Talk:2010 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 1

Subtropical low or hybrid system near Canary Islands

Hi. A low drifted off the east coast of the US around January 22, then intensified to a tropical-looking system while hanging over the Gulf Stream, disrupting it. The storm moved near Bermuda, then moved south due to the nonexistant Bermuda High. Over the next week, the storm drifted eastward under the influence of cold frontal cyclogenesis. By January 29, the storm intensified southwest of the Canary Islands and south of the Azores in abnormal warm waters and flat sea surface temperature contours near 20C. By February 1, the storm strengthened into a subtropical hybrid storm, moving eastward toward the Canary Islands. GFS predicts the storm will hit Portugal, enter Spain, drift over France, move south over Italy, then further south toward the Mediterranean Sea to Libya.

This story sounds a bit apocryphal, but it's not. Global ocean currents and weather patterns have been disrupted. This is not a reliable source, but this blog entry contains some useful links and other information, and previous blog entries mention the storm as well, or the comments do. Here's the satellite archive from Plymouth State again, showing GOES satellite imagery. I'm sure you have better places to find NASA image archives. This is the off-season, so we don't have an abundance of reliable sources. Well...except for the NHC's discussions; this one is from earlier:

INFRA-RED SATELLITE IMAGERY SHOWS A BROAD CLUSTER OF WEAK 
SCATTER SHOWERS FROM 12N TO 24N BETWEEN 40W AND 60W. THESE 
SHOWERS ARE REMNANTS OF OLD DISSIPATED FRONTAL BOUNDARIES FROM A 
1005 MB LOW...CURRENTLY CENTERED OVER THE EASTERN ATLANTIC NEAR  
27N20W. WATER VAPOR IMAGERY SHOWS AN UPPER LEVEL CLOSED LOW 
SPINNING OVER THE SURFACE LOW. THIS UPPER LEVEL FEATURE IS 
ENHANCING THE CONVERGENCE RELATED TO IT. THIS SYSTEM CONTINUES 
TO PRODUCE MULTIPLE SURGES OF CLOUD BOUNDARIES RESULTING IN 
SEVERAL LAYERS OF FRONTS AROUND THE CENTER. ONE OCCLUDED FRONT 
EXTEND AROUND THE LOW ALONG THE SOUTHWEST SEMI-CIRCLE. THIS 
OCCLUDED FRONT BECOMES COLD FRONT ALONG 27N18W 24N19W 22N22W. A 
WARM FRONT EXTENDS NORTHEAST FROM THE TRIPLE POINT ALONG 27N18W 
28N15W 29N14W. MODERATE TO STRONG CONVECTION WITHIN THIS LOW 
PRESSURE SYSTEM COVERS AN AREA FROM 23N TO 32N BETWEEN 12W AND 
20W.

This one is the most recent, from 705 PM EST:

MOIST SWLY FLOW ALOFT EXTENDS FROM THE GULF OF MEXICO INTO THE 
SW N ATLC SUPPORTING ISOLATES SHOWERS W OF 75W ACROSS FLORIDA 
INTO THE ERN GULF. A WEAK SURFACE TROUGH EXTENDS OFF THE N COAST 
OF FLORIDA ALONG 31N80W TO 30N81W. A COLD FRONT ENTERS THE 
DISCUSSION AREA NEAR 32N49W ALONG 29N57W TO 27N72 WHERE IT 
BECOMES STATIONARY ACROSS THE NW BAHAMAS AND ACROSS THE SRN TIP 
OF FLORIDA. RADAR IMAGERY INDICATES NUMEROUS SHOWERS N OF THE 
STATIONARY FRONT E OF 80W TO THE WRN BAHAMAS. THIS AREA OF 
PRECIPITATION HAS ALREADY AFFECTED MUCH OF SE FLORIDA WHERE 
FLOOD WATCHES ARE NOW IN EFFECT. SCATTERED SHOWERS ARE ALSO 
WITHIN 90 NM N AND 30 NM S OF THE COLD FRONT. FARTHER E...A 
SURFACE RIDGE COVERS THE CENTRAL ATLC ANCHORED BY A 1021 MB HIGH 
NEAR 26N51W PROVIDING GENERALLY FAIR WEATHER ACROSS THIS PORTION 
OF THE BASIN. THE SURFACE RIDGE IS SUPPORTED BY AN UPPER LEVEL 
RIDGE ALONG 55W. ACROSS THE E ATLC...A 1004 MB SURFACE LOW 
CONTINUES TO SPIN W OF THE CANARY ISLANDS NEAR 28N19W. FRONTAL 
BOUNDARIES PREVIOUSLY ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SYSTEM HAVE NOW BEEN 
DROPPED DUE TO A LACK OF BAROCLINIC INSTABILITY. 
HOWEVER...SURFACE CONVERGENCE NEAR THE LOW CENTER IS STILL 
ENHANCING SCATTERED SHOWERS/POSSIBLE THUNDERSTORMS FROM 27N-30N 
BETWEEN 15W-20W. THE SURFACE LOW IS VERTICALLY STACKED WITH ITS 
UPPER LEVEL SUPPORT...AN UPPER LEVEL LOW NEAR 29N18W.

We could include this system under "other storms" if we cannot identify it as a subtropical or tropical storm. It's February. This shouldn't be happening, even if it probably has before we had satellite technology. I just wanted to discuss it first. Yes, I've been blaming it on global warming, because the ocean currents have been fluctuating, giving tropical cyclones extra boosts over extreme warm anomalies. But the storms themselves are churning up more anomalies, feeding themselves. Several hybrid systems have developed this winter in the Atlantic, after the North American storms drifted eastward. Instead of heading into the North Atlantic as usual, the storms drifted straight east, sometimes south. This allowed them to strengthen in unusual places, and generally forecasts for these storms have been unreliable. By the way, the NHC is introducing a new format for public advisories for this season.

I think we could see some early storms and storms in unusual places this year (Labrador, France, England, Norway, Mediterranean, Morocco, Venezuela, Tehuantepec cross-overs, Northeast Coast, Costa Rica, Brazil, Uruguay, etc.), as the storms recently have been very erratic. This would be interesting to watch, but could the NHC keep track? Also, remember that the main scope of this discussion is about a possible early-season addition to the article. (Anyone want to email the NHC? ;) ) Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, what happened to the newsletters and monthly updates?! Has user interest in the project declined? ~AH1^(TCU) 00:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

We cant include the low as it hasnt been classified as a TD or higher by the NHC. I have heard on the grapevine that NHC were looking at opening an invest on it but i havent seen anything on NRL. As for the newsletters, noone could be asked to write them as they took a while to prepare.Jason Rees (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Certainly looks good on satellite (did, anyways...) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, two low pressure centers commingled together! But since the season is a long way away from officially starting but it's possible we'll have early season storms that don't get noticed by the NHC, is it possible to at least email them to provide suggestions (I'm pretty sure the public and some WPTC members have done this)? Do emails to the NHC webmaster usually get a reply, and/or can the suggestions be read, especially in the off-season? ~AH1^(TCU) 02:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Eh? It's one low pressure center with a couple clusters of storms AFAICT. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw a 1% chanc eof formation Jan 31 1200Z here Syntheticalconnections (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There is currently a powerful storm northeast of Newfoundland that would have been a hurricane if it were hurricane season. The North American Blizzard of 2010 is currently heading offshore and about to merge into that low. Many more low pressure systems will come after it and this will continue to have a significant effect on the Gulf Stream. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Flooding in the Canary Islands. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Do we include South Atlantic storms in the article?

If a documented South Atlantic storm or storms form during 2010, would we include them in this article or create a separate article for the South Atlantic hurricane season if neccesary? There is a blog entry on WeatherUnderground about the possibility of formation for a disturbance in the South Atlantic (but would NHC track such a storm?), and current sea surface temperatures are much warmer than in 2004 when Cyclone Catarina formed. I have also posted an AoI on hurricanes wikia. ~AH1^(TCU) 03:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It wouldnt go in here as its not a part of the 2010 North atlantic Huricane season. It would go in to South Atlantic Tropical Cyclone. If there is a need for a SATL season for this year it would go to 2009-10 South Atlantic tropical cyclone season per the standards for the shem. I seriously doubt though that there will be a need for one for 2009-10 since theirs only 3 and a bit months left of the Shem TC year.Jason Rees (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the article for the 2010 North Atlantic hurricane season; it's 2010 Atlantic hurricane season. Exiling South Atlantic storms to another page seems excessive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It may well be excessive but any tropical cyclones down there would be labelled as tropical cyclones and not as a hurricane. Also using that argument we could include merge the 2009-10 South Pacific Cyclone Season into the 2009-10 Western Pacific and Eastern Pacific articles, but we wouldnt as they are considered seprate from the Western Pacific and Eastern Pacific seasons.16:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't worry about this; southern Atlantic storms are extremely rare, and there isn't an exact season there because conditions there, and in the southeast Pacific, aren't favorable for tropical storms. The only actual south Atlantic storms were 2004's cyclone Catarina, an unnamed depression also in 2004, and the 1991 Angola storm. 98.206.70.2 (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Part of the larger South Atlantic storm system has now intensified into a tropical depression, according to HPC (see above) as well as this blog entry. Is the information sufficient to include this storm in the main article or do we have to wait for post-season re-analysis? ~AH1^(TCU) 03:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Its already in the SATL Cyclone page - as i said before it doesnt belong here per project standards.Jason Rees (talk) 04:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Without trying to revive the old debate, the fact that there was a named storm in the Atlantic should be noted somewhere, even if it isn't with a full section on the storm. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Its not relevant though - if we were too add a section on it then we should add a section on each tropical disturbance monitored by Nadi/BOM to the EPAC/WPAC pages as their at 2010 Eastern Pacifc hurricane season and 2010 Pacific typhoon season and the title would suggest they cover disturbances on both sides of the equator. Also if you look Tropical Cyclone formation is possible within the southeastern Pacific in fact it happens several times a seasonJason Rees (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Neither of your examples is relevant, as all the named South Atlantic storms in the entire historical record can be counted with one hand and you'd still have fingers left over. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Its relevant as if you were to add Anita to this article you would have to add all the SPAC depressions to the EPAC/WPAC seasons since both the WPAC and EPAC dont stop at the equator.Jason Rees (talk) 02:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
        • And that still misses my point: Anita is rare enough to merit a mention. The SPAC depressions are not. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 10:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
          • I don't think it's a bad idea. I have a sandbox for how I think it should work in the 2004 season (which had Catarina). Hurricanehink (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
            • Anita is not relevant to the article though as it is not counted as a part of this season by the NHC or the WMO. So if we added Anita to this article we would have to add Mick, Tomas, etc to the EPAC articles.Jason Rees (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
              • No we wouldn't, for the reasons everyone has said above: storms like Catarina and Anita are extremely rare. Also, Zeta was not part of the 2006 season, yet it is still mentioned in 2006 Atlantic hurricane season, showing we don't need to blindly follow what the WMO / NHC say. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
                • But Zeta was an offical part of the 2006 AHS, however Anita and Catarina are not. so why should we add unoffical storms to the AHS when we dont to any other basin. And Anita is not as rare as you think it is. Jason Rees (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
                  • Anita was one of two official SATL tropical cyclones, yes, that is plenty rare. And, we do have unofficial storms in other basins. Check out 2006 PHS, and hell, how about any JTWC storm? --Hurricanehink (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
                  • (edit conflict) That is not true, as the NHC does not mention Zeta in its 2006 Monthly Weather Review article, nor on its season archives. As to why, well everybody else has already written why, so I won't belabor the point: they are rare, as there are only two named storms in the historical record. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Anita ACE

On March 16, the METSUL blog announced that the ACE for South Atlantic Tropical Storm Anita was 2.05. Where should we include this information? --123.215.14.182 (talk) 07:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The South Atlantic tropical cyclone article ideally. Thanks for noting this. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Midseason outlooks?

The June 2nd forecast of CSU occurred during the season, so it should be split into a seperate section, named "Midseason outlooks", as it was in previous hurricane seasons. Also, it isn't a "pre-season forecast". Should this be there?98.206.70.2 (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I split that section. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. For all intents and purposes, the hurricane season begins when the first storm forms – June 2 happens to be a day past arbitrary cut-off date, so I don't think it classifies as "mid"-season. Juliancolton (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Either way, it isn't before the season itself; any post-June 1st forecasts are inside the season, no matter what. Or, if no one wants any confusion at all, we could just leave it as "Seasonal forecasts".98.206.70.2 (talk) 07:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Heres an idea - Until June 17 we leave it inside a preseason forecast since its a single forecast making up that section and then on June 17 we add the Met offices forecast and split it into mid-season forecasts.Jason Rees (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Think it's worth mentioning that these are the highest numbers predicted before August? Or am I wrong? Rbsmit5k (talk) 13:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, although that's more work for everyone. There has been a general increasing trend in the forecast numbers, but I'm not sure if that needs to be mentioned. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No, any forecasts after June 1st are automatically mid-season outlooks. June 17 isn't before the season, so it isn't a "pre-season forecast". The June 2nd CSU forecast was issued after June 1st, so it is automatically a "mid-season outlook". True, we aren't very far into the season, but yes, we are inside the season.98.206.70.2 (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think his point was that he didn't want to have the section stub while there was only one forecast in there; that'll become moot by tomorrow, so I don't think there is any point in changing it anymore. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Either way, June 2nd is inside the season, so it isn't a "pre-season" forecast. There isn't any need for this discussion to continue from here.98.206.70.2 (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox for 93L

I know it's premature, but I got bored, and in case 93L needs an article, here's the sandbox. --Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Update your sandbox, 93L is now TD One.--12george1 (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Now it's on Tropical Depression One (2010). Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Swapped into Tropical Storm Alex (2010)--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 10:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't copy-paste articles; it destroys the edit histories... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Local File:01L 2010 5day.gif?!?

Why do we have a local File:01L 2010 5day.gif? There's a copy on Commons, and it's more up-to-date, and whether or not it is at any instant, there's no point in keeping two copies. The Commons one is in use on other Wikipedias. Can we avoid uploading hurricane images to the English Wikipedia in the future? With the exception of fair use material, there's no good reason to do so.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Landfall(s)?

Why are there 5-6 landfalls mentioned? Alex only made one landfall so far, and there isn't a need for so many to be there.98.206.70.2 (talk) 11:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I removed all but the important one. Juliancolton (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Forecast Map?

I hope the forecast map is not going to left in this article? Surely a map of the whole track of the system needs to be in this article somewhere. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The map of the track will be added when the system dissipates. - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alex_2010_track.png Jason Rees (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

TD two

Is it ok to make an article on TD two as it is forecast to become a tropical storm and make landfall in the coming days? Bobby122 Contact Me 05:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

An article for TD 2 probably isn't needed right now. Even if it intensifies into a tropical storm before it makes landfall in six hours or so, its short history ensures that little can be said about the cyclone. Wait to see if it causes any notable damage. Juliancolton (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The system is currently poorly organized and according to the NHC has a 5% chance of winds being greater than 39 MPH. I have the feeling that since it is about to make landfall it will remain a TD, pressure has weakened from 1005 to 1007MB. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

An article will probably be needed as it seems headed for additional flooding on top of Alex. However, differentiating any potential damage and casualties if that happens will be difficult. CrazyC83 (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

TD Two Image

Why are we not using a real image of TD 2 in the infobox, shouldn't we be using an image of the actual depression rather then the low that became it? A standard GOES image is of course not as high quality as a MODIS image, but if it adequately shows the actual disturbance then I think we should use that. -Marcusmax(speak) 19:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The image that I posted was a satellite image of td 2 about an hour or two after it formed. It is also meant to be change periodically by any editors who have time to change it.--Bobby122 Contact Me 01:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

TS Bonnie

Seeing that this storm has so far made two landfalls and is predicted to make a third is there enough notability for an article to be prepared for the storm? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Two? Juliancolton (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hit the Bahamas before hitting Florida. Unless it gets bigger, I don't see why an article is necessary for a little tropical storm.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It might be too early to call it then, the storm is forcasted to pass over the oil spill area and has already killed 1 person (Accord to the article) I dont want to crystalball this though.

According to the bulletins from the National Hurricane Center, Bonnie skirted past the islands in the Bahamas but did not make landfall. The only landfall the storm made was in Florida, and the system dissipated over the Gulf of Mexico before it could make landfall in New Orleans. --Ericdn (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly on the "cusp" of having a standalone article, it did make landfall as a TS but from what I can tell damages were minimal at best. An article isn't really needed in my opinion, but if someone does create one I won't advocate for deletion. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, we should wirte an article. But do to the very minor damages it should be written in a few weeks like Celia. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, Bonnie is notable enough for its own article, however, I think it is not notable enough to have an article immediately. Therefore, believe a Bonnie article could and should be done post-season. Darren23^Edits|Mail 15:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree make the article later then, what draws my attention though is that if Bonnie did not make landfall in the Bahamas then why does the article say it did, is there a reference to confirm this? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I put a landfall in because I asked in the IRC if I should put a landfall in, and the person who responded said "Go for it", and I initially put it in as I direct hit, and eventually a landfall as it went directly over the island. And, IMO, you don't need a cite for every landfall/direct hit. The fact is, per operational NHC data (advisories), it went directlty over South Andros. Darren23^Edits|Mail 21:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes but wouldnt that go against WP:V at all? Id love for it to be put in the article and believe it to be true too by the NHC a source would be nice though in my opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment - In my experience the problem with declaring landfall on islands is did the LLCC go fully over the island? After checking the ATCF File and the Google earth file, i would say not as the positioning for 06z on July 23 puts the position just onshore. So i would call it a direct hit on Andros island as opposed to a landfall until the TCR says either way.Jason Rees (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

A indirect landfall I feel would also be best for now, again I too believe that it was a hit somewhere but to put it in the article section a reference would be helpful as currently the section only refers to the landfall in Florida. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Do we even have a track map for Bonnie ready yet? -Marcusmax(speak) 03:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I was looking at that too, I would do it but I do not know how commons works the info can be found at the NHC though im sure. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please have paitence waiting for trackmaps, there are only a few editors with the program and aren't always around to make the maps. Aftwer all we are still waiting for track maps from April in other basins. The info for the track map comes from the ATCF File that the NHC produces for every invest in its High Seas AOR bar SPAC.Jason Rees (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Bonnie 2010 track.png. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

TS Colin

Unless Colin redevelops I see absolutely no need for an article ever, thoughts? -Marcusmax(speak) 01:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not, unless it somehow does what you said it might do. Darren23^Edits|Mail 01:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Not til the TCR comes out. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Redevelopment is very possible (up to 40% now in the next 48 hours), but an article is not needed so far by any means. CrazyC83 (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I could look forward to that happening now; It looks like it'll affect Bermuda as a TS, but with light impacts. Rye998 (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible TD in post-analysis?

I reviewed the invests that formed so far, and I found a non-tropical cyclone invest 95L that read "TD". Is this a sign of an additional TD in post-analysis?

AL, 95, 2010070506, , BEST, 0, 281N, 908W, 25, 1010, LO, 0, , 0, 0, 0, 0, 1013, 60, 20, 0, 0, L, 0, , 0, 0, INVEST, S,

AL, 95, 2010070512, , BEST, 0, 284N, 909W, 30, 1009, TD, 0, , 0, 0, 0, 0, 1012, 70, 25, 0, 0, L, 0, , 0, 0, INVEST, S,

AL, 95, 2010070518, , BEST, 0, 287N, 910W, 35, 1008, DB, 34, NEQ, 0, 25, 0, 0, 1012, 70, 25, 40, 0, L, 0, , 0, 0, INVEST, S,

AL, 95, 2010070600, , BEST, 0, 292N, 911W, 30, 1008, DB, 34, NEQ, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1011, 80, 45, 0, 0, L, 0, , 0, 0, INVEST, S,

Best track of 95L

--Weatherlover819 (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, the NHC has never added a tropical depression in post-season analysis, only subtropical storms and the occasional tropical storm. If you look at the point just after, it is listed with TS winds, covering an area 25 nautical miles out from the northeastern (I believe) quadrant. It could be considered an "unnamed tropical storm" but I think this was a system given a "red" alert too soon. I'll check with the NHC in the coming days to see if they have any info on this. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Premature sandbox for 94L

I know this is premature, but I created a project sandbox here. Feel free to add any additional info. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

timeline?

What's wrong with the timeline? It looks rather strange. Rye998 (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

How so? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Earlier, it looked a bit weird with something put above when Alex formed; I think it was some sort of vandalism, but never mind that now. Rye998 (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hurricane Danielle

A bit early but all current computer models forcast Danielle not making a US landfall should this be reflected in the article?[1] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It already mentions it is likely to stay out to sea. I don't think an article will immediately be warranted on Danielle, even though it could very well become a major hurricane. CrazyC83 (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It is still too early to tell, there is still a chance it could make a landfall in Canada just not likely one in the United States. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Um, isn't saying it is not likely to hit the US WP:CRYSTAL? Darren23^Edits|Mail 18:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Saying that current computer models forecast such and such is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It should get an article just for being a hurricane

Per project unofficial guidelines from about a year ago, Danielle is not notable enough to merit an article as it hasn't hit land or done anything special. Remember, hurricanes are a usual event in a normal AHS. To Prosfilaes: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place." The way I interpret that is models are thinking that it will do such and such, but that may not happen. Darren23^Edits|Mail 00:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Models saying it will do such and such is not a statement about future events; it is a statement about current events, what the models have said. WP:CRYSTAL goes on to say "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2012 U.S. presidential election..." If a full article about a presidential election that may never happen can be made, then we can include well documented official speculation as to what this hurricane will do.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Either way, there would be an article after the season when the TCR comes out, but it will be at least a couple more days until one is needed in real time. Probably when a Hurricane Watch is issued for Bermuda (on the current track, some time Friday probably), it can begin to be worked on in userspace. CrazyC83 (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

One should be stared when the NHC says "Hurricnae watches could be required for Bermuda later today or tonight" is when the time to start a sandbox IMO, or when the system gets a LOT of media attention. Same with Frank. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It is generating a whole lotta media attention ATM. Darren23^Edits|Mail 03:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there another updated image that could be used to show Danielle as it appears now? The current image just shows Danielle forming into a hurricane and while it is useful for an article it does not show a good picture of the storm. Looking at the Satellite Image [2] it looks like Danielle has an eye forming. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Darren, I don't think so. This is not getting as much media attention as Jimena for example. Add the image into the article. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone}

I guess I'll just make this very simple to understand.....There really is no need to discuss whether an article is needed or not. The best way to tell if one can be made is if there is enough material available to support one. Since the storm has now been alive for more than five days, there is definitely substantial meteorological info available. As for possible impacts, there is likely very little currently out. Basically, if you want to make an article, just do it. Worst thing that could happen is that other editors agree there is not enough information to support it and merge it into the main page. Also, please keep all non-wikipedia discussions to other sites, this talk page is not a chat forum :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, you don't need permission to write an article. This includes one for Frank or other storms this year as well. Again, Please keep all unrelated discussion on hurricane wika for now on. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hurricane Danielle should get it's own article now, it is the strongest storm now of the season andz the first major hurricane. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Just because it's the first major of the season doesn't make it notable - and it is the strongest SO FAR, not the strongest "of the season". It still hasn't done anything as far as I've seen. Halsteadk (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There is slight chance of its outskirts to wipe Bermuda, thus having a chance to have impact. HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 20:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• FWIW, watches have been issued for Bermuda. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

And since we have a rip current threat to the US East Coast, the possible indirect threats to Bermuda and its intensity, I think Danielle is now notable enough to have an article. Yes, it might not be (it probably wont be) the strongest storm of the season, but because its a Category 4 hurricane, I think that's where I draw the line on intensity. Darren23^Edits|Mail 06:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Believe me... I don't think anyone is going to get mad if someone creates a Danielle article. Be bold and create it guys... -Marcusmax(speak) 15:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that Hurricane Danielle should have its own page. It is likely to affect Bermuda, and the page that should be "Hurricane Danielle" could have the warnings, watches, etc. After all, it is the strongest hurricane of 2010 so far. This storm also has some long history. Just think, it becomes a tropical depression, then a tropical storm, then a Category 1, then Category 2, and starts weakening into a tropical storm, but strengthens again into a Category 4, and also developing an eye. Then, the next day, it weakens into a Category 2 because of an eyewall replacement, and now it's slowly weakening. That's a lot to write. Somehow. Rosalina2427 (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Rosalina2427 I moved this comment from the top of the header if you don't mind. Darren23^Edits|Mail 20:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC) No problem. I’m fine with the moving of my part of the discussion. Rosalina2427 (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)Rosalina2427

I'm stressing out that we should not do an article on Danielle based on the fact that it was a Cat 4, but based on the fact that it will have some impact such as rip currents. And no, it will probably not hit Bermuda, and a TS Warning will probably not be issued, but to get back to the point, Danielle will cause impact, even if it is a few hundred miles away. Darren23^Edits|Mail 20:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. This system has an interesting MH so far plus the issuance of TS watches. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I think any storm that gets to cat4 or cat5 intensity should get a article...There is many for tropical storms that do very little on wikipedia...

All the 2005 storms have articles due as they are inherently notable and Erick has been kept due to its extreme high-quality. I think this should get an artricle, it has had an interesting MH thus far. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

There will be a Danielle article after the TCR is released. But not until then unless land impacts increase. CrazyC83 (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

If people want to create it on their own, then I say why not. But as a group this should be a secondary task. -Marcusmax(speak) 20:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Some content that came through the current event portal. May be useful, verify it. --Kslotte (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Earl

Earl has an article. And Earl is going to have a lot of impact on many places. There's a hurricane warning in Anguilla, Antigua, Barbuda, French West Indies, Netherlands Antilles, Montserrat, St. Kitts, and Nevis. A hurricane watch has been issued for British Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, (including the islands of Culebra and Vieques,) and the United States Virgin Islands. A tropical storm warning has been issued for the islands that are the same has the ones for a hurricane watch. Rosalina2427 (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)Rosalina2427

(Edit conflict) I'm not sure if it's already happening, but should Earl have an article? Or should we wait until it passes the lesser antillies? Rye998 (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It could (and should) have an article since it already has TS Watches, but I would wait until it has TS Warnings/Hurricane Watches. Darren23^Edits|Mail 20:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, this storm will like threaten the Caribbean before recurinvg out to sea. Be bold and start a project sandbox. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

A very basic project sandbox has been started at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Tropical Storm Earl (2010), if someone gets the time it should probably be worked on more. Or if there are any solid user sandboxes on Earl they can be merged into it. -Marcusmax(speak) 21:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, no one is working on a sandbox about Earl, I might be able to work on Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Tropical Storm Earl (2010). HurricaneSpin Talk 21:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

YE, don't assume what it will do. Remember WP:CRYSTAL? I would agree with Darren, though, it hasn't yet hit land, and when it does tomorrow or the day after, it should have its own article. Rye998 (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't think we have enough yet for a full article anyways, HurricaneSpin has been working his tail off at the sandbox though. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hurricane warning are up. Publish time. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Flesh out the preparations section and I'll move it. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, Earl warrants an article now. Danielle doesn't though. CrazyC83 (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a few years off from the AHS project, but when I was last here, I thought the policy was that all named storms got individual articles? Has that changed? --Golbez (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello there. Not really. The question is whether we make the articles with operational data, or whether we just wait until the TCR to make them. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 16:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Where does it say that Earl had 150 MPH Winds? The NHC only suggested that Earl bottomed out at 928 MB and thus did not confirm it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The highest winds i can see on the RBT is 120 kts.Jason Rees (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The 150mph is likely from some wise-guy who thinks he can alter history :P . As of now, the NHC has stated highest winds are at 125kts (current advisory). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

One knot (nautical mile per hour) is often approximated as 1.2 mph. Ergo, 125 kts approximates as 150 mph. Thus no altering of history, just a conversion of units. (That edit was not mine btw.) Note, however, that the article cites top one-minute sustained winds at 145 mph. The accurate conversion of 1 kt equals 1.151 mph would give 138.12 mph. - Tenebris

Just asking but at Cape Hatteras were hurricane force winds felt? The article says that Earl made a direct hit but no landfall. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Fiona

Fiona now has watches... same question as above, essentially. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again... maybe we should create a sandbox as we did with Earl, or just wait a bit longer to see how Fiona progresses. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we should just wait and see what it does. Darren23^Edits|Mail 03:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, if this thing becomes absorbed by Earl, then i'm all against an article. But anything could change, it's quite far out there. Rye998 (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree now that TS watches are up. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we just create a sandbox and work on an article. If worst comes to worst, we can always not publish the sandbox. — Iune(talk) 14:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

My philosophy always is, unless it probably will cause impact/deaths, then a sandbox will not be needed. Since Fiona is a very weak TS, even if it directly hits the Leewards, will it even be notable enough for an article? I'm in the middle on that, so I think a sandbox/article while the storm is active may not be needed. Darren23^Edits|Mail 23:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not think this storm will be notable enough for an article, it currently is forcasted to hit Bermuda as a weak tropical depression. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I just finished the Fiona sandbox here, should I publish, or should I wait for the TCR update? HurricaneSpin Talk 18:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Please fix the grammar first. The tense errors are very awkward. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed HurricaneSpin Talk 19:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Danielle track map

I thought this would be the best place to put this. The map that was created for Danielle only shows it at category 4 intensity for 1 advisory. I thought there was something off about this when I saw it for the first time, and indeed when I went and looked back at the advisory archive again, it was a category 4 for four straight 6-hour advisories. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2010/DANIELLE.shtml? (All on August 27.) Therefore, all of those that list it at category 3 should actually be category 4, as it went straight from cat 2 to cat 4 then back down to cat 2. I would correct it myself of course but I don't think I can. bob rulz (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You are correct in your thinking; however, myself and others who have the program use the Running Best Track supplied by the United States Naval Research Laboratory and NHC. Those tracks include preliminary reanalysis of the storms; for Danielle, that included the storm being downgraded to Category 3 for a portion when it was operationally considered Category 4. The location of the track is at this link. Hope this clears things up. Cheers, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahh I didn't know that, that's pretty cool! Thanks for clearing that up. bob rulz (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Gaston

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ It appears it has redeveloped into a Tropical Depression. Anyone wanna edit the section? I suck with the Hurricane infoboxes. BrownsRock10 (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It didn't, they just have that symbol up for the time being, the advisory states it's a remnant low. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahh yeah I see now. Its still pretty far away, might re-develop. We'll have to keep an eye out BrownsRock10 (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Until it does redevelop(that's always an if), I see no need for an artcle on Gaston. Rye998 (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Gaston currently now has a near 0% chance to redevelop, I would say that an article is un-needed as it was mainly a fish storm. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Earl's Canadian Landfalls

Per WP:V Are there any sources to confirm the landfalls in Canada? While I can see the track takes it over most of the places that can account for those landfalls, ones like Natashquan, Quebec I can find no track for or a source. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay I changed Natashquan, Quebec to the region it is in to be more broad, the lack of sources is just bothersome is all. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Using the RBT i have managed to track down 2 landfalls as a Tropical Cyclone, (Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island). Ive currently got a direct hit down for Quebec Canada however that will probably be upped to a post trop landfall later today. The source as i mentioned is the RBT located on the NHCs website.Jason Rees (talk) 02:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay fair enough, thanks for the info =). So Earl is officially dead now? With 65 MPH winds the remains can still cause damage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that at that exact moment when the adv was issued, when it was closest to land, it was post-tropical, and it cannot be counted as a landfall and I got confirmation from someone that Earl has been PT 3 hours before "landfall" per RBT, so therefore, Earl did not do the landfall while tropical, and thats why I got rid of it. Darren23^Edits|Mail 03:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Environment Canada summary. According to that summary statement, Earl was still tropical when it passed over Prince Edward Island and sideswiped the Îles de la Madeleine (although that last was not a landfall). There used to be a detailed track map, but at the moment the page has been supplanted by Igor. - Tenebris

Earl hits Nova Scotia as a Hurricane?

I am hearing that the Canadian hurricane center was saying that Earl hit as a weak Cat 1 hurricane is there any way to confirm this? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

We can back it up by using this CHC Statement as they noted that they and the NHC were out of whack with each other. However it stays as a TS landfall as we use RSMC data (NHC) over NMHSS (CHC) all over the world.Jason Rees (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Has this discrepancy been noted in the article though? -Marcusmax(speak) 14:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Right now going back the NHC is saying that Earl had made landfall as a tropical storm however the Canadian Hurricane Centre is saying Cat 1 [3] as well as a section on Hurricane Earl's article that says it made landfall as a Cat 1 with two conflicting references to back it up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Since the NHC is official, it has to be followed. The Cat 1 can be mentioned, but I think it cannot be treated as the official intensity until the NHC says otherwise. Anyone else's opinion on this? Darren23^Edits|Mail 23:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is the NHC inherently more official then the CHC?--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Because its the RSMC of the Atlantic basin, so, they're official. Darren23^Edits|Mail 00:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hermine

So, lets get this conversation started. Does Hermine need an article? Tropical Storm Warnings are posted and it seems Hermine is intensifying rather quickly. -Marcusmax(speak) 14:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. it was already agreed on IRC, but they are more important storms to get to such as 11-E and an article at FLRC. Feel free to create it however. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

And as you know, IRC consensus is worthless. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, an article will be warranted on Hermine. CrazyC83 (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll redirect you all to a perfect comment made by User:Hurricanehink: "For the last time, stop debating whether an article should be made! --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC) " Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

A project sandbox has been started. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone}

I support an article on Hermine as I have heard that it is rare for a tropical system to hold its-self that well together that far inland. Also the unknown if it is a fact that hermine was in part caused by Tropical Depression Eleven-E (2010) [4]

Hello. In the article, it says TS Hermine already dissipated. However, I think we should keep it as an active tropical cyclone because the Hydrometeorological Prediction Center is still issuing advisories on TD Hermine. --Weatherlover819 (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I added a lot on Hermine in the sandbox and I think it can be moved now but it requires an administrator. I agree it should be kept as active until the HPC says "remnants of Hermine", at which point the circulation will have dissipated. CrazyC83 (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Moved. Juliancolton (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Archived advisories from HPC: 10 // 11 // 12 // 13 // 14 (remnant) --Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 12:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Tropical Storm vs hurricane Edit war

Can we get some discussion instead of just blindly reverting? Is there some specific reason we are calling it a hurricane when [5] labels it as a tropical storm? Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 01:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

[6] HurricaneSpin Talk 01:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but as someone not familiar with storms and related data sets, I'm not understanding what that link is showing. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 01:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Basically its Igor tracking data and shows that Igor has intensified into a hurricane.Jason Rees (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that guys sorry i didnt find that out. I never knew that existed. Hey you guys have an IM so we can discuss hurricane stuff? M. Kaefer (talk)

(edit conflict)It is called the running best track. It documents the intensity and past intensity at different times, and since it comes from the National Hurricane Center, it is official. However, updating using it is a poor choice because only a few people know about it, and because of that, we have an unofficial guideline or practice that we don't update until the advisory. Darren23^Edits|Mail 01:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Darren M. Kaefer (talk) (by the way I am also 173.70.49.233)

And even I didnt know it was a hurricane, but it's misleading because someone wrote that at 11PM EST it became a hurricane, and I live in EST and it's not 11 PM yet and it never was a hurricane (until i was shown those records/data) M. Kaefer (talk)

In Giantsteen's defense, we don't use the running best track operationally because it can change. There have been several times that the intensity has been changed and then changed back, and twice they had TD's as tropical storms before changing their minds. The behaviour of reverting without discussion is unacceptable, however. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because HurricaneSpin (talk · contribs) used the wrong time, basically using an advisory time, instead of the Running Best Track time. Does that make sense? Darren23^Edits|Mail 01:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

For goodness sake people, just go to http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/. That data sheet is lovely and nerdy and all, but the NHC has NOT declared it a hurricane. It may BE a hurricane, but it hasn't been declared one. Is there some reason why we can't wait until there's an official declaration? DOSGuy (talk) 01:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly!!! No one looks at those data sheets. When they declare it's a hurricane, then it's a hurricane. Besides, those "best track" things are JUST predicitions. Advisorys are let out when they are SURE they are giving the right and 99% true info. M. Kaefer (talk)

Remember Gaston was supposed to become a hurricane! LOL it barely even was a tropical storm for pete sake! :P M. Kaefer (talk)

It is not a prediction, it comes out earlier than the advisory because it takes time to plot the track, update the graphics, write the forecast discussion etc. It is official and comes from NHC and we wikipedia use that best track BTW, on Gaston's track have been regenerated to a tropical depression because of this file showing the fact it did. HurricaneSpin Talk 16:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that data comes directly from the National Hurricane Center, so their running best track (i.e. changed track, improved, etc), is official, but we should wait until the advisory because of what me and Hink said above. Darren23^Edits|Mail 01:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

And you don't understand what that page is. It documents current and past windspeed, pressure, size, etc, not forecasts. Darren23^Edits|Mail 01:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no more need for discussion here. I blocked HurricaneSpin for disruption. Wait until the NHC officially declares Igor to be a hurricane before making the change on the page. --Hurricanehink (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I dont see what the big deal is I live in EST too and it is almost 10:00 here, are you telling me people cant wait an hour for the new update to come in? Seeing Igor is over open water an hour will not make a diffrence. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

They don't even have to wait for the next update. The NHC can issue a special advisory to declare a storm a hurricane at any time. DOSGuy (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has facts from past and present. For all we know, Igor could be weakening. You cant predict the future. Duh! M. Kaefer (talk)

The blocked user did not predict the future, he made a big mistake and put the 11 pm advisory time, so I think that's why everyone's confused. The time, if he was to do it right , was gonna be 8:00 pm EDT. Yes, Igor is a hurricane. Should we change it, no, because the advisory is not up, and it will start confusion. Darren23^Edits|Mail 01:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Igor is a hurricane now so this arguement should finally be over. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It was 70.248.116.226 who started the edit war and changed the time to 11PM EST, I changed it back to 8PM EST though. HurricaneSpin Talk 06:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Certainly a mess-up with UTC. It's all the NHC's mistake. Why do they use several time zone references on every other product? That's annoying. --Matthiasb (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Igor

Whoa, looking at how far east this tropical storm has formed are there any records this storm broke by doing so? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No, there have been several storms that formed further east than Igor. --Patteroast (talk) 17:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

In fact, at least one doubled back on Portugal. - Tenebris

Igor will be nowhere close to warranting an article until it actually does something. Cape-Verde storms are Atlantic traditionals, and Igor is no exeption. Rye998 (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is there a section for every single system that forms? It starts to get really annoying.--Curtis23's Usalions 17:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, perhaps everyone wants every storm to have an article. I'm sorry if it's annoying to you, but it is improving the main article nontheless. There has not been any forum-like discussion going on here, so it isn't bad to make articles; if we have an active season, we will probrably have an active talk about it, too. I can't blame anyone for it, this article is rated as high importance on WPTC. Also, in the 2010 article, where the info on Igor is included, the term "steering currents" doesn't have it's own page. Should something else be put there instead? Rye998 (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Or make an article on steering currents (which we probably should have). Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree.--Curtis23's Usalions 22:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed here too, an article is needed on steering currents. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

This article questioning thing on every storm that forms has become quite irritating. Could we please refrain from making these redundant questions? The bottom line for any and all storms in the modern era for articles is if there is enough information to support one. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that for these articles WP:Notability and WP:V are clashing together here. Just because there is enough information for a storm does not prove it is notable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying but common sense really needs to be used more often. If a storm appears to warrant an article, go ahead and make it, if the opposite applies, don't make it. Simple as that...Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:BOLD atomic7732 02:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, it;s like Tropical Depression Five, the only storm with no headline, the guy was bold and made the article and most people agreed on it's notability.--Curtis23's Usalions 03:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

someone make igor an articale it is cat 4!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.43.6 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC

Wow, Igor is certainly an amazing storm. Winds are expected to peak at 155 mph, which is a Cat. 5. Anyways, I was kind of wondering why Danielle and others don't have their own articles. It improves Wikipedia, in my opinion TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Can we stop asking about making articles? If you think its notable, Be Bold and create it. If someone disagrees (like me), talk about it in the talk page. And no, 155 is not Cat 5, 156 (160 technically since the NHC rounds to the nearest 5) is a cat 5. Darren23^Edits|Mail 21:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thats the thing though. I'm new here, and don't know how to do that yet. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

See WP:FIRST. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 21:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I mean, someone should make an article about Igor. As said befor, it is an amazing storm, and I haven't seen anything like this. Is it possible that it can be the strongest hurricane, perhaps becoming a Cat5? I certainly hope not. Rosalina2427 (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Rosalina2427

Its got a long way to go if it wants to be the strongest Tropical Cyclone of 2010. Edzani (the first TC this year in the SWIO) is currently the strongest with a pressure of 905 op 910 BT.Jason Rees (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe she was talking about the Atlantic TA13 22:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Igor might be a Category 5 in about 69 hours, according to a few sites. I wonder if it's actually true? Does anyone have any opinions? If so, ........try to ask me. If you can find out how. Rosalina2427 (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Rosalina2427

Its entirely possible Igor is a Category 5 Hurricane now. I can guarantee a storm of at least 145 mph though. It is also likely that we will see Julia at 8PM, answering to your other question.

Now, I have a question that someone could please answer. You know those info-box things? How do you put them on a page? TA13 22:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

If Igor becomes a cat5 then it needs a article...Cat5's are very special beast and deserve it. """"

Copy and paste it and fix the windspeeds usually works.Jason Rees (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep any speculations on Igor's peak intensity on the hurricane Wikia, this discussion is just about improving the article. Igor(and Danielle) should get an article(s) for all intents and purposes, especially if we have these articles. It might not be made right now, but don't be so impatient. It will be done. This is the same discussion we have on Wikipedia for track maps. There are only a few users that do that, and aren't always around to make them, because they(and I) have other issues to worry about.Rye998 (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a gut feeling that Igor will move onto a Cat 5 but you are right a gut feeling is nothing. About the track maps I could try and wing it if there were instructions on how to. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia is not a forum. All discussion not related to the improvement of the article must be avoided as much as possible. And if you want an article made on Igor, Be Bold and make one. If someone disagrees with its notability, then discuss on the talk page when the storm is finished, just like TD5, and it went smoothly. Darren23^Edits|Mail 04:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Is the strongest storm for Wikipedia titled by pressure? I mean, wouldn't it make more sense to do it by wind speeds? Because, I mean, if your in a major hurricane, would you worry about windspeeds, or pressure. Windspeeds would be the right answer. I just think we should change that, if possible.

To the person who typed the above comment, two things. First, sign your posts with four tildes (mentioned above the edit box), and second, to a meteoroligical standpoint, and the NHC's way of measuring intensity(which we on Wikipedia follow), yes, we do rank storms on pressure. It is true windspeed and pressure are not directly corrilated all the time. Two main things can change that. The size of the circulation is one; the bigger the eye, the higher the pressure, in general. Also, storms can explode in pressure but the winds might not catch up in time due to increasing shear and/or land proximitity, like with Alex earlier this year, or Opal in 1995. If you want to assume anything about that, put it on the Hurricane Wikia. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FORUM. Rye998 (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, jeez, I'm new and was just asking a question. Some of you people are very rude on here. TA13 21:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was offending you, TA, but I just hate it when people put forum-like discussion on Wikipedia. Since this is your first time, that was just a warning, so you're OK for now, but I don't want you putting any more forum-like disussion here. The wikia page I mentioned above is a forum, and you can put any and all speculations you want to there, but not here. Wikipedia doesn't want to be mean to newcomers who accidentially put something in they weren't supposed to, but we don't want them to think it's okay to let them do what they're doing. We have seperate pages for those.Rye998 (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyways, back to Igor, I would wait for an article, until it might affect Bermuda at least. As of now, I don't care if it becomes a category 5, an article is needed on it. This is the first and only use of the name Igor, as it was for Colin and Fiona(both of which have articles) and currently Julia. Rye998 (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox written. Mostly based on the current paragraph in this article so far. Not sure if ready to publish though. CrazyC83 (talk) 03:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to add more. I would personally publish it at the time the Hurricane Watch is issued for Bermuda (at the current path, should be sometime tomorrow) but if you think it is ready, go ahead. CrazyC83 (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I just updated your sandbox with the latest advisory, CrazyC83. However, I would probrably wait until it affects Bermuda until we make Hurricane Igor (2010) official. Cheers, Rye998 (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I still think Igor should have its own page. It almost reached Category 5 intensity, and is aiming for Bermuda. Rosalina2427 (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Rosalina2427

I say it is ready to be moved...just need an admin to move it to Hurricane Igor (2010). CrazyC83 (talk) 03:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You rang? --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and links adjusted on the article. Working on one for Karl next. (Don't think Julia will need one operationally) CrazyC83 (talk) 03:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Igor's eye has become less organized, according to a picture on Stormpulse, a site that tracks current storms. Is that true? Rosalina2427 (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the Diameter of TS force winds now 575 miles... 300 NM one way and 200 NM the other way which is 500 NM ... converted to 575 miles Cwachal (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I havent been able to confirm it but I am hearing that Igor is forcasted to absorb the renments of Julia and cause a snowstorm over Greenland. Are there any sources for this? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)