Talk:1991 Perfect Storm

Wave height
Whoa! Someone missread something here. That buoy reading measured a wave height of 31 meters, not 31 feet. 31 meters comes out to a grand total of over 100 feet! Near the eye, waves of over 50 feet were commonly reported. 30-foot waves were the ones crashing onto the shore of Cape Cod...several hundred miles away from the eyewall.

-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast


 * Source? Jdorje 03:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A documentary called Storm of the Century. A woman who was on the freighter called the Eishen Maru at the height of the storm reported the reading from a buoy managed by the Canadien Coast Guard in an interview. Quote: "...but I do know that the wave buoy marker off of Sable Island registered a 30-meter wave. That is 100 feet. 90-100 feet. Can you imagine? A ten story building falling on your head? That's how big the buoy marker registered..." It's a fascinating interview. She talks about how 50 foot waves were crashing over her boat regularly. Some were so high that they broke the windows on the bridge, which was probably as much as 70-80 feet above the waterline. It should be at least added that she reported this going on, even if the exact numerical estimates are not confirmed confirmed. -- § Hurricane E  RIC § archive 01:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Incorrectly stated data blocks for the Bouys
The information provided in the aricle on Bouy 44011: NOAA buoy 44011 located at 41.1° N, 66.6° W reported maximum sustained winds of 49 knots (91 km/h) with gusts to 65 kt (120 km/h) and a significant wave height of 39 feet (12 m) near 15:00 UTC. is mistaken. If you look at the real historical data that NOAA provides on Bouy 44011, this does not match up. On October 30th, 1991 at 1500 UTC, NOAA reports that Bouy 44011 recorded wind from 030 at 25.1knots, gusting to 33.6knots. Wave hight was recorded at 11.60 meters, with a Dominant wave period of 20 seconds, and an average wave period of 10.80 seconds. Atmospheric pressure was recorded at 1000.3Millibars. Air Temperature was recorded at 09.4 degrees Celcius, and water surface temperature was recorded at 13.4 degrees Celcius. A look at NOAA's offical specific historical wave data for bouy 44011 shows that at 1450UTC, the Ten-minute average wind speed was 24.4knots and the Maximum 5-second peak gust during the measurement hour (reported at the last hourly 10-minute segment) was 33.6knots. -- Brian ( How am I doing? ) 19:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Movie/Book?
This article seems to be less about the movie/book, and more about the actual hurricane. Just my two cents. QuillOmega0 06:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. IMO, the article should be split. The actual storm should have the title The Perfect Storm, while the movie/book can have separate articles (Perfect Storm (Book) and Perfect Storm (Movie)). Hurricanehink 03:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the actual storm should be given its official name: 1991 Halloween Nor’easter. Jdorje 03:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That sounds good, with a proper header at the top. I vote yes. Hurricanehink 03:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Moved it. Hurricanehink 20:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Problems
The current article gives too much weight to the hurricane. The hurricane was just at tiny part of the storm. &mdash; jdorje (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. This was a complicated event. The vigorous low near Sable Island was literally sucking the life out of Hurricane Grace. When the front hits, the thing becomes just this huge white mass on the satellite imagery #. You clearly see Hurricane Grace east of the Carolinas. The front is that strip of overcast along the US east coast extending into the low that's feeding off this all-you-can-eat buffet of energy. But just look at that huge, white mass south of Newfoundland. Winds in that low are below hurricane force, but the seas are like that of a strong Category 4 hurricane: 80-90 feet! A buoy near Sable Island measured a wave 111 feet high! To my knowledge, that's an Atlantic record. I'm still not sure if the NHC measured the winds right. The low was the heart of this event. It, Grace, the front and their roles should be described here. It was this collision of beasts that killed 12 people. The tropical hurricane itself didn't do too much. I still am dying to know that if the winds were so low, why the waves were so high. -- §  Hurricane  E  RIC  §Damages archive 06:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is really two articles in one. The hurricane alone is not even close to worthy of an article, but everything else definitely is and it all goes hand-in-hand... CrazyC83 02:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is lacking one big point: the pressure gradient. This storm had one of the lowest millibars per mph of wind speed ratios ever recorded in the Atlantic. At one point, while extratropical and near the time of the Andrea Gail's demise, the storm had a wind speed of 70 mph but had a pressure of 972 mb! 972 is normally the pressure associated with a Category 2 hurricane! The pressure of an average storm with winds of 70 mph is around 990. That's an 18 mb difference. That means that, at that time, the Perfect Storm had a pressure nearly 20 mb lower than normal. That's insane. Just for comparison, Hurricane Wilma also had a very low pressure gradient, possibly the lowest ever. The greatest difference reported in Wilma was during the rapid intensification; 20 mb. That kind of difference may have been the cause of some of those biblical wave sizes reported, even thought the winds weren't very high. That may also be why we haven't seen the record of 110 feet equaled by any other Atlantic storm on record. -- § Hurricane E  RIC § archive 00:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Extratropical cyclones have broader wind fields than tropical cyclones. There is no merit to this argument since it was not a tropical cyclone at peak intensity.  Unless you know of an archive of extratropical cyclones and their effects, I'd be careful about stating that certain measurements are records unless they are supported by a citation.  Thegreatdr 20:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed the box at the top to cyclone from hurricane. NHC did not name this system in real-time to eliminate public confusion as to whether the extratropical phase or the tropical phase of the cyclone caused the main damage. We need to change the satellite image that shows the system at "maximum intensity" to when the cyclone was extratropical, since it had a lower pressure during its initial extratropical phase. Even with its picture, the cyclone article is weighted too much towards the late, short lived, tropical portion. I'm thinking of slapping a POV tag on the article. Thegreatdr 20:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The NHC archive said the extratropical phase peaked at 1200Z October 30, so this image is very close to it. (Yes, there is some Photoshop trickery highlighting the coastline and the clouds.) I put the new hurricane image in the infobox anyway, but feel free to switch them. I am also considering rotating the hurricane pic anyway, because that and this one  aren't alligned with the other satellite images. It would mean that I would have to crop off a lot, however. Good kitty 20:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

PJs
The man from ANG who died was a PJ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.9.46 (talk) 10:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed my edit on 20 June 2011 was reverted. I had cited the name of the deceased ANG parajumper, Sgt. Millard Jones. The reason given for the reversion was that "Wikipedia doesn't use exact names for natural disaster deaths". A link to a guidelines section titled "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social network, or memorial site" was provided. I see nothing in that section that confirms the reason given for the reversion, either explicitly or implicitly. That guidelines section appears intended to dissuade the creation of entire pages dedicated to persons without regard to prominence. The guidelines section further references Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines. Again, those guidelines are specifically related to entire pages and articles, especially biographies. The first two paragraphs of the Notability Guidelines are crystal clear on this.

I would be perfectly willing to accept the reversion were it founded on a specific section of the Wikipedia guidelines. Such founding does not exist in the guidelines provided, making it appear that the reverter (HurricaneHink), while obviously a longtime and respected moderator of storm-related content on this site, made an arbitrary and capricious edit. (As I appreciate his many contributions, I don't really believe that's the case, but it does appear that way.) Mentioning the name of an Air National Guardsman who perished in The Perfect Storm isn't creating a memorial for him. Considering he was the only member of the US military to lose his life in the line of duty during that storm, I believe that makes him notable -- not for a page dedicated to him, but certainly within the context of an article covering the storm in its entirety.

Sheepdog69 (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

"Unusual" or "Unique"?
The start of the article here calls the storm "unusual." I thought the claim to fame of the storm - as famously stated by the movie's advertisements and by several news outlets in 1991 - was that the storm was "unique" in recorded history. I don't have the book with me, but I recall that Sebastian Junger's book claims that meteorologically - conditions and the odds of the three storms combining were so great - the storms conditions could not have been any worse. Hence, the term "perfect storm." If any of that is true, and if it really was a storm of such scale that it was unique in recorded - or something even close to that - then the adjective "unusual" just seems a bit weak to me. -- S. Harrison, Oct. 12, 2006


 * Good point. "Unusual" and "very powerful" just seems a bit weak. Those are words we could use to describe many storms. The storm we're talking about here was singular - as far as recorded storm systems go - in many respects.


 * If you can find a source calling the cyclone a singular event, throw it in the article. Otherwise, many cyclones in the 970's are spawned in the North Atlantic annually.  There are probably others which looped back towards New England over the decades/centuries, but as a group we're just too young to remember or know any better.  Thegreatdr 20:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Impact section needs revision
In the first paragraph of the "Impact" section: "The worst of the storm stayed offshore (a sailing vessel, the Satori, was piloted by a novice and nearly foundered during the storm)."

First off, the section in parenthesis has nothing to do with the sentence it's included in. It has nothing to do with the storm staying offshore. Had the storm gone inland, the Satori still might have nearly foundered.

Secondly, Ray Leonard, the owner and skipper of the Satori, was anything but a novice; he had been sailing his own boats since 1965 and had been on the Satori in weather nearly as heavy before. The section in parenthesis has been disputed by Ray Leonard, the owner of the Satori, who was never interviewed before the book's publishing. This is indicated in the paperback version of The Perfect Storm, in which Leonard gives his own version of events. Here's another source. Note that the Satori was recovered, having sustained minimal damage, on a Maryland beach.

IMO, the reference to the Satori ought to be deleted entirely; it's nearly entirely factually inaccurate, and without being included in a list of boats that sustained damage or went down it does little (if anything) to illustrate the impact of the storm. If the owner's version is true, the story of the Satori serves only to illustrate how big storms at sea can make people (the crew, in Leonard's account) panic. If Junger's version is true, the story of the Satori illustrates pretty much the same point, aimed at the skipper rather than the crew.--Celticshel 22:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Precipitation image on bottom of page has to go
...not because it shows an improper amount, but because it doesn't show the correct storm track. Compare the storm track of this cyclone to that of Grace, shown on that image, and you'll see the problem. Grace was the source of the storm's moisture for a day or two, but that was before its precipitation impact on the United States and Canada. Thegreatdr 13:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Bad Article Organisation
Though this article does state some good facts about the "Perfect" Storm, there are several problems with it in my opinion.

1) The picture in the infobox shows "the Nor'easter at peak intensity on November 1st". That is actually a picture of the weak unnamed hurricane that formed late in the storm, which is not the Nor'easter. The peak intensity of the Nor'easter was on October 30th, when the pressure was 972 mbar, even though the wind was only 70mph.

2) The minimum pressure in the infobox shows 980 mbar. The minimum pressure was 972 mbar (while the system was extratropical). It should have 2 separate pressures, one for extratropical and one for tropical.

3) There were some 100 foot waves recorded by buoys. Canadian buoy #44137 recorded 100 foot waves on the evening/night of October 29th (Sebastian Junger says this in his book "The Perfect Storm"). Even NOAA admit this, as in this link it says "creating waves ten stories high".

I don't mean to be picky, but to someone who has never read about the storm before this could be quite confusing. The article seems to focus more on the unnamed hurricane rather than the Nor'easter. HurricanesTyphoonsCyclones 19:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That is an interesting problem. The article was created by a member of the Tropical cyclone Wikiproject, and at the time it was treated as a hurricane article since no Meteorology Wikiproject existed then. Given the historical nature of the system, both regarding the Nor'easter and the unusual hurricane that followed it, there could be room for two articles, which would definitely make things easier. After all, it was the Nor'easter that caused the damage and waves. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I strongly propose a merger from Perfect storm as both articles talk about the excact same thing and almost everyting on the page Perfect storm is here on this page. See Wp:merge for why I am proposing this. There's really no need for 2 pages with the excact same context. I am sure you guys here should agree with this. IF not please give detailed reason. Remember redirects can be made.  Sawblade05  (talk to me undefined my wiki life) 13:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not totally agree with this proposal. IMO, the article Perfect storm is really a definition of the term Perfect Storm, rather than anything about the actual 1991 storm. It is certainly not redundant or unnecessary in my opinion. However, there does seem to be too much information on the actual storm, which I think should be removed and put into this article. HurricanesTyphoonsCyclones 15:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So what your saying is that it sohuld be a partial merger. I do believe that 90% of the page is already here preaty much which is why I decided to propose this one. The stuff left over would make the article a stub and I think it would be better off having it a part of this article. I also feel the redirect if and when created should point to Perfect storm (disambiguation). Now do you have any ideas on what to do with the first paragrah of the page there?  Sawblade05  (talk to me undefined my wiki life) 16:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I also feel we are better served by having two articles. I came here after hearing over and over the phrase "perfect storm", which has taken on a meaning far beyond that of the 1991 storm. If there's going to be a merger (and, again, I do not support it), move this article into the perfect storm page, not the other way around. CsikosLo (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm minorly in favor of a merger as the current perfect storm article contributes little and is hardly deserving of a separate article; explaining how the term came into common use would fit handily into the aftermath section of this article. I will point out however that this article is correctly named (there has been great discussion on this point in the past) and should not be renamed. — jdorje (talk) 09:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, and on the topic of how the perfect storm article contributes little: aside from defining the term (wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary), its only encyclopedic content is giving the origin of the term which is simply a link to this article. — jdorje (talk) 09:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm coming down against the merger, but agree with merging the weather part to another page: the change would improve both articles. Like ScikosLo, I came looking for a reference to the term, so I could link to it in emails and on web pages. The term has taken on a life of its own. People use the term who have no interest whatsoever in meteorology. Thanks, Woodlandpath (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree to merger. As ScikosLo and Woodlandpath also stated, the expression "perfect storm" has come to mean more than just the 1991 storm, 1997 book, or 2000 movie. It now can mean any event where a combination of circumstances will exacerbate a situation drastically. So instead of merging, the perfect storm article should expand on this. -- P199 (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Name
I grew up and still live on the coast of Massachusetts, and I remember this storm well. In conversation every local refers to this storm as the "No-Name Storm." I propose adding that as one of the names in the article, though I do not propose changing the article's title. Can anybody else from Massachusetts confirm that this is the local name for the storm? And if so, can we get a consensus on making the edit? Rudy Breteler (talk) 04:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * People were calling the system in the Gulf of Mexico last month the no-name storm as well. Although it is a generic name, if there are any web hits on it, it could be included in the first line.  Thegreatdr (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"Storm path" figure useless
This figure conveys zero information as it stands, due to the lack of any labeling about time interval, or which direction it was moving, or the meaning of the colors (can be guessed from the figure file, maybe) or the meaning of the shapes of the symbols. Anyone who knows could easily put much of this into the caption. If no one does, the figure should be dropped (commented out?) -- it just says "it wandered around in the Western Atlantic off the east US / Canada coasts", which does not merit a figure. Wwheaton (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.meds-sdmm.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/meds/Databases/WAVE/ArchPlot/ArchPlot_Form_e.asp
 * In 1991 Perfect Storm on 2011-05-25 05:56:35, 404 Not Found
 * In 1991 Perfect Storm on 2011-06-08 00:43:58, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Uncyclopedic term
Perfect Storm doesn't describe the kind of this storm, since it's most a media term with little meteorological meaning and the storm wasn't really unprecedent. So I think that the the article's title should be changed for something similar to 1991 Storm complex. ABC paulista (talk) 03:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:Commonname. It may not be scientific, but it's the most common name for the storm. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1991 Perfect Storm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101207000313/http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/lib1/nhclib/mwreviews/1991.pdf to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/lib1/nhclib/mwreviews/1991.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1991 Perfect Storm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120318054758/http://coastguard.dodlive.mil/2010/11/history-cgc-tamaroa-and-%E2%80%9Cthe-perfect-storm%E2%80%9D/ to http://coastguard.dodlive.mil/2010/11/history-cgc-tamaroa-and-%E2%80%9Cthe-perfect-storm%E2%80%9D/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1991 Perfect Storm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203104703/http://www.ang.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-091123-012.pdf to http://www.ang.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-091123-012.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1991 Perfect Storm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131207192407/http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/satellite/satelliteseye/hurricanes/unnamed91/unnamed91.html to http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/satellite/satelliteseye/hurricanes/unnamed91/unnamed91.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

"Hurricane Twelve (1991)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hurricane Twelve (1991). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 02:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Storm Pressure
The storm's lowest pressure, on both the 1991 hurricane season article and the meteorological history, is at 972mb; but the infobox has it at 980mb. Which is correct? YellowSkarmory (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Technically, they are both correct. The Perfect Storm's peak intensity was 972 mbar, while it was still a nor'easter, but it's tropical peak was at 980 mbar, which is listed in the infobox. I've decided to note the extratropical peak as well in the infobox, since the storm's peak intensity occurred while it was extratropical (in terms of minimum pressure). I think that we should also do this for any tropical cyclones that end up peaking as an extratropical storm; after all, the extratropical portion of its lifespan counts. It would be more helpful to our readers that way. There aren't that many TCs that peaked as an EC either.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 10:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

USCGC Diligence (WMEC-616)
It appears Justin LaNasa tried to add this ship as critical to the rescue efforts of the storm. However |according to the ship's own official records it was decommissioned for modernization from 1990 - 1992. Adding this in case there is some issue over it.

Wincenworks (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Underreported Conditions
Both the wave heights and windspeeds are downplayed (for some reason) in this article.

Weather buoys maintained by NOAA (their historical weather buoy data can be freely accessed from their website) report conditions vastly exceeding the article's reported peak of 120km winds and 39ft seas.

The article sourced for the maximum wave height of 39ft also doesn't list a single source for their info and conflicts with multiple vessel reports. Taken from interviews between Junger and mariners in the book, captain Tommie Barrie of the FV Allison reported 50ft seas as did Canadian Fisheries Observer Judith Reeves aboard the FV Eishin Maru. The MV Contship Holland, a 550ft container ship, reported missing containers at deck level and some containers two or three bays above deck level being torn open by heavy seas - the cargo deck of the ship is 40ft above sea level, indicating at LEAST 50-60ft seas.

NOAA weather buoys #44137, #44139 and #44141 all record windspeeds peaking at or near 96 knots and wave heights maxing out, on the zero crossing point, at 100ft. Why this easily accessible information (in spreadsheet form, directly from NOAA's website) isn't sought, or used as a source, is beyond me, but the actual conditions of the Perfect Storm are far worse than what this article describes. Braechap94 (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

More vessels lost than 3
I am reaserching for a female survivor her and husband, survived, witnessed several sinkings. Over two days. No ports would allow entry, st. Augustine allowed them in, even though they were closed. She says the vessels she witnessed sank so quick, nothing could be done. The radio had dozens not three. She still heres pleads for help all these years later. Took 30 years before she would talk about it. Many families lost loved ones. 50.26.158.11 (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)