Talk:2020 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2020
The ace should be 180.1015 72.79.6.254 (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ it is 174. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me!  11:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , This source from the Colorado State University says 179.8. --Hurricane Tracker 495 13:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Currently, we calculate our own ACE. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me!  13:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What? Please here. We use professional ones, especially because its OR for us to do ours. (And our calculations differ). --Hurricane Tracker 495 13:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry that I didn't realize that. But, the question is, which calculation do we use? IPv4s don't normally return to discussions, so this is probably an unanswerable question: what source is the 180.1 from? 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me!  13:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It is unsourced. 179.8 is the correct amount. --Hurricane Tracker 495 13:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So then it should be in the article as the source. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me!  13:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There are irregularities with the way CSU does it, namely that they do it based on the operational best track, which is not actually NHC's public word, strictly speaking. Thus we need to do our own calculations based on full advisories. This has been common practice for many years. ❌ --Jasper Deng (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This and weather.com also support 179.8 ACE. (Actually weather.com says 179.9). It is original research, and while that has been the consensus for years, that changed. I quote LightandDark2000; It appears that there is consensus to use official ACE calculations in place of our own. Although there is some dispute as to how this should be done, it appears that the consensus is to use the figures from a trusted source. However, our ACE calculations can also be used as placeholders in lieu of more reliable figures. It's not reliable for us to do our own calculations, especially because advisories don't come out(there were some times where an adivisroey comes out at 06z and doesn't until the next 06z). --Hurricane Tracker 495 20:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, wait a second. This says 178. I see why we do it, its just not as reliable. --Hurricane Tracker 495 20:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Do we calculate our own ACE(174.6)or use professional ACEs(which sometimes differ)
(Of course anyone can comment) The question is, should we calculate our own ACE or use professional ones. The RFC did say we can calculate this on our own only if there is no RS(courtesy ping closer )this causes difference. Per WP: SKYBLUE, we don't need to cite obvious things, like 5+5=10, but this is a lot harder. And of course, merry christmas. --Hurricane Tracker 495 00:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We already had an entire RfC on this. The consensus appears to be for us to use calculations from reliable sources, rather than relying on our own calculations. However, before any such reports are released (or if we can't find other calculations), we can use our own calculations as placeholders.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * CSU and 2 other sources are saying 179.8, one saying 178. That's the issue. --Hurricane Tracker 495 00:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would personally go with the CSU source in this case. Assuming that this is the figure for the entire season, we can revisit this issue after all of the TCRs are released, if there are any changes in ACE as a result of the re-analyses.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Reasonable. I suspect the TCR may change a few things(Zeta possible C3, Gamma possible C1, possibly more). --Hurricane Tracker 495 00:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I say go for CSU for now until all the TCRs get released. Skarmory  (talk •   contribs)  01:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it should be clarified what source we should use for the ACE. I don't believe NHC calculates it so we should decide on one soon. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me!  11:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Also I support professional ACEs. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me!  11:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * CSU is likely the best source to use when calculating ACE, as they pull directly from HURDAT, which the TCRs will be included in. As far as I'm aware, the NHC doesn't release their ACE totals publicly. The monthly summaries they release include an ACE percentage that is either above or below the mean of that month, so they calculate it, but don't release publicly. CSU does, however, so I think beginning in the 2021 season, we begin calculating ACE based on their totals. There's not a lot of sense in going back and changing the totals for the 2020 season to CSU before the TCRs are released in full. When that happens, we can update them with the new CSU totals, which will also change with the release of the TCRs. Gum  balls  678   talk  22:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2021
On December 25th, 2020, and unconfirmed Subtropical Storm formed off of Maurtinia. The Storm only lasted 2 days before getting absourbed. On December 31st, 2020, another unconfirmed tropical Cycolone formed off of Newfoundland. if these two were named, they would be named Kappa and Lambda each. HURRICANEYAY (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this article lists named storms, not cyclones that might be named under a hypothetical scenario. Please see WP:CRYSTAL. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Name retirement issue
Jason's argument that the WMO HC talks about naming all the time and that we should therefore not talk about the retirement issue here is faulty. Firstly, WP:OSE is inapplicable, especially in a situation that is emphatically not like any other season's (2005's Greek-named storms were not (as a collective) nearly as devastating as 2020's). We should probably diversify sourcing to not just be the Capital Weather Gang, and not just those particular meteorologists speaking, but the amount of complaints about the Greek naming system was especially high this year. (Eta and Iota are far from the only candidates). It's only WP:DUE weight to include such a section.

Whether it belongs in TC naming or not isn't something I care as much about, but sources also talk about it specifically in connection with this season's retirement and this season's upcoming WMO committee meeting, so due weight would also imply this may be indeed the best place.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My personal view is that if the section is too stay then it needs cutting down, correcting, balancing out and putting into perspective. For instance, the only source we have for James submitting an alternative list of names in either 2006 or 2010 is James himself. It does not need mentioning on tropical cyclone naming since it is an overview article about the names themselves and not the controversial history which is covered in the History of tropical cyclone naming. Also if we mention it here then shouldn't we be adding a sentence or two to the PHS articles since its the back up to the epac list as well.Jason Rees (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Other reliable sources have deemed it credible. We are following WP:SECONDARY exactly according to plan. This is not as if he had just tweeted about it. This is several major news outlets reporting his views. I did some trimming since opening this discussion and now it fits neatly into one paragraph. We don't need to mention it in PHS articles because again, the sources discussing it are doing so in the context of this season. We can't even assume they'll change the protocol in the Pacific even if they change the one in the Atlantic.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I was waiting for someone to bring this up, . Every year, the NHC discontinues the use of a few names and comes up with replacements, but this year is very different. We could possibly even have part of next year's list used in 2022 ("the names don't reset" idea)! Nothing like this has happened in the basin meetings since they decided to start using male names. The issue deserves at least a paragraph in this article. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me!  11:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually your opinion just makes me even more certain that nothing more than a line or two is needed in this article, about the naming scheme possibly changing as you and others are putting to much weight on to the issue and are making it out to be more than it is. Firstly, we have to remember that it's not the NHC but the WMO's RA IV Hurricane Committee that controls the naming scheme. Secondly, the naming scheme has been discussed and changed after several meetings of the hurricane committee since 1979, for example, the greek naming scheme was added as the backup plan for both the EPAC and Atlantic during the 1980's, while proposals for an alternative list to replace the greeks were discussed and rejected after both the 2006 and 2010 seasons. Thirdly, there have not been any proposals publically submitted to the WMO as yet, in fact, we do not even know when the meeting is going to be yet or if there is even going to be a meeting of the committee this year. Fourthly, the proposals that you are referring to are from private meteorologists who have nothing to do with the naming scheme. As a result, I do not see that this seasons meeting will be the most significant since 1978-79 and strongly feel that anything more than a couple of lines is needed at the present time.Jason Rees (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, it's the issue of WP:DUE weight. The public attention on this is greater than for any other (recent) season. I took out all the proposals by the private meteorologists, but the full paragraph is needed to fully explain the context for interested readers.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep it. It's interesting and unusual, since it has never happened before in history. Talk about the recent trend of more cyclones in quantity and intensity, naming scheme really needs to be reviewed by official agency for future cyclones. Looks like a few have said so.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 12:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Is the issue here keeping the paragraph about the controversy surrounding the potential retirement of the Greek letters? If that's the case, while I agree that it is interesting and unusual, it seems to be adding extra weight to a topic we don't know what will happen to at this time. I don't think the issue needs to be brought up right now. We know the WMO rejected the proposals to replace the Greek letters with other auxiliary lists in 2006 and 2010, but we don't know if they'll do that for this season. Assuming the WMO holds the regularly scheduled RA IV Committee meeting (either in March or April), we may be able to find out more on the topic if it's brought up for discussion. Us assuming it will be is irresponsible. If/when the meeting happens, we can revisit this issue then. Gum  balls  678   talk  20:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not going to wait until the WMO does a meeting. Could be cancelled again in 2021, and in 2022, and 2023, and perhaps forever. The issue about naming with Greek letters has already been discussed by a few. So I'm not waiting. Just deleting the whole info may keep concerned people wondering and confused about what should happen, when there is nothing to read.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It could be cancelled, but it could also be held. Until the WMO says otherwise, the meeting is still scheduled to occur later this spring. I'm not sure what you mean by deleting the whole info may keep people concerned and confused about should happen. We don't even know what's going to happen. Us speculating what could happen is only to draw more confusion and concern to readers. It doesn't make sense to have information on a topic that the WMO has already rejected twice and hasn't confirmed if it will hear the topic again. That's why it shouldn't be mentioned. Us "discussing" it isn't reason enough to keep it. There also hasn't been a clear consensus on keeping it or deleting it. I just believe that we shouldn't keep it because of the above reasons. Gum  balls  678   talk  21:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If we don't know what's going to happen, write on Wikipedia that no one knows what's going to happen. Especially if it's been discussed by experts beforehand. What do you mean it makes no sense??? It is not us "discussing", it's someone else "discussing" it, a real meteorologist.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It should be mentioned, but a couple sentences should suffice. We don't need a paragraph the comprises a third of the prose in the naming section. The WMO meeting probably won't be cancelled this year since it will be virtual. It's not just us assuming the matter will be discussed; it has been brought up by reliable sources. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with a sentence or two. The whole paragraph is unnecessary. And I'm aware it's been brought up by reliable sources, that's not what I'm concerned with, it's the fact that the paragrah's last sentence says the topic will be discussed in the meeting. If we clean up the paragraph to make it a few sentences—mentioning the issue itself (the controversy behind the retirement of Greek letters) and a brief explanation of why—it should be okay. Gum  balls  678   talk  21:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I see the paragraph has been updated, it's now four sentences long... still too long? Right now I think it reads fine.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Now it's five sentences... I'm okay when it was four sentences... And I'm not getting the "I want it shorter" approach...--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed, then added back the sentence, as I was unaware of the discussion beforehand, and as such, wanted to wait until everyone here has came to a clear decision. If you guys want me to, I will re-remove it again. To be clear, it was the sentence on the NHC bringing up the issue, or the final sentence. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (Chat|Edits|sandbox)  22:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I took out the last sentence as it was more like a prediction. The second sentence I thought was too wordy so I condensed it. Right now it is four sentences long. I'm logging off for now so you guys can challenge among yourselves.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You should distinguish between WP:CRYSTALBALL and actual, verifiable, speculation. Reliable sources have reported that NHC plans to raise the issue at the next meeting. Whether discussion actually occurs on it is indeed a different matter, but I see nothing preventing us from saying that NHC will try to raise the issue (though indeed we should say nothing about the likelihood of it even getting debate time).--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

If the NHC is indeed going to bring up the issue and there are reliable sources, then they need to be identified and verified. Gum balls  678   talk  13:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That is literally mentioned in the sources that are cited already. From the WaPo article: "The World Meteorological Organization hasn’t said anything on plans to reconsider naming practices, but the Hurricane Center hinted that officials would be revisiting the issue at their post-hurricane season meeting in the spring." The Palm Beach Post article even says WMO itself will be discussing it: "Clare Nullis, a spokesperson for the World Meteorological Organization, said how storms are named is expected to be discussed at the 2021 conference, which is usually held in April".--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I must have missed it., I appreciate the clarification. Gum  balls  678   talk  18:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with including a subsection. First, the NHC has not explicitly said that any of the Greek storms this year will be retired. The NHC just said that they would bring it up at the next WMO meeting. It is still a few months away, and saying it four months out is still subject to change. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀🇺🇸 01:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

This isn’t how it works. NHC can request retirement, but the power to do so is the prerogative of only the RA Hurricane Committee. The fact that NHC is challenging the existing process is consistent with any lack of proposals to retire Greek names. WP:CRYSTAL does not apply as there is solid sourcing for what the section says now. We are not in a position to judge the likelihood of any changes; we report what the sources say. By your argument we should have no info in individual storms at all until TCR’s finalize their meteorological histories, which is clearly absurd.—Jasper Deng (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Alpha
Alpha was upgraded to 60kt’s on Feburay 1st 2021 TalephG (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Feb* TalephG (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The 60kt wind speed occurred while the system was still extratropical. Its peak wind speed while a subtropical system was 45kt. Drdpw (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Damage estimates
According to NOAA in this tweet, https://twitter.com/NOAA/status/1347574890321371137 they say Hanna is a billion dollar storm. Also according to TWC https://weather.com/storms/severe/news/2021-01-08-record-billion-dollar-us-weather-disasters-2020-noaa they say NOAA put hanna at 1.1billion and Laura is now 19billion. Should the estimates increase or isn’t this enough to support damage increase? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.109.93 (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's been updated in the Hanna article, so I say go for it. Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  21:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, If you go to the NOAA website and find the 2020 billion dollar disasters, they actually have a couple hurricanes with higher (and lower) damage numbers, such as Laura, Sally, and Hanna. Since NOAA is obviously based in the US, I'm 95% sure that they only keep track of damages that occurred in the US and don't account for other countries. Example of this would be Delta and Eta. We have delta as $4.19b and Eta at $7.9b, while they have delta at about $2.9b and eta at about $1.5b. It's hard to tell what some of the damage numbers are as a whole (accounting for other countries) from this NOAA update, but some of the numbers for hurricanes that mainly only hit the US are much higher, such as Laura. I'm gonna update some of the numbers soon. Kade Ydstie45 (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

After adding up all the new Hurricane damage numbers I could after seeing the update from NOAA today, the total damage numbers for this season seem to be >$51.146. This would technically, place 2020 at the 5th most costly season, above 2008 and 2018. These are obviously preliminary findings but might need to consider updating 2020 as the 5th costliest season Kade Ydstie45 (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Delta's damage estimate is also in conflict with Delta's article, with the article pinning it at 3.09, but with this article putting it at 4.19 Gex4pls (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

New data
Here is new data from Aon on damage and deaths from the storms of the season. Many early estimates from that source have changed since, so it would be wise to update the article. Andol (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Link Archiving
I will be adding archive links to the entire article. Please note that the article must be split up in order to do this because of how large it is (ie the tool can't process it). All talk subpages listed below should remain intact for future use with archiving (definitely a must when getting this to GA in the future). Noah Talk 12:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Archiving Schedule
 * Every 15 days during the active season
 * Every month outside the active season
 * As needed after May


 * Archive Links
 * Top-Bertha
 * Cristobal-Laura
 * Marco-Vicky
 * Storm Names-Season Effects
 * Beta–
 * Thanks! ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 13:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Archived again due to extreme activity. Noah Talk 22:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Update-Destroyeraa changed archiving to 10 days. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Why was my content removed?
This is what I added:

During a tropical cyclone report made by the NHC on May 18, 2021, Iota was downgraded to a category 4 hurricane with winds of 135 kt.

If someone would like to explain, please do so. Thanks! Sria >:3 SR.1111111 (talk)♥️ 22:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Because, since the TCR came out there is no mention of Iota becoming a category 5 hurricane, thus there is no reason to mention that the earlier mistaken conclusion had been reevaluated. That said, I suppose a sentence mentioning this could be inserted, perhaps after the sentence, "Later that day, at 15:00 UTC, Iota reached high-end Category 4 intensity, attaining its peak intensity with winds of 155 mph (260 km/h) and a minimum central pressure of 917 mb (27.08 inHg)." Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay. Sria >:3 SR.1111111 (talk)♥️ 12:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

B-Class review?
I believe that this article may be checked against B-Class crterion? Gummycow moomilk 19:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think so too. 🌀Ae  geo  u2🌀 ← talk  — Preceding undated comment added 16:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Too soon, several post-season TCreports have not yet been published. Numerous details and citations will change over the next several weeks. Drdpw (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, please wait until at least May. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me!  13:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * All TCRs are now in and all storm details have been updated. Therefore, I am upgrading this article to "B" class. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Elsa/Edouard Edit War
Before the edit war continues, there should be clarification and consensus. Firstly, yes, Elsa has broken Edouard's record, which is noted in the table on the Atlantic hurricane record page (if it's not, it needs to be). Secondly, Elsa does not need to be added to the table in 2020, BECAUSE she formed in 2021, not 2020. The table was put in to showcase the named storm records that were broken during the year. Edouard broke the named storm record in 2020, hence its position on the table in 2020.

Elsa has no business being on the 2020 table, only on the table on the general records page. Gum balls  678   talk  13:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I would like to add that the statement, "" does not need to be altered either. Drdpw (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I missed that. Yes, that doesn't need to be altered either, because, as mentioned earlier, 27 storms did establish new records during 2020. Gum balls  678   talk  15:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I understand not wanting to alter the table. But I disagree with not mentioning Elsa at all. The prose implies that the season still holds the record for the earliest 5th named storm, which is demonstrably false --12george1 (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a note could be attached to that sentence of prose stating something like: This note could easily be modified later in the season if additional storms do the same. Drdpw (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with that--12george1 (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Given what was decided here, in the same vein, I suppose Stan (2005) should now also have an asterisk on it in the table referring to the footnote of the table about the record since being broken. Jackwolfroven (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not the same situation. Sam formed earlier in the year than Stan did, but the record set by Sally still holds. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I see, that makes sense. Jackwolfroven (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * They should change the table back to saying "second earliest", as I think old records could be made in a new article. CyclonicStormYutu (talk) 13:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The table is designed to show which 2020 storms set formation records and what record formation date/storm each broke. The up-to-date list of earliest and second earliest formation dates can be found at List of Atlantic hurricane records. Drdpw (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)