors combine provided somewhat inaccurate results. Editing to say, I did a little bit of research and apparently storm surge is now handled through SLOSH. There was a small SLOSH article, so I linked to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeropeRiddle ( talk • contribs) 22:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Should it really be used for the example of a Cat 3 storm? I think Hurricane Irene is much more notable 76.124.224.179 ( talk) 01:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Hurricane Bob may be a good example of Cat 3? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauterongo ( talk • contribs) 17:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Saffir–Simpson scale. No such user ( talk) 09:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale →
Saffir–Simpson scale – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk) 02:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes editors want to treat "Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Scale" as a proper name. But sources suggest that it is not. The scale was apparently proposed in 1973, and was referred to as the "Saffir–Simpson scale" for a long time (usually in the context of hurricanes, so it was understood what kind of scale). The first use I can find of "Saffir–Simpson hurricane scale" in a book is in 2000, and it's not capitalized, and has "Saffir-Simpson scale" on the same page:
[1]. I don't find it capitalized in a book until 2005. Most of the appearances of the capitalized form likely derive from wikipedia. So let's stop trying to make it a proper name, OK?
Dicklyon (
talk) 07:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be an additional level of "Tropical Disturbance" which is a pending weather depression with winds of less than 30 mph. This is what the weather reporters call the depression.
Dan Schwartz DanS1908a@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.19.183.15 ( talk) 22:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
hi my name is Jake from sate farm lol get trolled plebs
I have just modified one external link on Saffir–Simpson scale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Since the hurricanes in the images in the examples of the table are about the most recent, should we replace Felix with Irma since it is occurring now in the Category 5 section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephua ( talk • contribs) 22:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I wonder how is "Should Category 6 be added" criticism? It is more a suggestion than stating that the Saffir-Simpson scale is faulty (aka criticism). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephua ( talk • contribs) 22:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
The History section currently includes this sentence:
The phrase "with corresponding changes to the other units" implies that when the NHC changed the speed range of Category 4 in miles per hour, it made a separate decision to change that range in knots and in kilometers per hour. This is nonsense; the conversion between the three speed units is fixed. The National Hurricane Center chooses only a speed range, not s separate range in each unit.
I removed the phrase "with corresponding changes to the other units". Another editor reverted my edit. If anybody can articulate any utility that this phrase (which, as I note, is nonsense) provides, let's discuss it here. TypoBoy ( talk) 11:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Major Revision Needed
The initial section needs to be rewritten.
As described later in the article, the official scale is in knots, not mph. The numbers in mph, km/h, and m/s are approximations.
The boundaries for each range are a number of knots, but less than another number of knots. Using 34-63 kn for the range of a tropical storm means that there is no definition of what 63.6 kn means. The ranges must be in the form of 34<64 kn.
The table should be expressed as:
Tropical Depression < 34 kn ( < 39 mph or < 63 km/h or < 18 m/s)
Tropical storm 34 knots < 64 kn ( 39 mph < 74 mph or 63 < 119 km/h or 18 < 33 m/s)
and so on.
Drbits (
talk) 00:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Isaias is not the latest category 1 hurricane to make landfall at that intensity. But, when it approached its NC landfall, it didn't reach hurricane intensity until after dark, so we don't have any good visible-light images of Isaias as a hurricane near that landfall. Is there anything against having an IR image?
This is all we seem to have in the Commons for Isaias as a hurricane at or near its final landfall are these ones:
Unless we find something else, I favor the 0310 UTC image since it is at the time of landfall. TornadoLGS ( talk) 04:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
The category 3 and 5 sections are outdated and instead of Otto replace it with Epsilon and instead of Dorian replace that with Iota. I'm surprised that Otto is still there tbh since there was Humberto, Lee, and Ophelia after Otto. Not including epsilon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColinMorgan 56 ( talk • contribs)
There was already another Category 5 hurricane this year. I know that Hurricane Iota already formed into a Category 5. At Saffir–Simpson scale#Category 5, the file still shows Hurricane Dorian of 2019. I don't think that replacing Dorian with Iota would be a good idea, since Iota is still ongoing. Seventyfiveyears ( talk) 00:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Spending a really hard time with this, can we update the image to Iota at Providencia landfall? -- HurricaneTracker495 ( talk) 22:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't Category 5 be Chanthu (Ivana landfall) lol CycloneEditor ( talk) 12:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
I believe that this is strictly limited as an administrator function only, but there is currently an alert that is shown when you edit this article that says to only add storms that meet a certain set of criteria.
I would like to propose adding one more item to the list. Please maintain the same number of storms as the Category 5 section for each of the lower categories. Currently that number is eighteen. So please limit to 18 storms per category. The criteria can be worded in the most suitable manner possible.
This is a chronic issue and on multiple occasions in the past, my attempts to rectify this problem have been reverted. This matter was discussed quite some time ago and I believe concensus was strong to keep it this way. I don't think that the hidden message in each section is sufficient to inhibit editors who are unaware of this. -- Undescribed ( talk) 16:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
In the main table in the upper right corner, which uses the Template:Saffir–Simpson scale, the headings: m/s knots (kn) mph km/h
are shifted left one column
I took a quick glance at the template but did not immediately see how to fix it S Philbrick (Talk) 11:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Do we add hurricanes that meat the criteria (peaked at Category intensity and made landfall at that Category) after the storm dissipates or while it's active? BailiwickOfTheChannel ( talk) 22:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)