Talk:Hurricane Andrew/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comarative storm intensities

From Hurricane Andrew

Andrew was only the third Category five hurricane to hit the United States, the previous ones being Hurricane Camille, which hit Mississippi and Louisiana in August 1969, and the Labor Day Hurricane of 1935, which struck the Florida Keys in September 1935.

But from 1947 Fort Lauderdale Hurricane

The Fort Lauderdale Hurricane (or Pompano Beach Hurricane or Forgotten Hurricane) was an intense category 5 hurricane that affected Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi in September of 1947.

Was this an oversight, or is there some error? --zandperl 05:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Does it say 1947 struck at Cat 5? No. Only three storms have struck AT Cat 5. Hurricanes Ivan, Hugo, Katrina, Rita, and Wilma were Cat 5s, but didn't strike the U.S. at that intentisy. --Golbez 07:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

"Illegal aliens in the U.S. are not included in the official count."

I find that hard to believe. Any citations? --24.107.227.12 22:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The article history shows that the first mention of illegal aliens was on April 1, 2004 at 02:46 GMT by Pollinator. Lets proceed by giving him a chance to defend his position before making a decision to remove that sentence. --24.107.227.12 23:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to change the current statement, which is presented as fact and implies that the government (or some official report) simply ignored deaths that actually happened. In fact, Andrew spawned many urban legends, including that hundreds of even thousands of migrant workers were killed and the deaths covered up or, even less believably, not noticed. Extensive investigations, including one by the Miami Herald, discounted these rumors. DavidH 03:35, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

In 1994, I have heard the information from people who were purportedly taken to the farmlands near the edge of the Everglades -- supposedly firsthand -- but since I couldn't find anything to back up the information they gave me, I did not report it in the article... but lack of information does not preclude the possibility. The article claims that "An investigation by the Miami Herald found no basis for such rumors." Does the source of this quotation have a citation for the source? Perhaps DavidH can help in this as he indicates in this discussion "Extensive investigations, including one by the Miami Herald, discounted these rumors."

Unfortunately, I did not get the names of the doctors with whom I had the discussion or the bus driver who ferried them to the south Florida farmlands, but confronted with three firsthand accounts, however questionable they might be, one would like to see evidence to the contrary. B.Wind 10:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I cannot prove anything, so will not argue about what should be on the page, but I do believe that some undocumented alien deaths were not recorded, and that the number of deaths were higher than the official counts. I base this on the fact that I was there shortly after the storm and remained there for several months. -That I talked personally with many victim families among the "undocumented" and there were family members that were not accounted for. It is possible that some left the area, but it seems reasonable to also expect that families will tend to find each other. -That I talked with a police officer who told me that he helped carry out bodies from the Everglades Camp, and that "hundreds" were removed. I saw that camp; the destruction was awful, and I had little trouble believing the officer. I am not one who gets carried away with rumors, and some of the stories I've heard have GOT to be exaggerations. But the existence of some false stories does not equate to all stories being false. To see at first hand the devastation that occurred forces the conclusion that the official death count IS lower than the real one. Pollinator 20:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Closing of Homestead Air Force Base

If I recall correctly, Homestead Air Force Base was slated for closing before Hurricane Andrew. (The current article states that the damage caused by the hurricane led to the closing.) Does anybody have any source information for this? — Fingers-of-Pyrex 18:41, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, like many facilities, it was being considered for closure or downscaling under the Base Realignment review process -- but I don't remember it being a done deal. The hurricane pretty much sealed it though -- the AF decided not to spend how ever many millions it was going to take to get it back to full status, so it was inactive for a while, then reactivated with some repairs made for use as reserve base. I don't have access to a news archive that could give us the definite answer on what its status was on the day of the storm. I did know a base information officer at the time but have lost touch with him. Any clarification you can provide would help. Maybe it would be more accurate now to say the storm knocked the base out of operation, and it wasn't restored to active status until when it became a reserve base. DavidH 01:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

The only "source" I have is my own fallible memory, but for what it's worth, I do remember being in that area the following spring and talking with park rangers in the Everglades, who stated that no one knew at that time what the actual highest recorded winds during the storm were, as even the instruments at the AF base were destroyed. I believe it was during last year's most interesting hurricane season that some military documents were de-classified and the official statistics on the storm were updated to reflect newly available information about the strength of the storm.

Salty Kid | talk 06:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• I was there in late July 1992 and it was in full operation. My parents took us there to see the Coral Castle. Never been back but I hope that castle survived it.71.28.243.246 20:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I found this in The Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1995 [1]:

Originally a commercial airfield, the property was deeded to the Federal government after the United States entered World War II. Homestead AFB operated as a military airfield, training pilots until 1945, when it was deactivated and transferred to the local county to be used once again as a commercial airfield. Emerging national security interests in the Caribbean and Central America prompted the reactivation of Homestead AFB in 1955. The installation operated until 1992, when Hurricane Andrew rendered inoperable 97 percent of installation facilities. In 1993, Homestead AFB was designated for base closure, primarily because the cost to close the base was low when measured against the high cost of reconstruction. In its aftermath, the hurricane left new environmental concerns and areas of potential contamination that must be addressed before the installation property can be transferred to the community.

Before the hurricane, the scope of the environmental restoration program at Homestead AFB consisted of 29 potentially contaminated sites, all linked to past operations. The installation was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) in 1990, due in large part to the installation's sensitive ecological setting near Biscayne Bay and the Everglades National Park.

Site investigation activities conducted after Hurricane Andrew and the environmental baseline survey, required under DoD Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) policy, identified more than 500 new sites or areas of concern. Many of the sites were contaminated with paints, solvents, oils, and other industrial hazardous materials blown from storage areas and scattered throughout the installation by the high winds of the hurricane. Other areas of concern included floor drains, oil water separators, and asbestos materials inside storm-damaged buildings.

During base closure, each of these areas would have been reviewed and possibly considered for further investigation and cleanup in the course of normal assessment activities. However, the destruction caused by Hurricane Andrew not only increased the magnitude of potential problems at each of these sites, it also created new areas of concern. Ninety-seven percent of Homestead AFB's facilities were rendered inoperable by the force of Hurricane Andrew in 1992, just months prior to the BRAC Commission's recommendation to realign the base. B.Wind 21:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Because the base closure process was a long, contentious one, Homestead Air Force Base was under Department of Defense consideration for closure prior to its being struck by Andrew; because of environmental concerns and other factors, the BRAC Commission decided that it would have been more cost effective to close the base and clean up the mess rather than restore it. In 1994, according the same annual report to Congress cited above, the local redevelopment authority recommended that Homestead Air Force Base be converted to a civilian aviation facility with continued government and military use. Subsequently, one-third of the installation was transferred to the Air Force Reserve to form the new Homestead Air Force Reserve Base. B.Wind 21:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Only Three Category 5 Storms?

I'm going to check out the references on the statement that Andrew was one of only three category five hurricanes during the 20th century. I could be wrong, but I was almost certain that Carla in 1961 was a category 5 storm? Has me curious now... Salty Kid | talk 06:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

A simple enough fact to check; read Hurricane Carla. It was a Category 5 storm at peak intensity, but it dropped to 4 before striking the US. Only three storms have hit the US at Category 5, Andrew, Camille, and Labor Day. --Golbez 12:59, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Also not that Andrew was Category 5 when it made landfall. Other Category storms may have been exclude because they were not at 5 when they made land fall. (Like Katrina, for example) TomStar81 05:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with your changes Tom. Next time don't go to my talk page and put a rather pointed comment there, just talk to me at the Andrew page. Life's to short to even get alittle stressed aboutt his stuff. No hard feelings though. Thanks.Gator1 12:25, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Worse Than Government Admits

Hurricane Andrew Much Worse Than the Government Admits

I heard several years ago on a radio talk program and interview with Katie Frankenvich (not sure of spelling). She was there, and barely lived through it. The program was on internet radio (rense.com).

Some background on Katie first:

Katie Frankenvich is a documentary film producer who was living in Homestead, Florida with her son at the time. Her father was the former president of Columbia Pictures.

From what I recall, she said that the Coast Guard’s wind gauge broke off that was near her home. This gauge, she claimed could record winds of 250mph, thus making it more than a category 5 store.

Storms like this are not natural in Nature, but more about that later.

She talked about the destruction to her trailer home, and her and her son’s ordeal. She went into the fact that the TV said it would not go to where it went—when they knew darn well it would. How did she know this, because a neighbor who worked for the weather bureau said it would, and said that the TV station was holding back the info. However, she told her to leave NOW, as he was doing.

Why didn’t Katie leave?

Because she was waiting for her son to return from work. Her son tried to get off work, but his boss told him to stay. Then it was too late when he did arrive home.

Why? I don’t know.

She also said that with the first officials who came to view the damage after the storm, including the police, they did not stop to help her, though she was bleeding. Katie saw dead bodies everywhere.

If you look to see how much damage was done, and the total destruction of thousands of homes, it would be impossible for the death rate to be that low (going by government figures).

Katie also saw mass secret burials of bodies, the burial crew putting them in a mass grave.

I figure one way to find the truth as to how many really died is (which might be too late now), to have a web site put up and the public posting people they know who lived there, but never saw again. You can be sure it would be much more than what the feds say died (which I don’t remember the number, but it must be recorded somewhere).

The government admits that it can control the weather, so could this be something that got out of hand?

As a side note, I heard from one guy who was in the military at the time, and worked on a secret project in the storm hit area. The operation of that was called, “Project Tic Tock” (the work is in the name).

That’s how I see it.

Richard S

I can make things up too, but I don't think that makes them true. Thanks for putting this here, though, and not in the article itself. --Golbez 16:12, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

The account has too many holes. For example, Andrew had landfall near dawn on August 24, 1992; if the account with her son were accurate, he would have worked the graveyard shift... and hurricane warnings were up the previous morning. It is most highly unlikely that unless the son were emergency personnel, the boss would be there (or even on the telephone) after midnight.

Trailer homes were evacuated a day earlier, when Andrew was still over the Bahamas.

If she were still bleeding when the "first officials" saw her, she would have bled to death. Florida south of Kendall was impassable by road for several days; in fact, officials (including the National Guard) didn't allow anybody south of State Route 94 for two days after landfall -- and then only residents for a short time afterward.

The Federal government never claimed that it could control the weather; in fact, it has stated repeatedly just the opposite. Hurricane Andrew is evidence of this lack of ability.

"Katie also saw mass secret burials of bodies"? This statement is absurd on many levels, not the least of which is the timing, given the lack of access to equipment, why she would be allowed to see such a "secret" of the government, and the south Florida terrain (in which the bedrock is usually mere inches below the surface of the soil). 66.217.34.168 10:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Gosh, she left out the part about Martians landing at the height of the storm to evacuate their undercover agents from MetroZoo.

Please don't add any of this kind of nonsense to the article. DavidH 17:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

To add to these comments: I was not a witness to mass burials, but there were several undocumented migrants loaded into refrigerated trucks and transported out of Homestead. - Robert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.94.86.57 (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Comparisons with Katrina

How can Katrina be costlier already? The money certainly hasn't been spent yet and surely the costs of Katrina are only wild estimates. OTOH I am going to make an edit re 4th most intense. crandles 14:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Estimates. I agree that we shouldn't leap to conclusions, but the moment the first insurance claims come in (and total losses have traditionally been calculated as insured claims times two), I have no doubt it will surpass Andrew. --Golbez 16:27, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I am less inclined to edit this out again now. However we have a silly range of statements on destructive power from "most destructive ever" to "until 2005 the second most detructive ever". The 98Bn for the Great Miami Hurricane is silly; that article states

"The toll for the storm was $100 million in 1926 dollars, just over $1 billion in 2005 dollars. It is estimated that if it had hit in the year 2003, with modern development and prices, the storm would have caused over $98 billion in damage". The modern development wasn't there so it wasn't damaged.

Can we agree on "was the most destructive to hit the United States probably until 2005"?

See. This has been discussed before. I wish people would come here before making changes in order to see what has been discused. It's very annoying. I think Katrina should be menitoned, but this article is about Andrew let's just keep that in mind. katrian will likely surpass it and when it does we cna change it to that it is sthe seocnd most costliest hurricane. But any real detaisl on Katrina re for the Katrina page not the Andrew page. I just think some people arte treatign this like some sick contest of whose worse Andrew or Katrina. Andrew was and will continue to be (hopefully) one of the costliest natural disasters. Even when katrian surpasses it, Anrew will still be "one of" the worst storms. Let's just try and focus on the subject of the article. All I'm saying.Gator1 21:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

It would be far better to wait with the comparisons with Katrina until after the end of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. A little time will put some perspective that is sorely needed here. Regarding the question "Can we agree on....?" my answer is "no." Regardless of Katrina and/or Rita, the description is wordy, unwieldy, and speculative: it is better to state something to the effect that in 1992 Andrew surpassed hurricane Agnes' former record of being the most expensive hurricane in US history, and then follow up at the end of the year with (it is now ranked.... behind....). B.Wind 23:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! YES! Here here!Gator1 23:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Rita's having a lower central pressure than Katrina bolsters my contention that the changing of Andrew's standing should wait until the hurricane season is finished. B.Wind 06:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I was the Reserve Fighter Wing's logistics plans officer at Homestead AFB prior to Andrew. I and about 250 other Air Force Reservists were deployed to Italy just weeks before the hurricane made its landfall. The Air Force returned many of us back to Dade County about 3 days after Aug 24. Debris was everywhere, trees were stripped of leaves, no power, a minimal amount of useable roads. I was there on-scene for the next few months. No government cover-up, no mass graves, no aliens bodies (from Latin America or from beyond our solar system)being piled into trucks. The problems we dealt with were real, natural, and out-in-the open. Sorry to disenchant anyone who "knows somebody who saw something." D. Chapman

"Dramatisation?"

There was a made-for-TV movie based on the events of this hurricane. Despite it being quite a poor effort, a mention of it might not be inappropriate. See also http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108393/ MrPC 05:02, 22 September 2005 (GMT+10)

Saw it....horrible...inaccurate....made for TV movies are made out of just about anything, is this any different? I don't think it deserves mention. Just my OP though.Gator1 19:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Todo

I put this as Start-Class, even though it is a good article with lots of information, because the standards have to be a little higher for a hurricane like Andrew. Todo: more information on impact, including more pictures - maybe wind field distributions, separation of the impact into multiple sub-sections, possibly an aftermath section, a separate section in the storm history about the re-analysis. Jdorje 20:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess Start is way too harsh, although everything I said above still holds. At least it has inline references...though it needs more sources (I think most text comes from the TCR). Jdorje 20:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Confusion

"Additionally, Berwick, Louisiana, reported 96 mph (154 km/h) sustained winds with gusts to 120 mph (193 km/h)." (Did this occur at its second landfall?) I'm pretty confused at translating this information into Spanish, I know you could give me a hand juan andrés 05:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes that's from the second landfall in Louisiana. Jdorje 05:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The point being that Andrew was still quite strong in its second landfall. Even if it had missed Florida entirely it would probably still have been retired. Jdorje 05:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Rising vandalism

This page was always subject to vandalism but it seems to be on the rise. Since March 26, there have been 27 changes and only 1 of them is a legit change (the rest are vandalisms or reversions). — jdorje (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

We could semi-protect for a while, removing anons and new users. That helped out a lot over at Columbine High School massacre, the page a few months back had at least 15 vandalism per day, it was semi-protected for over a month and went down to a few per week after the protection was lifted (until yesterday because of the 7th anniversary, but that's expected). Still, the vandalism on this page is very sparse, coming about every few days... and other than that vandal that keeps removing the same few sentences, it seems to be random. We could just stick to reverting, warning, and blocking repeat offenders unless it starts becoming a real nuisance. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 19:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Hurricane Andrew should be semi-protected from anonymous users. I reported vandalism, from the infobox of Andrew saying: "(= im happy!", next to Hurricane Andrew. KingScreamer (talk) 23:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Remember that if you need to request semi-protection you may to so at WP:RFPP, also vandals may be blocked after repeated warnings on their talkpage, from WP:AIV. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Todo

More anything, I added more in the impact section and I predict that this article will be like the Hurricane Katrina article in the near future. Storm05 15:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to write this, but the graph showing Katrina as the 3rd most powerful storm is incorrect. See NHC data. It should be changed, but I am uncomfortable changing it. Katrina was a Category 3 storm at landfall.

No the graph is correct. Katrina had much weaker winds than Andrew that is true. However, the strength of a storm isn't related to its windspeeds but its pressure. Katrina was 920mb at landfall, lower than Andrews 922.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree but isn't the language misleading though. Shouldn't there be a talk about what intensity means The SS scale is the standard measure of intensity though not perfectly correlated with pressure. \

Central pressure is the definitive measure of strength. Pobbie Rarr 21:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Central pressure is NOT the definitive measure of strength for a hurricane. The entire point of the SS scale was to classify hurricanes accoring to sustained wind speeds, which correlate with their potential for destruction. It is the wind, not the pressure, that destroys homes and flattens landscapes. The SS scale is the most accurate classification of a hurricane's kinetic energy. Relying on pressure measurements would be tantamount to classifying strenght by the amount of rainfall, or forward speed, or storm diameter, or any other feature of storms. Atmospheric pressure is not energy and therefore could never be used as a gague of strength. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.219.213.5 (talk) 04:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The bahamas impact section needs expanding from what I can tell. Also, more preperation. I will try to get to that when I get the chance. -- Juliancolton (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Collaboration

This is now the GA collaboration and heres what the bot says we need to do:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 50 miles, use 50 miles, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 50 miles.
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth. Specifically, an example is 17 ft.
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 13 additive terms, a bit too much.
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
• Please provide citations for all of the {{fact|nested=yes}}s.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work.

I also sent the article for a wikiproject assessment which can be found by clicking the link in the template above. Tarret 22:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Statistics and Most intense US hurricanes table

The hurrican Katrina data in the Most intense US hurricanes template is not included in the main citation for that table. I added the ref to the template, but due to technical issues it won't display in the ref section of the Andrew article. The talk page for the template is different than the main template page. I highly recommend that someone remove this template and replace it with a more functional infobox or just make an html table for the article itself. Alan.ca 05:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Or Rita. The actual most intense hurricane on record.--Loodog 05:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Wilma is the strongest Atlantic hurricane on record. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

GA delisted

The article doesn't have nearly enough info for such an important event, and lots of places are unsourced. For those reasons, among others, I delisted it. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Its absurdly bloated and useless and misnamed "statistics" section also really needs to go. — jdorje (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

How strong was andrew?

Andrew is probably the most-analysed hurricane in history. But the data the NHC gives out is sometimes conflicting. For instance the NHC best-track data (Image:Andrew 1992 track.png) shows Andrew having winds of 175 mph at one point, but also shows it making landfall as a Category 4. The older NHC pages (like [2]) still call Andrew a Category 4 storm; I guess they haven't been updated after the re-analysis (but this page is still the first source listed for the article). The re-analysis press release [3] says Andrew was a Cat5 during and before landfall. Meanwhile several authors I've seen have claimed Andrew was a Cat5 at landfall only.

On the surface, the question is: what should the article say? 145 mph? 165 mph? 175 mph?

However, the deeper question for me is: what does this mean for all other hurricanes? It's "well known" that older hurricanes have their wind speed overestimated, but nobody ever says how old or how much. According to [4] the NHC in 1992 thought that surface wind speed was 75% of flight-level wind speed, and around 1997 they realized they were wrong and (for cat5 hurricanes) the surface speed is 90% of flight-level wind speed. So what does this mean about Hurricane Allen, for instance? Do its wind speeds need to be adjusted upward from 190 mph (based on 75%) to 230 mph (based on 90%)? Surely not. It seems more likely that for older hurricanes like Allen and Camille, the listed windspeed is actually the flight-level speed not the surface speed. That would give these hurricanes surface speeds of 175 mph rather than 190 mph, which makes a lot of sense since all three intense hurricanes of 2005 only had top wind speeds of 175 mph.

It's important to remember that almost all hurricane wind speeds are estimates. They may be estimates based on flight-level winds, or on dropsondes in the eyewall, but rarely (for dropsondes *directly* in the eyewall?) are they exact. Maybe in the future with aerosondes they will be more precise. In the meantime, the question is one of consistency. Even in the NHC best-track data, it seems, older hurricanes always have higher windspeeds than modern hurricanes with the same pressure. Someday soon the best-track data will probably be updated and those old windspeeds lowered...and what will we do then? Will we go back and correct all the old articles? Even now the best-track data (which is, I believe, a research product and not the official data) is not used for some storms (like Hazel and Beulah...and Andrew).

The real question is, what is the *authentic* source for hurricane wind speeds?

Jdorje 08:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe email the NHC (I found the CPHC to be very open to emails) and ask. --Golbez 18:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

But still, why does the track say that Andrew was a Cat. 4 at landfall when we know it was a Cat. 5? Fableheroesguild 04:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Because the track was made at the time, and not 13 years later? I don't know, as I said, ASK THEM. --Golbez 06:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

No, the track is made from the best-track data, which is supposedly the same data that lead to the reclassification as a cat5. But yes, the only way to find out is to ask them. Jdorje 07:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The Answer

I think [5] answers all questions.

1. Andrew was a cat5 with 175 mph winds out in the open ocean.
2. Andrew weakened to cat4 while crossing the bahamas.
3. Andrew briefly regained cat5 status, with 165 mph winds at landfall. However this doesn't show up in the best-track info because the best-track is given at 6-hour intervals.

I will update the article accordingly. Jdorje 04:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not the article I care about. It's the storm track. Fableheroesguild 20:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

And this answers that. Jdorje 20:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, so what you're saying is that because Andrew was a Cat 4 in during the advisories, we can't adjust the track to say it was a Cat 5 during that advisory. Fableheroesguild 04:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The image is made from the best-track data which is given at 6 hour intervals. I'm just explaining why the best-track incorrectly seems to indicate it was a cat4. Jdorje 10:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I gotta wonder how many of you lived in south florida whilt that beast was bearing down on us. I still have nightmares about it.

When Andrew hit Cat5 didn't exist yet. After reanalyzing the Andrew data the powers that be decided he was more than a 4. To suupport their conclusion they reanalized all the storms and found the older one that also met the new criterion to be upgraded. Cat 5 was added to the scale just in time for #3 to hit.

Is answer question? Sheesh. VulpineLady (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

most intense table - Hurricane Dean?

Hi. Apparently, hurricane Dean in 2007 made landfall at 906 mbar. Can someone verify this? If it is, then it is the 2nd in the table. Please correct it. Look for a source and add it to the table. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The table in the article is most intense landfalling U.S. hurricanes. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hurricane Andrew by far has been one of the most devastating hurricanes ever to reach Earth!!! I mean it was just horrific how much damage this huricane caused!!!!! But, did you know, that Tampa Bay FL. has never been hit by a hurricane in 81 years?! If I were someone that could really give some help in time of crisis like Hurricane Katrina in 2005. And my last question, why do these hurricanes have such nice names? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.90.184 (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

A note

I want to say something about this article. User:Thingg sent me a thing about making a bad edit. Well it wasn't me. There must be 2 people with the same address. --72.86.140.122 (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Weather Channel coverage

Okay, anybody remember the older gentleman that was TWC's hurricane expert back then? White hair, mustache, glasses, kinda short? I remember this quote by him like it was yesterday, when Andrew was out past the Bahamas undergoing serious shear..

"..and I think that's about all for Tropical Storm Andrew."

He pronounced it dead, more or less. Does.. anybody recall what happened next? Oh, yeah! It became a Cat 5 hurricane and killed a bunch of people (and led to a photo-edited tabloid article I saw a few days later claiming Satan's face was seen in the storm clouds).

And, after essentially staking his reputation on this, and making what may have been THE BIGGEST mistake a "weatherman" can ever make.. they kept him. For several years, in fact, until the handsome guy took over completely (wasn't the handsome guy in the Navy at one point?). Though, I think by the 1994 season, he was relegated to "backup Expert" while the handsome guy made the transition, wasn't he?

My point is: -What was the Meteorologist's name? -Isn't it relatively noteworthy that Andrew had been, essentially, written off at one point (if one wants to be "sensitive" about it, the Meteorologist's name can be left out at the least, or just mention that 'some news/weather organizations' had written it off, if one wants to spare TWC's reputation as well) only to turn around and bite ass? -As such, would that factoid (being written off) be noteworthy enough to add a sentance or few about? -What was the fallout of this bad prediction (for TWC and the Meteorologist)? ~KJK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.12.126.221 (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears you're talking about John Hope, who was previously a hurricane specialist at NHC before he retired and went to the Weather Channel. The Weather Channel has only ever had three hurricane guys....Glenn Schwartz (backup in the mid 1980s,) John Hope, and Steve Lyons. There was a brief time in Andrew's life cycle, northeast of the Caribbean, when Andrew technically wasn't a tropical storm, since it no longer had a closed wind circulation (this is mentioned in the article.) NHC kept writing advisories since it appeared that the system would restrengthen, but that was not altogether clear at the time. Had the upper low not closed off of the base of the TUTT in the Atlantic, Andrew would have degenerated completely. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration

During a discussion on IRC, some editors decided to collaborate to get this article featured, or at least improve it. Anybody is welcome to help, and thoughts/feedback would be appreciated. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 05:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Call for Clean-up

Section: Preparation

double on FL and LA and some of it may actually be better in aftermath. I would do it, but it's 1 am and past my bedtime.... VulpineLady (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of statistics

Section: Aftermath

In the "Aftermath" section, under the heading "Florida" the table "Costliest U.S. Atlantic Hurricanes" is more confusing than helpful. According to the cite, "wealth normalization" is not just an adjustment for inflation, but also an adjustment to equalize property development. The 1926 "Miami" hurricane table entry shows a cost of $157 billion ($157,000,000,000). That is an indication of the cost (adjusted for inflation) IF the affected area had been as developed as it is currently. In other words, the probable cost IF the "Miami" hurricane struck the year the cited paper used as a base. The table should either be removed OR an explanation of "wealth normalization" should accompany the table. Otherwise the table is an example of misused statistics.

A Wikipedia user shouldn't have to read the cited publication to understand the data quoted. In 1926 Dade County, Florida (now named Miami Dade County) had a population of about 110,000. Currently Miami Dade County (with the same borders as 1926 Dade County) has a population over 2,400,000. Knowing that "wealth normalization" as used in the cited paper includes the much greater amount of improved property implied by the ~ 20 X population increase as well as the effects of inflation is necessary for understanding the table.

Neonorange (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the sentence "It took 20 days for new trees and vegetation to grow following the storms passing." This sentence should probably be removed, but I'm not smart enough to figure out how. Many thanks. Theresavalek (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Improving

I am going to improve this article (like I did at Hurricane Gilbert) as it is a very important storm to improve. JG ^{(edits · sandbox)} 01:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a sandbox that has an improved version of this article already. Instead of improving it, I'd suggest looking at this sandbox and see what's needed here. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Hurricane Andrew

After working for several months and countless hours on the sandbox for Hurricane Andrew (as well as the Effects of Hurricane Andrew in Florida), I think it is finally time to move sandbox here. It is essentially complete, and yes, I still plan on getting it to FA and having it as the TFA for its 20th anniversary of Florida landfall on August 24, 2012. So I am asking that Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Hurricane Andrew be moved to Hurricane Andrew in order to speed up the process and in accordance to the rules against copy and paste moves. Thank you!--12george1 (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks pretty good! What all would be missing if the sandbox was moved? Mind you, we did this approach for Hurricane Camille, which IMO worked quite well. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It worked really well moving Camille? Looks like crap too me; I am not surprised it was de-listed from GA. Anyway, the details in this article that would be lost would be only the unsourced and unimportant info.--12george1 (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Camille used to be worse though. Yea, if it's only the unsourced/unimportant stuff that'd be lost, I'm fine. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Gopher it. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

Alright, I moved it, seeing now opposition. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't like the first sentence. To leap directly into a different clause three words in makes it seem like the sentence telling me what it actually is was cut off. Apparently people don't like it to say what it was (tropical cyclone, 1st hurricane of season, etc) but a better solution than what we have here should be found. --Golbez (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed inflammatory unsourced claim

I just removed an inflammatory unsourced claim that the storm also killed 8000 migrant workers which were "quietly incinerated by the National Guard and FEMA." While I make no judgement as to the veracity of this claim, leaving it unsourced is a terrible idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belgarion89 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to be on the safe side i have RV'd your edits and the claim added by the 2 IPs this morning.Jason Rees (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't look that reliable. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Get to the point!

I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, so won't add comments below. I think the lead should "get to the point" straightaway. Instead, it goes on about the storm's antecedent's, it's grandmother, it's happy travels throughout the Caribbean, promotions, demotions, friends, relatives, and an extensive and (like most resumes) boring history. As the second sentence, I inserted, "It destroyed the city of Homestead, Florida and damaged other areas." This was erased. Actually, if it hadn't destroyed Homestead, no one would remember it at all, aside from the National Weather Service, since they are required to. Student7 (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Andrew/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 16:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have a full review up by the end of the day. Dana boomer (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • I made quite a few copyedits; please check to make sure I didn't inadvertently change any meaning/nuance.
   • Impact, Bahamas - "many wealthy homes sustained heavy damage." Homes cannot be wealthy, only the people owning them can be.
   • Impact, Florida - " tides reached as high as 16.9 feet (5.2 m)." How high above normal was this?
   • Impact, Florida, "Following the storm, more than 1.4 million people lost electricity and another 150,000 were without telephone service." Did they lose power/phone following or during the storm? Obviously it was still out after, but when did it actually happen?
   • Impact, Florida, "Slightly more than a year later, approximately 20 million cubic yards of debris left by the storm were disposed of." I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to say/emphasize. The length of time it took? The amount of debris?

   • This sentence is awkward and so should probably be rewritten. It's also confusing. Why did it take a year to dispose of these debris? Why weren't they disposed of over the year? How did they dispose of this many debris all at once? If they were disposed of all at once, were more debris disposed of during the year? If what you're trying to focus on is the amount of debris, does the time frame even matter?

   • Fixed--12george1 (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

   • Impact, Florida, "while 29 were indirectly caused by the storm." What were the indirect affects? If you're going to elaborate for the Bahamas, you should elaborate for Florida.
   • In the lead, it says that 182 million fish were killed in the Everglades, but the only mention of fish I can find in the body of the article is in the Impact, Louisiana section, where it says that 189 million fish were killed in the Atchafalaya Basin and Bayou Lafourche.

   • Why is the information now in the lead twice?

   Now I fixed it--12george1 (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

   • Impact, Remainder of US - Third paragraphs starts with "In Alabama...", but then the third sentence starts "In neighboring Alabama..." which makes me wonder if one of the state names is wrong.
   • Aftermath, "the state will face a substantial clean bill" - Is this quote correct? It's not grammatical.

   • Oops, I misquoted Governor Chiles. It was actually "the state will face a substantial cleanup bill" --12george1 (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

   • Aftermath, "President Bush remarked, "[it] hasn't been as devastating [as in Florida]"," This isn't grammatical, and since you've obviously had to change parts of the quote anyway, why not just remove the quote altogether and say something like "President Bush remarked that the area was not as devastated as Florida."

   • Came up with something different, but you probably won't have a problem with it.--12george1 (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Ref #39 (Grant Goodge) is a dead link.
   • Ref #50 ("Major Disaster Declared August 24, 1992 (DR-955)") is a dead link.
   • Ref #63 ( Louisiana Hurricane Andrew) is a dead link.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • File:HurricaneAndrew.jpg is lacking source information and I don't understand what the description has to do with the image.

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• So far, I have fixed all of your queries about this article. Thanks you the review, by the way.--12george1 (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• I have fixed everything except for bulletins number 5 and 6. You are correct with your former theory of the 20 million cubic yards of debris; it was present the amount of debris left from the storm. Now for number 6, there are no sources with a breakdown of the death toll in Florida, unlike in The Bahamas. Therefore, I cannot elaborate.--12george1 (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• More comments added above. I've struck the issues that have been addressed, and replied to the others. Dana boomer (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the quick responses! Everything looks good now, so I'm passing the article to GAN. Dana boomer (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hurricane Andrew/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs removal/integration of trivia, and heavy expansion of the impact and aftermath section. Borderline B-Class, edging close to C. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 06:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 14:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Added a paragraph to lead

After reading through the lead, I felt an acute need for the most important facts about this storm to be made more salient for casual readers, so I put together a summary of the aspects that are most notable and placed it at the top. Of course I expect it to be modified, but I hope there won't be a knee-jerk reaction to revert it. Whether you like that exact form or not, some sort of terse introductory paragraph is necessary here. Looie496 (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Necessity of {{for}}

@Hurricanehink: - I think that the link to the tropical storm should be included. My reasoning is that say there are in fact a few individuals who really are interested in the tropical storm rather than the hurricane; it will be rather difficult for them to find the desired text because "Tropical Storm Andrew" just redirects to "Hurricane Andrew." Unless you are willing to modify the redirect in some way for disambiguation purposes, I think that the {{for}} template should remain. I am still open to further reasoning, however. Dustin (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Statement error needs to be fixed

I have issue with the following statement in the article:

"An analysis by the American Meteorological Society indicated that unusual to most hurricanes, wind damage from Andrew was mostly north of the eyewall path and occurred primarily on the eastern edge of the storm.[45]"

As a person who went through Andrew I know that first part is not true, and it appears the AMS article was incorrectly cited. On page 193 the AMS article states that the damage was north of the "geometric" center of the storm, not north of the eyewall. If anything, Andrew debunked a common saying at the time that being on the "dirty side" of the storm was just as bad as being near the eyewall for well-organized hurricanes. This statement needs to be rewritten. FSUrv95 (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Where is the date of landfall for Andrew?

We need to be more date specific about landfall and hurricane passages. It would seem that internet articles are no longer dated reference materials. BabyDriver (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

From the lede: "Though it briefly weakened to Category 4 while traversing the island nation, it regained its Category 5 status before making landfall on Elliott Key and Homestead on August 24." Titoxd^(?!?) 19:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I added the date after seeing this comment--12george1 (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Dade or Miami-Dade?

This article about a 1992 event refers repeatedly to "Miami-Dade County". Dade county did not add "Miami" to its name until 1997 so this is anachronistic. 12.144.5.2 (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Andrew. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305094502/http://www.csc.noaa.gov/hes/docs/postStorm/H_ANDREW_ASSESSMENT_REVIEW_HES_UTILIZATION_INFO_DISSEMINATION.pdf to http://www.csc.noaa.gov/hes/docs/postStorm/H_ANDREW_ASSESSMENT_REVIEW_HES_UTILIZATION_INFO_DISSEMINATION.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://photos.newhavenregister.com/2012/08/24/photos-on-this-day-august-24-1992-hurricane-andrew-demolishes-south-florida/

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Andrew. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170905233809/http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/poll-rick-scott-one-of-the-nations-least-popular-governors/1171680 to http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/poll-rick-scott-one-of-the-nations-least-popular-governors/1171680

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Misleading track and intensity map

The map plotting track and intensity should be updated to reflect the reanalysis that determined it made landfall in florida as a category 5 hurricane. Mister Infamous (talk) 06:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The track map is plotted at six hour intervals, and Andrew peaked before FL landfall between those intervals. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 06:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)