Talk:2014 Atlantic hurricane season

Who to include in Pre-season forecasts

Apparently there has been some limited debate over which private firms should be included in the section about Pre-season forecasts, with at least one user suggesting that we should include the WeatherBELL forecast. So, let's discuss and figure out what we want to do. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

My only objection to adding WeatherBell is that the organization is not well-known and it's more of a commercial business as opposed to a professional organization such as Colorado State University, Tropical Storm Risk, etc. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Can we have a proper discussion about this and kick it out of the ball park once and for all. What makes a private firm or University worthy of being included in our seasonal forecast section. Id personally suggest a verification report issued or forecasts for another basins.Jason Rees (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

WSI is a huge commercial business, so that is a silly argument to omit WeatherBELL but include WSI based on that.69.115.65.61 (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

There is still the problem that while TWC is a well-known player, WeatherBELL is a relative unknown as far as I can tell. At least I'd never heard of it before this discussion. TornadoLGS (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you know of one of their weathermen, Joe Bastardi. With that said, I don't think they're widely known. I don't think the fact that it is kinda a commercial business is relevant. As for using forecast from universities only. should we use NC State's one. I'd say no as until this morning, I never knew it existed. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Another one of their researchers is Dr. Maue who has an extensive background in TC climatology it appears: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ryan-maue/2a/9a/b36 69.115.65.61 (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

That is a factor the consider (and I actually respect Ryan Maue), but how widely known is JB/WB's forecast? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems as though no one could ever answer that question specifically (not only for WB but for anyone). JB in and of himself has been an institution in hurricane forecasts for decades, so while WB has only been around for more than a few years, between their wxmaps and JB theres a footprint. 166.137.88.152 (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

How often do you see WB mention on the news? This is what our friend google yields. Interrupt it as you wish. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

WB come up second in an image search, even before TWC.38.105.174.189 (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It is behind CSU, but it's only an image search. I would not take too much stock into it. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I had heard of WeatherBELL before this (although I was a meteorology undergrad student, so I may be an outlier there), and I don't think that being a commercial firm has any impact on the issue. TAW, do you have any support for the statement that WeatherBELL is not well known, and those who support its forecast's inclusion, do you have any evidence to the contrary? Inks.LWC (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

WBs weather maps are out there all over the place. IMO great hi-res ECMWF maps. 198.228.200.44 (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

FTR, I'm not a fan of WB or the ECMWF, but let's keep the discussion on-topic. Thanks. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Relax, think all they were doing was answering the question whether WB is well known or not. On that note, WSI/TWC has never been known for their seasonal forecasts but for their in-season coverage, so if WB is not included, neither should WSI. 38.105.174.189 (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm calm, just don't wanna get carried away. I was replying to his second part, FTR. As for WSI/TWC, it's a TV channel, so it's widely known. Now, is their forecast widely known? That's a good question. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the question with any source used is whether it's reliable or otherwise suitable for Wikipedia reguardless of popularity. Not whether it's a TV channel.Dmm1169 (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Reliability isn't a factor here IMO. None of these predictions are 100% accurate, so by that regard, we should not be including any of them. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not think how widely known some company is in a certain language should influence our decision on what to include as it is widely subjective. As i said the other day what should influence our decision is things like do they issue verification reports or forecasts for other basins - this is what indicates that a source is reliable in my opinion.Jason Rees (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a factor. RS's really isn't a verb big player here. I'd simple keep it to university or government agency forecasts. As for limiting others basins, that'd mean we drop the most known example (CSU). Doing what I said which means good bye TWC, WB, and TSR, but keeps NCSU, CSU, and the CPC. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

What's the rationale behind only university and government agency forecasts? That seems like an arbitrary pick to me. Note that I'm disagreeing with you--I really don't have an opinion here; I'm just curious what your rationale is. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

YE rered what i suggested please, i am not saying just include ones that issue for other basins. As i also suggested that we use ones that issue verification reports which would mean CSU is covered but not WB, TWC/WSI, or accuweather. Also NMHSS/RSMCs should automatically be covered inc Cuba.Jason Rees (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, you did say "for other basins", so I replied to that part. I did not talk about verification reports, because honestly, I don't know who issues them (well, you posted it above, so I guess I know now). My rationale is that it limits personal/private firms, but includes all the "well-known" hurricane forecasts (mainly CPC and CSU, granted NCSU is still left in there). YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Active storms/91L

If this storm should become Arthur... because of its proximity to land and the impact even a small storm going up the eastern sea-board would have in the media. Would it be within reason to create Arthur its own page and condense it into the main article later in the season, if it turns out to be a minimal storm? Is there a protocol for this or do all active storms receive their own article? CircuitChild (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

It's heading south, so it's not going up the eastern seaboard. At this point there's nothing to say about it. Let's reserve the decision about whether or not it gets its own article until it becomes at least a tropical depression and threatens land. DOSGuy (talk) 05:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

CircutChild, we do the opposite generally. We wait for it to appear likely that it will outgrow it's season section before creating a page. Regarding path, it is going south now, but the Euro has it going up the East Coast later in the week. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 05:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that it is still too early to tell what this storm will do, at 4:30pm (EST) the storm was investigated by air and found it to be not quite at tropical depression level yet. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

It is a holiday week, therefore, there will be lots of travel and millions of Americans impacted by this storm regardless of where it goes. Even though it is traveling southwest, it is predicted to travel up the coastline. In my opinion, if an active storm is imminently threatening any part of the US it should have its own page while the storm is current and then be disintegrated into the main page after it dissipates or does not meet the threshold to continue have its own article. However, I don't believe a depression is ever worthy of having it's own page. Not that I would consult Wikipedia for up-to-date information but someone might and you never know... We might save a life by giving Arthur its own page while the storm is active. Cheers! CircuitChild (talk) 03:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess I should pose the question @Yellow Evan, what does a storm need to have to outgrow the seasonal section?CircuitChild (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Good question. Generally, needs at least 2 (maybe even 3 paragraphs) to justify it's own article. It's also worth pointing out that we are not a news source, so I think it'd premature to make one at this time. As for depressions, they are article worthy if they do a lot of damage generally speaking. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, Invest 91L is now Tropical Depression One (or 01L). In most forecasts (includes mine), it is to go north or north northeast. I believe we will create the article if damages and casualties will be reported soon. Also if we are really going to create the article, even it is One or Arthur, we are going to create it if it finally dissipates from extratropical. Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:03, 1 July, 2014 (UTC)

I could easily write a four-paragraph article about this system right now. I live in Orlando and Arthur is sure to cause some beach erosion due to its prolonged presence off our coastline and as I said before... have a significant impact on travel and coastal areas throughout the week. Our local meteorologists have forcast it to become a hurricane as it nears Cape Hatteras, NC.CircuitChild (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Conversely, the information on the system can be easily summarized within a paragraph or two in the season article at the moment. I'm currently in Miami, quite close to the system, and nothing is happening here. Thus far, it's a typical east coast storm with very little impact and not worth the time writing an article. (p.s. that forecast comes from the National Hurricane Center, highly doubt a local meteorologist would do hurricane forecasts considering the liability they could face). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Since there is no apparent loss in just leaving information in the season section if an article is not yet required, it is best to wait until an article becomes necessary. Dustin (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

No. I'll say this once before I get too annoyed, as I do every year. Make an article once there is too much info for the season article. Start adding the info in now. It's not about notability or not, since the storm is notable to appear on Wikipedia. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I have a good article with five-paragraphs ready in my sandbox, with 1,400 articles already written on the storm it wasn't very hard. I will say that maybe we should consider adding a more detailed forecast in the main article? As there is always a race to update advisories when they are issued, I don't think it would be hard to keep the forecast info current while the storm is active. Also, someone should mention that this storm was attached to a cold-front but I don't have the meteorological vocabulary to put that in. CircuitChild (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

No, that's just a copy of what's in the season article. No need for more detailed forecast - that's what local weather offices are for. Wikipedia is for cold, hard facts, for what the storm has actually done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Link? I suggest you add content for now to the season section. There has been 1,400 news article written on it, but how many of them have information not already stated by the NHC? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 19:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point ^^^^... And I'll never argue with Hink. There is a nice looking feeder band coming through the northern part of the state at this present time. Once more of this moisture wraps around the center, there should be a plethora of information to work with. I imagine the report from the hunters will come out at 5pm est. We should have a lot more to work with in the next two-five hours. CircuitChild (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

While I do not doubt that we will need an article after this sweeps up the coast on Friday, I don't think one is necessary today. Remember, WP:NOTNEWS. We don't have to be the first one's to have every little tidbit of information about it. United States Man (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Now a second question. TD-One technically formed late on June 30 if you go by EST but July 1 if we go by UTC. Which of the two is correct. CircuitChild (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

We go by UTC, so July 1. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Hurricanehink. Always use UTC in Wikipedia. 08:05, 2 July 2014

Don't quite have the time to update and hunt down sources, however, I'm surprised no one has included the mandatory evacuations and other preparations into the article. On a side note, this storm is almost an exact replica of Hurricane Alex from several years back. CircuitChild (talk) 02:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Map Discrepancy Without Discussion

Please note that the "season summary map" has a far different projected track for H. Arthur than the NHC forecast map, yet there is no discussion of that prior's possibility (a head-on into Georgia/South Carolina). Readers currently will see the "season summary map" first upon typing in "Hurricane Arthur" (due to the redirect) Simesa (talk) 10:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Acctully your looking at the season summary map wrongly - it doesnt show the future track just the past one. In this partcular case the precursor tropical disturbance to Arthur formed over Georgia/South Carolina, before heading out to sea.Jason Rees (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah! So the confusion arises because that tropical disturbance is shown but there's no explanatory text about it in the article! Hurricane Arthur has its own page now and a longer plotted track anyway, so the point is now moot. Thanks! Simesa (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove Death from Arthur?

Should Wikipedia count the peripheral death of an elderly man in Canada as a death caused by Arthur. Does the NWS count him as a fatality of Arthur. The article should say so if they do. rem486 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rem486 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Hurricane Bertha and the UK

If ex Hurricane Bertha doe cause damage/loss of life in the UK, does that count for the purposes of the table at the bottom of the article. Also if its later track can be found, should that be included on the map? Op47 (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they would count toward the storm total. I've just updated the track to include the last position of the extratropical system given by the NRL; the remainder of the ET track will not be available until the post-storm report by the NHC later this year. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Not only damage or loss of life in the UK,but It has caused too in Netherlands. It have now damarged in Netherlands: See links:http://www.rtvoost.nl/nieuws/default.aspx?nid=195702 Edwtie (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Arthur max km/h

To head off a potential edit war, TropicalAnalystwx13 stated that "100 mph is 160 km/h (infoboxes are a conversion error like 45mph and 115kt)". I'm not sure what conversion error occurs at those speeds, so I'd like to address this.

Public Advisory 12B lists the maximum sustained winds as 100 mph and 160 km/h. Public Advisories 13, 13A, 13B, 14, and 14A list the maximum sustained winds as 100 mph and 155 km/h. This makes sense since the NOAA estimates wind speeds in increments of 5 knots, and 85 knots = 97.8163 mph (rounds up to 100) = 157.42 km/h (rounds down to 155). The NOAA doesn't report wind speeds any more precisely than 5 knot increments, so it's not possible that they calculated wind speeds based on a number of knots that would round out to 100 mph and 160 km/h; the km/h reported in 12B must have been an error. Although it looks odd to our eyes, wind speeds should never be reported as 160 km/h because 85 knots rounds to 155 km/h and 90 knots rounds to 165 km/h. When mph is 100, km/h will always be 155, because mph and km/h are calculated from knots and rounded to the nearest 5.

DOSGuy (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Weak season

Five named storms as of October 7. This is the lowest number of storms by this date since 1994. Of course, the season is not over yet, but there are already news articles discussing this. Maybe it should be mentioned here, perhaps in the opening paragraph.2600:1000:B029:CF71:AC0C:242A:1638:A21B (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

There's already a prediction section. It's been forecasted to be a weak season for a while due to El Nino-like conditions being predicted as early as January 2014. So far the number of pacific storms and atlantic storms seems to follow the typical el nino pattern even though we don't technically have an el nino. At the end of the season would be a more appropriate place in time to discuss the actual results. ACE can be added then, too, which I susepct will be rather low as well. Last year had a number of storms but was also a weak season as the storms didn't develop so numbers of total storms can be deceiving. --DHeyward (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Deaths from Edouard?

The article notes in several places that there were two rip tide deaths and attributes them to Edouard. Given that the storm was 1300 miles away at the time (greater than the distance from Miami, FL to Boston, MA), this seems highly suspect. The source is a local NBC news report --not exactly authoritative. Rip tides can be caused by many factors.2600:1000:B029:CF71:AC0C:242A:1638:A21B (talk) 18:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

If the deaths were associated with factors caused by Edouard, then perhaps they should still be included, but the article could note that the deaths are only indirectly attributable to the storm. Dustin (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The source attributed the flash rip current to the storm. I believe it is correct to note the deaths were from a rip current and that the rip current was attributed to the storm. Tropical cyclones often produce rip currents (I believe there were a few U.S. service members killed last week from a super typhoon in Okinawa - they were on the beach and drowned when carried out to sea). --DHeyward (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Intro

I've modified the intro to use conventional dates and wikified some links. A lot of it is wording. "annual cycle of tropical cyclone formation" is not accurate so I changed it to "annual tropical cyclone season in the northern hemisphere." Tropical cyclones don't have to form for the season to exist. It's unnecessary to state that the first cyclone was one month after the start of the season since the date is given as well as the season. I wikified major hurricane with the Saffir-Simpson scale. --DHeyward (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Gonzalo hurricane warning

Why is the United Kingdom listed in the hurricane warning box? According to the forecast cone, it won't see this storm for days, and it won't be a hurricane by then.

Because Bermuda is an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom. N. C. Fortune (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Mshuman (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Fewest named storms since 1997 or 2009??

I'm a little confused regarding this subject, because in 2009 there were 9 named storms, one more storm than 2014. But the last time there were just 8 storms was in 1997. I'd appreciate someone would help me with this. 190.56.116.64 (talk) 08:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It would have to be since 2009. Saying "the fewest since 1997" would mean that 1997 was the last time we had this many or fewer named storms, which is incorrect. But since we're talking a much shorter time interval, I'm not sure that it's notable. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

No, 2014 had 8 storms, 2009 had 9 (ending w Ida). 1997 had 7 plus a subtropical storm, so 1997 is the right answer. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Add the 2020 hurricane season page

Can someone add a page for the 2020 Atlantic Hurricane Season? When I click on it, it goes to the Tropical Cyclone Naming page. I want a page for the 2020 Atlantic Hurricane Season, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:C401:9850:D44F:B3C8:FDB4:A6E0 (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The only information that is available for the 2020 season is the list of planned names. There won't be any point to having the article until the first pre-season outlooks come out. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)