Talk:Hurricane Francine

To-do

I am writing this as landfall is imminent. Preparations, I believe, could be expanded further. More warnings and watches could be noted along with other local things. Also, more information surrounding Francine in Mexico is in order. ✶Quxyz✶ 21:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

news

• Knocking out power in Baton Rouge
• live updates from New Orleans

Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

NOAA path

Hi, I was just wondering why the projected path is not shown on active hurricanes? For instance from NOAA. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grazmagoonaz (talk • contribs) 06:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Grazmagoonaz Discussions from early this year have decided that forecasts violate WP:NOTNEWS. The consensus was that if a detail would not reasonably stay for the next few years and wasn't trivial (like mentioning that the storm is active in the lead), then it should not be included. ✶Quxyz✶ 02:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 14 September 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Community unanimously supports the move. (non-admin closure) _ZZ^Z'S 23:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

---

Hurricane Francine (2024) → Hurricane Francine – No storms in the list of storms named Francene seem to be very notable besides Hurricane Francine. Hurricane Francene, while stronger than Francine, did not affect severely land and its strength does not seem to be of note or peculiar. The other Francenes and Francine don't seem to have impacted land so are not notable. ✶Quxyz✶ 14:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. This storm is more notable than all other cyclones in that list by a very wide margin. ArkHyena (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom, and we can always move it back if Francine doesn't get retired and another notable Francine happens in the future. TheWxResearcher (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Support. Francine is very notable for its damages in the Gulf Coast of the United States and for good reason. And since there is only one Francine in the Atlantic, it would make sense to move the article. tai (he/him) (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Support per nom. There is no List of storms named Francine, which can distinguished as Francene in search tab and only one tropical cyclone name that replaced Florence last 2018. Thus, it is recommended to move per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Icarus58 (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Icarus58, can you clarify your comment? ✶Quxyz✶ 23:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Support per others above. VehicleandWeatherEnthusiast2022 (talk) 00:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

support for reasons given above 2600:1014:B14C:D3B8:0:56:5062:8501 (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Support per nom. ~ Sandy14156 (Talk ✉️) 17:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Support per nomination 96.236.149.251 (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Support, take example from Beryl 2018 (which was originally titled Hurricane Beryl) - if a stronger storm of the same name comes to take its place, we can move it back. Cherkasy0 (talk) 10:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm disputing NHC estimate of 100mph sustained winds

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The strongest winds recorded on land were 96 mph GUST, which is exactly Cat 2, but only in Gusts. By definition, a hurricane needs sustained 1-minute winds of 96mph or greater to be Cat 2. This hurricane absolutely did not have 96+mph winds at any time in its lifetime. NHC has been incorrectly reporting FLIGHT LEVEL WINDS as if they were 10 meter winds, which is preposterous, and they fail to correctly forecast either track or intensity, even though computer models are supposedly dozens of times better than 20+ years ago. I swear the forecasters 20 or 30 years ago were ten times better than the guys at the NHC now.The reason you don't have a damage estimate yet is because this hurricane barely even did any damage, because again, it wasn't even cat 2. The "eye wall" passed directly over my house, and we never even saw 70mph wind gusts at my location. A regular severe thunderstorm does more damage than what we got out of 'francine". We never even lost electricity. I'm glad to say that, but it debunks the myth that claims this was a category 2 hurricane. Wade Smith0078 (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC) Also, even tropical storms can do severe damage, like Alberto and Chris of 2024, so even if you didn't suffer much damage, that doesn't really disprove Francine's intensity. OhHaiMark (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC) A 96 MPH GUST measured at Dulac, Louisiana is consistent with a SEVENTY MPH Tropical Storm. Not even a Category 1 Hurricane. Wade Smith0078 (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC) A 96mph Sustained CATEGORY 2 Hurricane is expected to have 3-second GUSTS TO 125MPH TO 130MPH, Much, much higher than anything recorded even at flight level. Wade Smith0078 (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC) @Wade Smith0078 We are just simply following what the NHC says on here. If the NHC designates it as a Category 2 hurricane, then it is considered a Category 2 hurricane. We can't simply classify it as a tropical storm or a Category 1 hurricane on here unless the NHC revises it during post-analysis. TheWxResearcher (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC) We go by what reliable official and/or secondary sources, not by original research or first-hand observation. Drdpw (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC) We go with what the NHC states, not your original research. And as for your point that "forecasters 20 or 30 years ago were ten times better than the guys at the NHC now", please give a source for that claim. OhHaiMark (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC) Real Science does not involve you blindly trusting NHC and JTWC every time they make a claim. Real Science is supposed to be independently and repeatably verified. Independent data proves this was a 70mph sustained TRPICAL STORM with a gust to 96mph. Eh? 20 or 30 years ago, they didn't blow a Category 5 hurricane forecast completely like they did last year with Hurricane Otis. That was a completely unscientific "wish casting" by the NHC and they gave Mexico no warning whatsoever. Max Mayfield's NHC never would have blown that forecast. They nailed Katrina FIVE DAYS ahead of time, and the only reason the death toll was that high is because people could have gotten up and walked away from Katrina and didn't even bother to do that. I live in Louisiana, and believe me, most of the death toll was lazy black people in New Orleans who refused to leave when given Mandatory evacuation order. the levee they've rebuilt will not survive an exact repeat of Katrina either. I watch every hurricane or TS that forms world-wide, and I promise you both NHC and JTWC were better and more reliable 20+ years ago. Oh, sorry, they don't make their data permanently public, but instead take it down 2 hours after publishing it, so no, I cannot just query their data to prove that to you, because they hide the data from the live stream half the time anyway.  If they didn't have something to hide, they'd make their data permanently accessible to independent engineers and meteorologists. Wade Smith0078 (talk) 04:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC) The NHC does archive theirs here, while the JTWC's is archived by other sources. OhHaiMark (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC) Also the JTWC does archive their info here while IBTrACS archives RSMC data as well. OhHaiMark (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)