Talk:Tropical cyclone/Archive 3

Misc.

I'm not sure how to fix this, but there appears to be a problem with a "ref" tag under the global warming section. The tag is visible, search for "refname=EmanuelNature" to find it. If I can figure out what the author was trying to do there I'll fix it myself. Jmathies 20:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing it out, fixed it. The problem is the the author typed refname. The correct usage is ref name (with the space).--Nilfanion (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article problems

There are some significant structural problems with this article.

Names for storms are covered both in the "Terms for tropical cyclones" section and in the "Intensities of tropical cyclones" section. There is no one place where all names are explained.
The basin list does not use the set of basins we use for articles on wikipedia. Nor does it use the full long list of basins (CPac is not mentioned). Where does this list come from, then? It needs a source.

— jdorje (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. What section do you think is better for covering "names" (or "terms" I think)? Do you have a complete basin list to adapt to here. Also, as to structure, I'm still campaigning for the incidental info on terms, linguistic differences, naming trivia to go to the bottom and keep the meteorological info at the top.DavidH 04:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue: In the formation section, it talks about distance from the equator being a factor, which is all well and good and references a NOAA page, except for the degrees part, which seems to me to be wrong. The meridian circumference of the Earth is so close to 40,000 km that it hardly matters. Latitude is uniform scale, and when you divide 40Mm by 360 degrees, you get 110 km to two significant figures (the 310 miles is too many significant figures as well, but I digress). 500 km is about 5 degrees, but not 10. I suppose someone was saying it's an approximately 10 degree field, but I think it would be better to say "or more than 5 degrees from the equator", which I believe is less confusing. If noone has objections, I will make this change later. RandyKaelber 21:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

am I getting it totally wrong?

I have removed a sentence about hurricane formation in the South atlantic that mentioned the ITCZ. If I am not entirely mistaken, the ITCZ is where tropical cyclones can not form due to lack of Coriolis force. Furthermore, since the ITCZ is, with seasonal variations, located along the equator, it makes no sense to state that it does not exist in The South Atlantic. Or am I getting it totally wrong? Kosebamse 12:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a zone centered on the equator. Northeast trades on the north, southeast trades on the south, as I understand it. DavidH 17:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Storms ocassionally form from parts of the ITCZ as it drifts around the equator; I believe Hurricane Ivan was an ITCZ spin-off. However, they don't form in the ITCZ. One major exception might have been Typhoon Vamei, which formed so close to the equator that it must have been in the ITCZ. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 04:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also look at Cyclone Angi

-thrussian5thgrader

The 190 Club

This article lists Tip, Keith, Camille and Allen as the only 190mph tropical cyclones on record. But according to the 1964 Pacific Typhoon Season article, Super Typhoon Louise also reached this milestone. Which is correct? Pobbie Rarr 07:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is very unwise to make such a claim, regardless of any particular storm that may or may not have been 190 mph, simply because the claim is so hard to verify. Based on something I read a few minutes ago (that they've been waiting to update all the 1960s storms at once), I kindof suspect the 2006 update of the HURDAT will knock Camille down from 190 mph. WPac, SPac, and NIndian storms are poorly recorded; you can see the advisory data for the WPac but it is extremely inaccurate - Typhoon Nancy is listed with 215 mph winds. What's needed is to find the updated JTWC best-track data - if there even is such a thing - and look at the wind speeds there. — jdorje (talk) 07:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Louise falls into the same time period of uncertain wind speeds as Nancy, i think we can safely discount it from the "190 club" unless it is stated otherwise elsewhere. —Cuivi é nen, Sunday, 2 April 2006 @ 03:49 (UTC)

Yeah but Camille also comes from that time period. — jdorje (talk) 04:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic-Pacific Crossover Storms (or vice-versa)

Shouldn't we list these storms in the article since they are only like 7 or 8 recorded storms that did a crossover and can you ggive me a list of the crossover storms. Fishhead|§ 22:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, this article is not a list of storms. That's what List of notable tropical cyclones is for. If you wanted you could make a new article List of multi-basin tropical cyclones. — jdorje (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Fishhead|§ 12:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GREAT LAKES TROPICAL CYCLONE?

WHAT!? There was a storm form in the Great Lakes in 1996? What month? What day? Where did you get this information whoever added that to the unusual formations list? Cyclone1 17:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the 1996 Atlantic hurricane season talk page → § Fishhead|§ 22:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks fishhead. I uploaded it to the hurricanes page. Cyclone1 14:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Devastating Texas hurricanes.

Should i make this list? theres one for florida, and Texas has a lot of bad ones too. Cyclone1 14:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I was considering making a List of North Carolina hurricanes, but haven't gotten around to it yet. There's always the Category:Texas hurricanes which does a pretty good job already. — jdorje (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess, but I think I'll try it and se what it looks like. If its not much better than the Category:Texas hurricanes, then I'll just get rid of it. Cyclone1 17:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Catastrophic Texas Hurricanes since 1900 — Cyclone1 20:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO WAY!!!!!!

UNBELIEVABLE!!! I think i have evidence of ANOTHER South Atlantic tc!!!! it exsisted from march 21 - 22, 2002. here is the sequence of images that i made. THIS IS AMAZING!!!! Cyclone1 23:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be?

I put this image on a month ago and obviously overreacted. It looks to me, now that Ive calmed down, just like a potent thunderstorm with maybe a hint of rotation. Cyclone1 00:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC) Dude! this is cool!Baseball-bob 22:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Separate tropical storm article

(Moved from tropical cyclone dab talk page)DavidH 17:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since we make distinctions between tropical cyclone and tropical storm, I'm thinking about creating a separate Tropical storm page so there's a direct link. It seems less helpful to have links for hurricane and tropical storm in many sentences when they point to the same long article. The information about intensities and differention is all in the tropical cyclone article, but fairly deep. And since that article is so long, some split seems inevitable. Finally, a good article on tropical storms could help reduce public misunderstanding that only hurricanes or major hurricanes are dangerous. DavidH 02:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(This should be discussed at talk:tropical cyclone or on the wikiproject talk page, not here.) I don't think a proliferation of articles is the answer; a page about "tropical storm" would just be a stub. The solution to the multiple links is to cut out the duplicate links. The differences between tropical storms and hurricanes is (or should be) explained either in tropical cyclone or one of its daughter pages. — jdorje (talk) 03:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Certainly it has to be done right; there are many capable contributors here.
  - "Tropical storm" isn't the only secondary article that might help toward shortening Tropical cyclone. Still, one new article is not necessarily proliferation.
  - Tropical waves have a separate article.
    - That's because they aren't tropical cyclones, and have characteristics of their own. A tropical storm is simply a tropical cyclone that hasn't strengthened into a hurricane/typhoon.
  - Tropical cyclone dwells on full-blown hurricanes, leaves little room to enumerate facts about lesser storms. How common are they? How deadly are they? How different are they?
    - I don't know why it matters, it's all the same kind of thing. This is like suggesting having different articles for weak earthquakes, strong earthquakes, really strong earthquake, etc. The only difference is that their windspeeds are low enough to not have caused an eye structure to form, that is the definining difference between a hurricane and a tropical storm.
  - Tropical storms have killed thousands of people. Average readers might be interested in an article specifically about them. Mayhem mentioned in Tropical cyclone is focused on hurricanes.
    - We have a list of notable tropical cyclones for that. This isn't a list of nasty storms, it's about the structure, genesis, effects, etc.
  - Nothing has to be just a stub (see a quick cut-paste draft). I can see meteorology, history, and records sections, graphics and photographs at least. "Tropical storm" doesn't seem to be as small a topic as, say, "rainband", which redirects to squall.
  - Tropical storm is not a synonym for hurricane, but not everyone knows that -- so a distinct article seems not such a bad idea for preparedness sake, if nothing else.
    - A tropical storm and a hurricane are the same kind of weather system though, it's just a matter of strength and structure.
  - Clearly won't introduce a huge navigation problem (and the redirect note on Tropical cyclone doesn't list tropical storm now). This would not be creating two articles on the exact same thing with different names. -- DavidH 18:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - All indented comments by me. --Golbez 18:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good comments above, Golbez, that certainly could be facts in an article. But you think it would be bad to have a separate article? What are the negatives that I'm not seeing? DavidH 19:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the question is what I posed above, should we have separate articles for weak earthquakes, etc.? What good is accomplished by it? "A tropical storm is a tropical cyclone of these speeds... many have killed people, see this list." I just don't see what content it could have separate from this article. All the genesis, strucutre, etc. info is here, so there's no point to duplicating it. What would be unique about an article on tropical storms? --Golbez 19:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably agree except tropical storm is an official term used by the U.S. government for warnings and categorization of a certain type/stage of a tropical cyclone. In Wikipedia things (should be) written in small chunks -- articles, not chapters. In a printed encyclopedia, TS would be an article (section) in the tropical weather chapter. And if the U.S. starts issuing "weak volcano" and "strong earthquake" warnings, maybe it won't seem so silly to have separate articles for them too. DavidH 19:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm warning. :) And until 1987, they were considered only gale warnings; it was changed, I guess, to make people a little more concerned, and to separate from non-tropical gales (which aren't named, unlike TS's) --Golbez 21:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the articles on each separate warning anyway? Or U.S. tropical weather system alerts, actually? :). (You keep throwing out facts that would make good content, you know.) Or Blizzard, gale, derecho, microburst, and extratropical storms (which, I see, lie somewhere in between tropical cyclones and mid-latitude cyclones).

I know it's an arbitrary category of TC, not a pure-science distinction, and the TC article covers it. Still, it's what the U.S. government and weather community terms a whole class of storms/storm conditions that we all observe. Didn't like, as a reader, just having it redirect to the "monster" TC article. It would link there in the first sentence, no doubt. DavidH 22:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need articles on each separate warning, since they would be tiny (though some history and controversial ones might be useful). And yes, extratropical cyclones have their own article because they aren't tropical cyclones. Tropical storms ARE. Blizzards, gales, derechos, microbursts, extratropical storms, these are all entirely separate weather phenomena. A tropical storm IS a tropical cyclone, just of a rather weak strength. Now, if you can possibly find enough unique info to make a separate article, I'd like to see it - however, I just can't think of what you would put that would be anything beyond a stub. --Golbez 23:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Removed indent) Those are valid points. See if anybody else wants to chime in. -- DavidH 03:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind this issue is simple and doesn't require much discussion. It is bad to make an article called tropical storm because it would be too narrow to allow a fully-fledged article, and because it leads to unnecessary proliferation. If we have an article on ts's then it follows we should have one on tropical depression, hurricane, typhoon], and Category 2 hurricane; just about every one of your arguments above applies to them as well. This is just silly. Instead what's needed is a single article that covers and explains what all of these different classifications mean. There is a fair amount of information the article could cover on the climatology and relative frequency of each different strength of tc. The only thing that really does need discussion IMO is whether the article should be an extension of Tropical_cyclone_classification_schemes or a new article; I lean toward the former. — jdorje (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you are welcome to be bold. Editing is better than debating. My suggestion is that you add a new section to Tropical cyclone classification schemes with whatever information you want to have, and if this becomes long enough to justify a separate article then it can be split off later. Adding to an existing article has the advantage that your work is very unlikely to be merged into a larger article. — jdorje (talk) 03:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a separate article tropical depression, but as you said, (meteorological perspective) a depression is distinct from a cyclone and a tropical storm isn't. Tropical cyclone classification schemes is a redirect to TC. I see the main points that TS is just a term (so the article would just be a definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary). I take the opinion of major contributors seriously of course. -- DavidH 18:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

tropical depression is a redirect. tropical cyclone classification schemes is now a redirect; someone merged it last night, probably after reading what I wrote above. — jdorje (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I merged it, after I read the comment on the other article's talk page, and considering that it is better to have information centralized if we do not have enough to write about it. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is questionable whether a tropical depression is distinct from a cyclone. Most meteorological agencies in Southern Hemisphere and Indian Ocean seperate them as two categories. However, the meteorological agencies in East Asia (such as Japan, China, the Philippines, etc.) and US consider tropical depression as a weak tropical cyclone. I think there won't be a definite answer. Momoko

Please don't snap at contributors

Deleting legitimate information (even without a snappish edit summary) can be a problem. Remember: assume good faith.

It's good form to check the history if you question (even hate) an edit. Discuss the addition with that editor (or here) if you see a problem. That's not always possible, as in the case of an anon contribution. Still, deletion of contributions (other than vandalism or factual errors) without discussion, no matter how perfect you think an article may be (or how many times you contributed to it) isn't really playing well on Wikipedia.

This deletion was a sentence citing Hurricane Katrina as the most devastating U.S. tropical cyclone [1]. First an editor (incorrectly) claimed Katrina was not a tropical cyclone [2] and deleted the addition. Another editor restored it [3] and then wikified it (so at least two thought it was appropriate information). It remained through a series of edits in other sections. I made an edit (changed near New Orleans to Gulf Coast landfall).

Then it was deleted [4]. I'm inclined to revert because no one's contributions of factual information should be blithely thrown away. You might not love it, but it doesn't ruin the intro (as that edit summary implies). Mentioning the most devastating recent tropical cyclone, one everyone knows about, is not a terrible idea in the intro. Please fight the urge, if you have it, to control every sentence or prevent additions to an article. DavidH 21:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting similar guff from adding entries into the Pacific typhoon season entries, which weren't even complete for 2003 and 2004. The reasons some of us want to add entries to these pages are threefold: (1) we want there to be an internal link within wikipedia to a storm mentioned in another article (2) we want the entries to have enough detail so that every entry does not read "Storm A formed out at sea, moved westward, strengthened, and then weakened after making landfall" and (3) we want to help out this project and correct errors when needed. Each article needs to be accurate. Every storm is unique...we should treat them that way even for the perceived "unimportant cyclones," which were important for ships at sea. If someone is going to tell us we copied word-for-word, they should at least have the courtesy of reading the original referenced article... this has not been happenning to me as of late. A comment like that should NEVER be assumed. If I'm wrong about any of this, please let me know. User Talk:thegreatdr 15:18, 17 May 2006 UTC

I just noticed this entire thing, but I consider the Katrina blurb inappropriate. It might be a good idea for Atlantic hurricane, which deals with cyclones that affect the United States, but placing it in an article that deals with the phenomenon in a scientific and international way seems a bit U.S.-centric. I agree, talk instead of nuke, but I have half a mind to take it out myself. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it (twice), without having noticed this discussion or the previous edit war about it. My point is simply that it does not need to be mentioned in the intro of a general article about tropical cyclones, just as Tito says. It is way too U.S.-centric. — jdorje (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A one-sentence blurb about notable tropical cyclones in the intro might be appropriate, however it should certainly mention Katrina, Mitch, Bhola, and Nina; mentioning Katrina just because everyone in the U.S. has heard about it is simply wrong — jdorje (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Why assume the motivation of the contributor using Katrina as an example is "just because everyone in the U.S. has heard about it"? Is it that bad of an example of a tropical cyclone? Do you honestly believe that only people in the U.S. have heard about Katrina? I haven't traveled the world recently, but really, I'm guessing it's pretty well known from Bejing to Alberta. I have no idea who first introduced it to the intro, but it wasn't a bad attempt, and you threw it away, and now have two reverts to this article to enforce your POV. Let's try for consensus. Two examples from different hemispheres would be fine by me. DavidH 23:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't assume anything about anyone's motivation. I removed it because examples do not, in my opinion, belong in the intro to an article about meteorology; they belong in List of notable tropical cyclones. If you want to give examples, you should list the costliest and deadliest tc worldwide. The deadliest is the 1970 Bhola Cyclone. The costliest might be Hurricane Katrina, though I wouldn't be surprised if it was Typhoon Nina (1975). — jdorje (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<Examples do not...belong in the intro to an article about meteorology.> I really don't get that as a guideline (on Wikipedia). Effective writing for mass audiences demands examples, even in general articles about science topics. Mentioning the most recent TC that received global news coverage and caused as much damage as the GDP of some countries seems OK to me. Mentioning 1970 Bhola Cyclone makes sense too, but I suspect out of the thousands of people who might read this article in the next six months, every single one of them has heard of Katrina and not so many outside the area affected have heard of Bhola. That's by definition not a great example (for a general article, not a list of most significant TCs). Mitch is certainly an example of a destructive storm, but its high deathtoll was at Cat 1 intensity, so that's an iffy example as a tropical cyclone without additional explanation (it's an outlier -- weak storm, terrible destruction). Even though I live in hurricane alley in the U.S., I'm honestly not trying to ignore the rest of the world. Finally, I'm concerned about this not because I wrote it, but because someone else did, and that's what Wikipedia is about. I expect my editorial judgment to be accepted as gospel only in my day job. I'll not make any changes in the next few days to let the matter settle some. -- DavidH 00:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a guideline, it just seems like common sense to me. Looking at other "disaster" articles - tornado, blizzard, storm, earthquake, volcano, wildfire, tsunami - none of these has examples of specific instances in the introduction. Looking at other articles about terminology - planet, star, city, country, river - none of these has examples of specific instances in the introduction (though "planet" does mention the pluto controversy, but that is not an example). I don't see why "tropical cyclone" should be any different. — jdorje (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, Mitch is not an outlier. Hurricane Fifi, Hurricane Jeanne, Hurricane Floyd all caused tremendous damage while very weak storms. Another storm I mentioned as a possible example, Typhoon Nina (1975), caused all of its damage as a tropical storm. — jdorje (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other storm systems section

Is the Other storm systems section necessary? It does not have anything to do at all with tropical cyclones, and the same effect can be done by putting the links in the See also section, which the article already does. Perhaps it should be moved to Cyclone, or just deleted? Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's unnecessary to mention European windstorms, but extra and subtropical systems should be mentioned somewhere because tropical cyclones sometimes form from them and vice-versa. For example, Hurricane Vince started out as a subtropical, while many Atlantic hurricanes "go extratropical". But, European windstorms can be dissipated without loss to the article. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created, just a few seconds ago, Template:Cyclones which should solve the problem.

Loop Current

The Loop Current was a major influence on Katrina and Rita, spinning them up to Cat 5, yet is not mentioned in this article. Would someone expert in hurricanes please add a paragraph? Simesa 23:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ADDENDA: National Oceanographic Data Center is also worth mentioning? Simesa 23:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The loop current is a major influence on all Gulf cyclones. It might be worth mentioning currents overall and how they affect regional basins. TimL 02:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TCs and Global Warming

Kevin E. Trenberth's new letter is out [5]. I think the two most salient quotes are "It should be recognized that the issue is not black or white, but rather that global warming has a pervasive influence on ocean SST [sea surface temperature] and heat content, atmospheric temperature, water vapor, and atmospheric and oceanic general circulation patterns, all of which affect tropical cyclones in complex, not yet fully understood ways." and "in our view the growing body of evidence suggests a direct and growing trend in several important aspects of tropical cyclones, such as intensity, rainfall, and sea level, all of which can be attributed to global warming." I think we can expect readers to be wanting to know about this topic, so I suggest we prepare some wording. Simesa 21:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know there is research out there mentioning that global warming could raise maximum sustained winds of tropical cyclones by 10% over the next several decades. It would be more difficult to mention what a respective rainfall increase might be and we would really need to know what the average temperature increase in Celsius is expected to be over the next X number of years (we saw how the hyped projections from the 1980s have panned out so far.) Like the data considered in tornado counts, rainfall information globally has gotten more dense over time due to the increasing population and increasing access to increasingly better technology, so the increase in amounts perceived over the past several decades (especially the last couple years in the United States) is better sampling more than anything else. What would be the "standard" to base a rainfall increase upon? What time period would we have to average upon to be representative of climatology, if data coverage is becoming significantly more dense every couple years? CoCoRAHS and the state mesonets that have sprung up over the past decade are the case in point...and even these networks are at the beginning of an expansion, not the end of one. Thegreatdr 17:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The NOAA hurricane faq linked pointed to a question completely unrelated to the quoted material. I could not find a similar quote in the rest of the faq, so the link and quote were removed.

" Because each individual basin may be subject to intrabasin oscillations similar to the AMO‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]}, any single-basin statistic remains open to question. But if the local oscillations are not synchronized by some as-yet-unidentified global oscillation, the independence of the basins allows joint statistical tests that are more powerful than any set of individual basin tests. Unfortunately Webster et al. do not undertake any such test." The preceding is not supported by cites and is simply a stated opinion of the editor, which violates the "No Original Research" policy here at Wikipedia [Wikipedia:List of policies]. Hence, this has been removed. If sufficient citations can be found, we can discuss reinserting it. Skyemoor 03:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So why must other people's additions need {{Fact}} tags, and your statements, such as this: "This can be attributed to the increased intensity and duration of hurricanes striking North America" not need a {{Fact}} tag? I'm adding a {{Fact}} tag to that sentence.

I could repeat the reference from the prior paragraph that stated the same thing. Done. Skyemoor 11:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence introduced by you earlier: "In the Atlantic, global warming trends are the obvious initial answer, though some suggest it could be due to the hypothesized Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), a possible 50–70 year pattern of temperature variability." vehemently contradicts what all scientific studies have discovered that mention that the AMO is the primary driver of tropical cyclone activity, not global warming.

"All" scientific studies? Of course not. Please cite the ones that do. Ones that identify global warming are already cited. Skyemoor 11:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your inclusion of "global warming trends are the obvious initial answer" with no source is more blatantly POV than anything you removed. Luckily I don't think that you re-added this statement, otherwise you would've seen a very harsh response from me. You also added this statement: "The number and strength of Atlantic hurricanes may undergo a hypothesized 50-70 year cycle" when in fact the AMO is a proven weather pattern.

That is a false statement. Show were all ocean climatologists show even a strong consensus, much less 'proof'. Even the Wikipedia entry states it as hypothesized. Skyemoor 11:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You also added a {{Fact}} tag to the "cat 4 at NYC in 1821" article when a source can probably be found somewhere else on Wikipedia, most obviously here I'd think.

Well then, provide it! That's what the link constructs are there for. Skyemoor 11:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will also re-add the sentences talking about the possibility of different cycles within the different basins. That does not really require a source (although a source would be great) since it's simply common sense, in my eyes, to think that other basins would have it if the Atlantic does, too. bob rulz 07:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is speculative, unsupported, and framed in a heavily biased manner, all of which disqualify it under Wikipedia policies. Skyemoor 11:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf Water cooling

The last sentence in the caption "Chart displaying the drop in surface temperature in the Gulf of Mexico as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita passed over. Each of these storms cooled water temperatures more than 4°C in places along their paths, and cooled the entire Gulf by about 1°C." is technicially incorrect. Cold water upwelling is what causes the temperature to drop drastically (~4°C). Cyclones "cool" the water beneath them by about 1°C or less. Source: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/H7.html TimL 00:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That may be, but the cyclones also contribute to the cooling by "sucking" up huge amounts of heat from the water, which is why Tropical cyclones have warm centers. The latent heat driven into the cyclone is what makes the cyclone more and more powerful. Tropical cyclones can cool the waters as little as 0.5°C and up to 4°C depending on their strength. The higher the strength, the more demanding the cyclone is to maintain its strength. Funnybunny (^talk/_{Counter Vandalism Unit}) 03:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Apparently, you didn't look at the link in my comment. Hurricanes churn the water underneath them, forcing deeper (and usually much cooler) water to the surface. The heat "sucked up" as you say amounts to less than 1°. TimL 03:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Organisation of external links

As I currently mention on my userpage, I think a good idea for improving this article would be to visit each of the external links and improve the sorting of them into subcategories. For example, many links currently filed under Miscellaneous should really be in some other subcategory (and vice versa), and I think visually rich sites should probably be in seperate categories from informatically rich ones. Also, is there actually any consistent difference between the links filed under Tracking and warning and the links filed under Regional specialised meteorological centers? Does anyohne waqnt a cup of tea

This would be a difficult and time-consuming edit, but I think it would be useful if anyone is up to the task. Zerrakhi 11:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide

Would someone please review the "Categories and ranking" section, and remove the worldwide view tag if the editing is sufficient? Runningonbrains 13:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copying and pasting

I notice some of the information in this article has been copied and pasted directly from other websites. Is this OK? TimL 19:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From non-copyrighted sources such as the U.S. government, the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica, etc. I once used copyrighted material with the permission of the author, which I put in Discussion. See Wikipedia:Copyrights particularly If you find a copyright infringement Simesa 19:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite Imagery heads up -> 1979-1982 is coming!

From NCDC... CLASS's next goal is to complete ingesting the older GOES data from GOES-7 on back to 1979. The estimated date of completion is the early part of 2007. Thegreatdr 03:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, can't wait for that! I'll just a comment the place to mention that sort of thing is the WikiProject talk page really - it doesn't matter to the upkeep of this article per se.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet! Great news! Hurricanehink (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! I can't wait! -- RattleMan 17:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA status

This article seems stable, (Odd that there'd be so much vandalism for this kind of article though, what kind of vandals care?) NPOV, well-written and seems to fit the MoS, as broad as I think a weather-related article ought to be, all the images I think are public domain which is good, And at 73 notes and all that stuff at the bottom is certainly well-referenced. Of course, that doesn't mean its perfectly referenced, but i'll get into that. Basically, I see no reason this shouldn't be a GA.

As for advice, the article seems to have odd reference-free gaps in it, nowhere near enough for it to not be well referenced, but sections such as the intensity classifications section, forecasting, your whole movement and track group of sections excluding artifical dissapation, regional terminology, there seem to be 2 "citation needed" tags in the origin of storm terms section, and five in the "major basins" section. Many of the external links seem to be broad looking links, I recommend looking through them and seeing if any of the un-referenced looking sections fall under parts of them, and then trying to inline cite the specifics parts of some of those links, I think you might get a couple more notes out of that. On sections that I highlighted which get alot of their information from other articles, see if those have references and import them into here. And finally, this should probably get a peer review..... Homestarmy 20:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Record-setting Hurricane Activity

Where in this article can I find that a record 28 hurricanes were recorded in the 2005 hurricane season? I'd add it but the article is so long I'm not sure where to put it. - Deron Dantzler 21:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't. This article is not about Atlantic hurricane seasons, it is about tropical cyclones in general. TimL 23:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an Atlantic hurricane article where it would be appropriate? - Deron Dantzler 21:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic hurricane maybe? (Where it is mentioned).--Nilfanion (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are seperate articles for seasons of tropical cyclone basins. KyuuA4 23:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC - Consistent image and illustration sizes

I think we need to make the images and illustraions of consistent size. Illustrations should be larger since they are meant to convey information. (e.g. the effect pie graph is to small you should be able to see what it is trying to say without having ot click on it). Some of the images are huge ( I fixed one). 200px (the default thumbnail size) seems a bit small to me for images. 250px seems more reasonable. For illustrations 300 px seems large enough to accomodate most illustrations(of which one I see is currently only 100px). Perhaps we should also either left-algn or roght align all the images and illustrations. Comments? TimL 07:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Regional terminology"

I am tempted to remove this section entirely. Currently, it focuses on storms of hurricane or typhoon strength, which is not a standard universally recognized (notably in the North Indian, but also elsewhere). Furthermore, it fails to address the issue of other strengths than hurricane strength, and ignores terms such as "Intense Cyclonic Storm" or "Tropical Disturbance" or "Severe Tropical Storm" that are used formally. The Tropical cyclone scales article has a good table to summarize this, and, if the scales comparison were removed, it might be a good way to introduce the various name schemes.

On the other hand, a general problem with the article is an overuse of tables and bullets where written-out text would be more appropriate. That solution only works against the slow transformation of tables into prose. —Cuivi é nen 23:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually "hurricane" as in "Beaufort scale hurricane-force" is probably an acceptable usage, but with the sheer amount of complexities a complete removal might be beneficial. I think this article is a lot further from FA than we like to think, because of the poor status of its most important subarticles - the Tropical cyclone scales summary table is probably appropriate in this article (if it is rejigged to be neutral and not Australian focused).--Nilfanion (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked back at that table again, and it would be horrendously difficult to make it provide equal emphasis to all basins. Instead, I've begun writing a full description for that section, though I've only done the US areas and the Northwestern Pacific so far. Unfortunately, this seems like it will be very long, and might be better in a sub-article, though a summary should of course be here. —Cuivi é nen 06:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at the table on Talk:Tropical cyclone scales. I've converted the US 1-minutes to 10-minutes for the purpose of that table, as that is the WMO recommended standard.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium effect

From the article: "mature hurricanes can sometimes exhibit an inward curving of the eyewall top that resembles a football stadium: this phenomenon is thus sometimes referred to as the stadium effect."

If you click on the link for stadium effect you are sent to the "cyclone eye page" you should be sent to the stadium effect section of that page and you aren't but this is not the major problem. The major problem is that the page you are linked to says "Stadium effect - The stadium effect is a phenomenon occasionally observed in strong tropical cyclones. It is a fairly common event, where the clouds of the eyewall curve outward from the surface with height. This gives the eye an appearance resembling an open dome from the air, akin to a sports stadium. An eye is always larger at the top of the storm, and smallest at the bottom of the storm because the rising air in the eyewall follows isolines of equal angular momentum, which also slope outward with height."

The major problem is the contradiction - one article says "the clouds of the eyewall curve outward from the surface with height" the other says its an "inward curving of the eyewall top." As a novice, reading about hurricanes and not knowing which is correct I find it extremely confusing - though I am persuaded to trust the other article since it provides a list of references.

Things to do

Theres plenty of things I can see which need work on this article. Some of these things are on this article, some are to do with subarticles:

Redlinks to RSMCs/TCWCs: Fiji Meteorological Service, Meteorological Service of New Zealand, Papua New Guinea National Weather Service and Metéo France. All these should have articles.
Numerous subarticles which would be very useful are nonexistent. Naming of tropical cyclones, Tropical cyclone forecasting, Structure of tropical cyclones, Tropical cyclone observation, Effect of tropical cyclones are examples.
Several sections give undue emphasis to minor points and ignore the major issues. The prose on the beneficial effects of TCs is more substantial than the damaging effects. At a glance it almost feels like the article is implying a TC is a good thing.
While the scientific stuff is covered reasonably well, the cultural impact of tropical cyclones is nowhere to be seen. There's the musical legacy of certain storms for example. How about novels, plays, films…
Theres other historical influences not really mentioned by the article. Kamikaze (typhoon) and 1970 Bhola cyclone had consequences in terms of Military history…

Now thats a lot.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fix the stadium effect contradiction

Pieces removed

This edit removed a few paragraphs which someone deemed "obscure" or "to(sic) bleeding-edge". I think they're outside the scope of this particular article. Any ideas where the information might belong? —AySz88 \^-^ 04:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions

Okay, I have two questions about content that could be added to this article.

First, under the "artificial dissipation" section it mentions "these approaches all suffer from the same flaw: tropical cyclones are simply too large for any of them to be practical." One of the suggestions listed there mentions nuclear weapons. I have heard that, if anything, hurricanes would strengthen if they were nuked. I believe that it's still a common misconception that it would work, so, is what I remember hearing true? And if so, could we find a source for it?

Secondly, it says "At sea, tropical cyclones can stir up water, leaving a cool wake behind them.[6] This can cause the region to be less favourable for a subsequent tropical cyclone. On rare occasions, tropical cyclones may actually do the opposite. 2005's Hurricane Dennis blew warm water behind it, contributing to the unprecedented intensity of the close-following Hurricane Emily." Has anybody confirmed why it made the sea warmer? I think it would be a great addition if we could find a source that states why this happened; it would be informative, and I'm also just curious to know. bob rulz 08:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is my addition removed without further discussion?

I am refering to this: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Tropical_cyclone&diff=71146868&oldid=71107455 It is a relevant piece of information (although it might better fit into the "movement and track" section). Why is it removed without comment? 87.122.39.46

Unsourced and cannot cross seemed a bit questionable. Vsmith 15:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's prettey elementary physics. Coriolis force causes a low pressure area to rotate counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere. Therefore for a cyclone to cross the equator, it would have to reverse its rotation, which, due to the inertia of, I dont' know, billions?, of tons of air and water is not possible without dissolving the whole system. I cannot see why a source would be needed for that, unless you need a source for things like inertia and elementary scientific reasoning. Furthermore, the picture in the article itself clearly shows that no cyclone ever crosses the equator. What else do you need? 87.122.58.99

Cyclone Agni briefly crossed from the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere and then back to the northern hemisphere without disrupting its counterclockwise circulation. Tennis expert 16:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agni came within 50 miles of the equator but did not cross. I doubt very much it would have maintained its cyclonic structure if it actually crossed - the entire cause for its spin would have been reversed. --Golbez 17:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are factually incorrect. The cyclone DID cross. Look at the Wikipedia page for this cyclone -and- the summary of the cyclone that is linked on that page. Tennis expert 17:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the wikipedia page where it says it came within 50 miles of the equator? And the report that clearly shows it never crossing 0 latitude? And the summary that says the nearest it got to the Equator was 0.7N? Actually, I looked, now it's your turn - tell me where the article -or- summary says it crossed. --Golbez 17:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You get the lazines award of the week. From the Wikipedia page article about Cyclone Agni: "In its developmental stages, its circulation crossed the equator briefly into the southern hemisphere, while retaining its counter-clockwise spin." From Gary Padgett's "MONTHLY GLOBAL TROPICAL CYCLONE SUMMARY" for November 2004, which is linked on the Wikipedia page: "The initial warning location of TC-05A's center was only 42 nm north of the equator! The lowest latitude system so far to date was Typhoon Vamei in December, 2001, which was a typhoon only 90 nm north of the 'line'. However, even more astounding is a QuikScat image taken of the pre-warning circulation at 27/0107 UTC. This image clearly shows a broad, somewhat elongated circulation with a COUNTERCLOCKWISE spin centered about a half-degree SOUTH of the equator! It appears that this system of Northern Hemisphere origin dipped just south of the equator and then came back without losing its counterclockwise rotation. It would be a pretty good bet to say that this is the first documented case of such an occurrence." From a journal article entitled "Genesis of tropical cyclone Agni: Physical Mechanisms": "During the organization, it was observed that the centers of the intensification moved about half degree south of the equator without losing its counter clockwise rotation. This erratic behavior questioned the necessary condition of required large Coriolis paramater either side of equator for the genesis of tropical cyclone." http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/wrf/users/workshops/WS2006/abstracts/PSession03/P3_2_Kesarkar.pdf Tennis expert 18:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So it crossed before it became a tropical cyclone. Once it was registered as a tropical cyclone by people that matter, it did not cross. However, I do admit that I now see it possible for it to retain a cyclonic structure, if only temporarily (it stayed there for only a short time) after crossing the line. --Golbez 22:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where it went in the article, but a cyclone can form without enough Coriolis if it has some spin to it already - which implies that it would keep spinning the same direction even if it crossed the equator. The Coriolis effect is also not what drives the high wind speeds near the center of the cyclone - it takes very little spin to magnify into the high wind speeds at the center through angular momentum. See http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/ASK/hurricanes.html . —AySz88 \^-^ 00:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surface temperatures

Is there any data to support the assertion that the surface air temperature in the eye of a tropical cyclone is cooler than at any other surface location in the cyclone?Tennis expert 18:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would actually think the opposite, as one of the criteria of a tropical cyclone is that it is "warm-cored" - the expended air, heated by the heat released from the water vapor as it condensed, sinks back into the eye. As it sinks it would remain warmer than its surroundings (paradoxically). I don't think that this air sinks all the way down the eye to the surface, though, so I'm not sure. —AySz88 \^-^ 23:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Energy dissipation

"Scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research estimate that a tropical cyclone releases heat energy at the rate of 50 to 200 trillion joules per day.[3] For comparison, this rate of energy release is equivalent to exploding a 10-megaton nuclear bomb every 20 minutes[7] or 200 times the world-wide electrical generating capacity.[3]" (quoted from the Wikipedia article)

After reading a paper by Emanuel [6] I am a bit confused:

200 trillion Joules per day = 200 * 10^12 J / (24*60*60 s) = 2.31*10^9 J/s = 2.3*10^9 W   [7]

This number is a lot lower than the 3*10^12 W value that Emanuel gives in his paper von an average Atlantic hurricane. Or vice verca: the 10 MT nuclear bomb every 20 minutes leads to (1 MT = 4.2 * 10^15 J):

 10 * 4.2*10^15 J * 24 * 3 = 3.02 * 10^18 J [8]

am I missing something obvious? -- mkrohn 20:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers for these estimates are all over the place, and it's possible that "the world-wide electrical generating capacity" has changed, or the meaning of "trillion" is different (see Long and short scales) - I would personally try to fix it in line with a single source, like the Landsea FAQ or something. —AySz88 \^-^ 23:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

I came here to check if the article carried the background to the terminology, the different wordings "typhoon" - "hurricane" etc. For instance - the word "hurricane" comes from the ancient Cuban Taíno word "hurucán" meaning malevolent force. But there isn't anything about the termonology at all - just the science. I think this is a major oversight.--Zleitzen 05:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's there, but I guess you missed it... See Tropical cyclone#Regional terminology and Tropical cyclone#Origin of storm terms. —AySz88 \^-^ 23:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Rainstorm

At the website of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, there is information on provisions for closing in the event of a typhoon or a black rainstorm. This information is in the Quick Links bar. What is a black rainstorm?

<answer>

It seems to be the color of a warning system in HK. Amber, Red and Black being the colors on the scale. There are three levels of warning: AMBER, RED and BLACK.

The AMBER signal gives alert about potential heavy rain that may develop into RED or BLACK signal situations. There will be flooding in some low-lying and poorly drained areas. Key Government departments and major transport and utility operators are put on alert.

The RED and BLACK signals warn the public of heavy rain which is likely to bring about serious road flooding and traffic congestion. They will trigger response actions by Government departments and major transport and utility operators. The public will be given clear advice on the appropriate actions to take.

Once issued, the signals are broadcast over radio and television. For your own safety, listen to radio or television announcements for the latest information. http://www.hko.gov.hk/wservice/warning/rainstor.htm ~DCJoeDog Nov. 27, 2006

Need good hurricane/typhoon/cyclone pics!

I need a couple pics of:

-Hurricane Katrina at landfall -Typhoon Vamei -ANY EQUATOR CROSSOVERS (If there are any)

Thanks, OVERZEALOUSMANIAC 14:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Katrina has an animated radar image, Typhoon Vamei has multiple pictures, and there have been no equatorial crossovers. —Cuivi é nen 03:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...as tropical cyclones. =) Thegreatdr 21:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of doomsday scenarios

Could use votes to save this article, thanks MapleTree 22:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article size

Hey folks. This article has grown to 100kb in size, or nearly 50 printed pages. While I know this is a sprawling topic, it needs to be trimmed down. I'm not an expert or hobbiest in cyclones, so I'd like to leave it up to more knowledgable hands to trim. Any agreement? Teke^(talk) 12:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could create an article with the first 35 topics?

OVERZEALOUSMANIAC 14:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that there are articles for notable tropical cyclones and tropical cyclogenesis, those sections could be shrunk. I will leave it up to the main authors of this page to make any large changes, because of this article's current status. Thegreatdr 19:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the page's length in wikipedia under "long pages". As of yesterday morning, it was ranked the 376th longest article in Wikipedia! Thegreatdr 19:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Figure

Anyone have a good use for http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:North_Atlantic_Hurricane_History.png ? It is freely licensed (by me), but I am not familiar enough with these related articles to decide if there is a good place for it. Dragons flight 20:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Atlantic hurricane would be the best fit. Tito xd^(?!?) 01:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really like your site and that figure. You could put it on global warming.

OVERZEALOUSMANIAC 15:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Cyclogeneis and this article in better agreement

Per the references in the tropical cyclogenesis and monsoon trough articles, changes were needed in this article in the formation section. The main focus for tropical cyclogenesis worldwide is recognized to be the monsoon trough, with tropical waves mentioned as triggers in the northeast Pacific and Atlantic basins only. Since the monsoon trough can be a section of the ITF/ITCZ, I included it as a synonym. Thegreatdr 19:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the stats from the tropical cyclogenesis article to update the annual averages. Interestingly, both are from the same source. There is a graphic from a different source which shows the new number should be more correct. This article over a smaller time frame came up with 87/49 tropical storm/hurricane strength systems respectively. Thegreatdr 23:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition is ambiguous about the meaning of "tropical storm" and "category 3." This needs to be fixed. Tennis expert 00:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{sofixit}}. – Ch acor 00:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wikilinked category 3, which should suffice. Since the tropical storm definition is further down the article, I don't see a point in explaining it again. In fact, we should probably move the definitions for tropical storm, hurricane/typhoon, etcetera, more towards the top of the article. What do you all think? Thegreatdr 04:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could take your silence as a yes...but will wait a bit before making the move. I moved a couple sections of this article to tropical cyclogenesis. We can now pare down the tropical cyclogenesis-related information in this article, if you all feel it's still too long. Thegreatdr 18:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was there ever agreement that this article was too long? I, for one, don't think there was any problem with the article's length even before the cyclogenesis information was moved. Tennis expert 18:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was about 4 weeks of silence before your post. As bad as it sounds, silence equals agreement. Now we know there is not agreement. I'll take the fact that this article in on an improvement drive (perhaps to bring it to A or FA class) as a hint that others are not happy with its current structure. Whether it is due to its length or not, I don't know for sure outside the early October comment. Now appears to be the time to confront this article's issues. Thegreatdr 01:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What 4 weeks of silence are you talking about? If you're talking about my post, which I must assume you are given the placement of your latest post, my post was on October 25, 2006. So, you could/should have known that I didn't agree on that date, not today. Tennis expert 03:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The silence between the first related comment further up this page in another section in early October and your response in Late October. It was actually 3.5 weeks (24 days), my apologies. No one else had responded in that period. That could lead someone overzealous to change things (using the implied consent of no comments) if there hasn't been any intervening comments. I only gave people a week before completely reworking the extratropical cyclone article, but that article was in far worse shape than this one. Luckily, I had a good helper and they helped bring it to FA within a month. Others, and myself, have now given all in the tropical cyclone project 1-2 months to reflect on the change proposed. Hopefully a similar group can bring this article to FA within a similar time frame. Thegreatdr 21:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the general consensus between many editors was that the article needed an overhaul. It's probably buried somewhere in the archives of this page, or on WPTC's talk. Tito xd^(?!?) 02:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I've noticed this article gets vandalized every day or two. I remember reading in the guide for GA that articles that are constantly vandalized can be removed from GA status. Is there anything we can do, such as restricting edits to registered wikipedia users with profiles, to prevent the vandalism and retain GA status? Thegreatdr 21:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do think restricting certain articles to registered users works better. Of course anons can create trolling accounts, but they're less willing to go out of their way to do so. Therefore, vandalism should decrease. Pobbie Rarr 23:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really doubt that vandalism is a reason for the removal of GA status; that doesn't make any sense at all. I understand editing disputes, but not vandalism, which is usually corrected within 20 seconds of it occuring, as this article is pretty much on hundreds of watchlists. I would be wary of applying semi-protection or anything like that. Tito xd^(?!?) 06:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At one point, I read that somewhere...maybe it wasn't from the main wikipedia guide. After reviewing the GA information, I don't see it listed in there either. If you don't see vandalism as an issue for this page, that's fine. Thegreatdr 18:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization of the page

Let me know what you all think of the new look of the page. It seemed logical to go into storm types first, then basins, then naming, then mechanics, then formation, then dissipation. I'm not exactly sure where observations and forecasting is best placed within the article, but long term trends appeared best placed late in the article. Otherwise, various links were added (which eliminated a couple glaring errors that were well-hidden within this large article), direct links turned into refs, and redundancy was partially dealt with. It needs another set of eyes; I've done enough for one day. Thegreatdr 03:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking the silence as positive. I cleaned up the links per the tag. Hopefully, it fixes the section enough for wikipedia standards. Thegreatdr 06:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it did. Basically, most editors agree that the article should be overhauled, and have stated so previously (e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessment, Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessment#Tropical cyclone, Talk:Tropical cyclone/Comments). Tito xd^(?!?) 16:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External Link section growing again

I'm noticing a new link being added every few days, slowly reverting the section to its former state. I reorganized the links. If anyone sees any new links that should be removed per Wikipedia standards, please do so. Thegreatdr 16:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AMO vs hurricanes.jpg

This picture says that it has been released into the public domain, yet the image description page released it for usage in Wikipedia. That's slightly outside our image policy, so it may have to be deleted soon; however, since the source says that that it was based on NOAA data, is there a way we can find the underlying data, and perhaps make our own graph? Where should we look? Tito xd^(?!?) 00:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top is the smoothed AMO Index [9]. Bottom is based on the hurricane records, which I could reconstruct from records I have if desired. Dragons flight 01:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would certainly be nice... Tito xd^(?!?) 01:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have all the data reconstructed at User:AySz88/Sandbox#CSV_data_of_AMO_vs_Atl_Maj_Canes and made a shoddy Excel graph at Image:AMO_and_Atlantic_major_hurricanes_graph.png - feel free to (i.e. please!) make a better version. —AySz88 \^-^ 22:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will upload a SVG version of this before the end of the year :)--Nilf anion (talk) 13:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]