Talk:Lists of Atlantic hurricanes

Name
I wasn't sure to call if list of notable Atlantic hurricanes or this, so hope this fine. Hurricanehink 20:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Unusual landfalls- Canada
OK, that section is a little long. Is there really a need to list every hurricane/tropical storm that affected Canada, when we have a category for that already? I say we only list those that have articles for their destruction in Canada; Newfoundland Hurricane of 1775, Nova Scotia Cyclone of 1873, 1869 Saxby Gale, 1959 Escuminac Disaster, and Hurricane Juan. The actual list only includes Juan, while these 5 are much more worthy, IMO. Remove that list and put only the truly notable. Otherwise, the list would be way to long. Hurricanehink 14:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * List should be removed - hurricanes are not unusual in Canada. CrazyC83 18:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Got it. Hurricanehink 18:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Off-topic: Most notable Atlantic hurricanes
So what are the most notable hurricanes of all time? Just off the top of my head: Great Hurricane, Katrina, Mitch, Galveston Hurricane, Okeechobee Hurricane, Janet, Hattie, Wilma, Andrew, Donna. Jdorje 20:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Camille, Labor Day Hurricane of 1935, or Indianola Hurricane of 1886. Hurricanehink 20:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hurricane Andrew. He was the Titanic of hurricanes. Not the deadliest or most damaging (% of buildings damaged), and only briefly the costliest, but it's the most famous.
 * Hurricane Katrina. Likely Andrew's successor (do I really need to say why?). The couple will then retire with their children Charley, Frances, and Jeanne ;D.
 * Hurricane Mitch. Descendant of the Great Hurricane of 1780 and Satan. Bested his mom Fifi and became the deadliest hurricane in 200 years in a work of cataclysm worthy of his ancestor.
 * The Mitch family tree again appears with the Don, Don Galveston. He solidified The Galveston Family's power. ;)
 * Hurricane Gilbert, one of the most famous, and recently retired, member of the Indianola Family.


 * Big ;) -- §  Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 22:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't particularly agree with the Labor Day Hurricane nor with Hurricane Gilbert. Although intense, they did not have a particularly great impact. Jdorje 01:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding? The Labor Day storm killed 400 people and is the most intense storm to strike the US...still. It is now the stuff of legend, especially in Florida. Gilbert killed 300+ people, caused $5+ billion in damage (1988 dollars), and was the most intense Atlantic storm on record for 17 years. I call those pretty significant impacts. -- §  Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 05:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Not too many hurricanes are powerful enough to destroy a railroad system. This one did. B.Wind 23:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

My top 20 since 1851, in chronological order (not ranked yet):
 * Indianola Hurricane of 1886
 * Hurricane San Ciriaco
 * Galveston Hurricane of 1900
 * Great Miami Hurricane of 1926
 * Okeechobee Hurricane of 1928
 * Labor Day Hurricane of 1935
 * New England Hurricane of 1938
 * Hurricane Hazel
 * Hurricane Janet
 * Hurricane Donna
 * Hurricane Hattie
 * Hurricane Flora
 * Hurricane Camille
 * Hurricane Fifi
 * Hurricane David
 * Hurricane Gilbert
 * Hurricane Andrew
 * Hurricane Mitch
 * Hurricane Katrina
 * Hurricane Wilma
 * CrazyC83 01:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Why Flora and not Fifi? Does anyone really believe that Fifi caused $20 billion in damages? Jdorje 01:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure about Fifi, but why not the Labor Day hurricane? Strongest U.S. landfall, people sandblasted to death... Hurricanehink 01:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't include the Labor Day storm in the top 10 because its only claim to fame is intensity. Sure it killed 400 people, but that's not even on the top 100 all-time. It is not near the top of the damages or deaths list for either the US or the Atlantic. And it did not make a mainland landfall at intensity, which really diminishes the impressiveness of its intensity. As for Gilbert...basically the same reasons. If we didn't have Wilma it would make the top 10 on intensity alone, but Wilma was more intense and dwarfed it in damages. Of course, this argument comes about because we don't have any clear criteria for "notability". But I don't think notability based on meteorology goes very far; a storm has to have impact to be notable. Jdorje 06:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The storm made landfall with winds of ~ 180 mph and a pressure of 892 mb. That's what I call notable. Notable is subjective, though. Hurricanehink 12:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Me too. Labor Day is tied for 53rd on the all-time list of deadliest storms since 1600 (most figures before then have ridiculous ranges like 200-5,000 or something). It is considered by most experts, including NOAA, to be one of the most significant storms of the 20th century and I agree. It is one of only three storms in recorded history to make US landfall as a Category 5. How do you call 400 deaths in a US storm a non-impact or non-notable? That's simply ridiculous. It is tied for the strongest Atlantic storm on record at landfall (with Gilbert). Which brings me to my next point: Gilbert was earthshattering to Mexico and Jamaica. He killed over 350 people. The damage figures are never that high with Mexican landfalls. Just look at Emily. Gilbert shattered the Atlantic intensity record by 4 millibars. That record had stood for 53 years. That's about as notable as it gets. And you, Jdorje, deem a weak, fish-spinning subtropical storm that just happened to form in January as notable; yet you don't deem these storms as some of the 20th Century's greatest. Hmm. What's wrong with this picture? -- §  Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 02:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Huh? What does Subtropical Storm One have to do with the Labor Day Hurricane?  The labor day hurricane was highly significant to meteorologists because it was the strongest recorded storm for a long time.  But there have been 52 other storms who have killed more people (just since 1600), and for me impact is a bigger qualifier of notability.  It would make my top 20 but not my top 10, and certainly not the top 5. Jdorje 02:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the worst hurricane registered in this basin is Hurricane Mitch because it cause a great impact in my country, Mexico, and killed arround 10,000 people. Ah, metion to it that it was a category 5 hurricane. Gilbert was more intense than Mitch, but no more deadlier (I think this is the main criteria, for me, to identify a powerful hurricane). juan andrés 06:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Costliest U.S. hurricanes of all time
This is also semi-off-topic. What about a list of the costliest U.S. hurricanes of all time? That is, a list of hurricanes, each of which was the costliest U.S. hurricane of all time? Numbers must be adjusted for inflation of course, and naturally they go in reverse chronological order. Here is an incomplete list (others may be filled in in the middle or end). What I would find interesting would be to try to take this back to, say, 1492 (except for that, we should drop the "U.S." bit, but that will require a lot more research). Jdorje 01:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Might be hard to get old ones. Normally they only have death tolls with one location having a damage estimage. Hurricanehink 01:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You forgot Charley. 2nd costliest of its time. 3rd now. 152.163.100.14 00:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Fourth, actually - Wilma is third. B.Wind 23:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Costliest hurricanes of all-time: all countries
Here's another chart that should be created. I'll try to work on it. Note that most of these are estimated (infobox medians or best guesses based on descriptions); exact numbers are difficult to find for most countries. CrazyC83 04:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * On a related note, it is a major problem that hurricane articles do not have good explanation of damages in other countries. Many storms do not list those damages at all, or make it clear that the damages they list is US-only.  Other storms list those damages, but none of them that I've seen give any sources. Jdorje 04:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Added Iniki and Mireille. I do assume that it is worldwide, and not just Atlantic. Hurricanehink 01:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, no, this is still just Atlantic, otherwise it gets ridiculous. Did you know there was a tc in bangladesh that left 10 million people homeless? Jdorje 02:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, OK. My bad. Hurricanehink 02:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about the 1970 Bhola hurricane? juan andrés 06:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I've never seen homelessness stats for the 1970 Bhola cyclone - although it did cause a civil war which led to a war between india and pakistan, which is even more insane. I mean the 1991 Bangladesh cyclone which was by all accounts worse than the 1970 one...except this time they knew it was coming and evacuated 2 million people, so fatalities were "minimized" to 150,000. Jdorje 06:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Dates should not be wikified like that. It's a pain to have to go back and de-wikify them all later... Jdorje 03:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Deadly seasons
Of course we all know the 1893 Atlantic hurricane season had 2 hurricanes that killed 1000+ people, and the 1780 Atlantic hurricane season had 3 (a bizarre arithmetic pattern if Stan and the 2005 season end up joining these two). I also noticed today that the 1870 Atlantic hurricane season may also have had 2 such hurricanes: one that killed 2,000 people in the Straits of Florida, and one that killed 200-2,000 in Cuba. Jdorje 19:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 2005 was pretty deadly wasn't it? Katrina and stan killing over 2,000 together. I don't know. Im more of a price guy. Its easier to remember price tolls than death tolls. For me.

Lowest Major hurricane Ivan?
Everyone says Ivan was the lowest latitude a hurricane ever reached major hurricane status (9.6 degrees north). I don't know... Hurricane Ekeka in the pacific hung dangeoruosly close to the 9 degree mark to make a call like that. Any one agree with me? Or am I just seeing things? <-- Ekeka track  <--- Ivan track    Cyclone1 01:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The record would have to be for Atlantic hurricanes. &mdash; jdorje (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, didn't think of that. Cyclone1 04:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Whoever
I noticed somebody changed the bg color on the 1991 halloween noreaster from category one to tropical depression. Thanks to whoever did that. Cyclone1 02:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources for tornadoes spawned
I verified and expanded #Listed by number of tornadoes spawned shortly before this article was split from the global one. All hurricanes before 1992 are authoritatively sourced by: Grazulis, Thomas P. (1993). Significant Tornadoes 1680-1991, A Chronology and Analysis of Events. The Tornado Project of Environmental Films: St. Johsnbury, VT. ISBN 1879362031. Events sources as NHC or NWS have been verified but are from random statements and not a single citable page. There will be discrepencies on numbers from all time periods, my suggestion is to use the Grazulis numbers (exhausative) for through 1991, and for the last few years and for the future, if NHC puts out a number, to use that. When unavailable, various NWS statements and research papers would be suitable, as well as any listings that may be found. Evolauxia 10:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Use book reference for your references. Also, the Hugo article claims 3,000 embedded tornadoes (the source is a politician, not the meteorologists); what does the book have to say about that one? &mdash; jdorje (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It lists three, with none significant (F2-F5 or killer), in the Carolinas (ch 11, pp 124-7). I could start an article on tropical cyclone tornadoes, there would be plenty of material on their meteorology since they're distinct from typical supercell tornadoes and waterspouts/landspouts. Some discussion of history and a listing of all tropical cyclones with tornadoes would fill it out nicely. What would be an appropriate name for such an article? Evolauxia 23:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What about History of Tropical Cyclone spawned tornadoes? This would be an interesting topic. Hurricanehink 00:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that would work well. We could start with that article, modeled after the current TC lists with maybe more elaboration on some events. That article then would be left to expand at will without cluttering an eventual article on tropical cyclone tornado meteorology and such. Evolauxia 04:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Does anyone know of the first TC spanwed tornado? Hurricanehink 12:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Since 1851? Good luck finding that! Cyclone1 16:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Finding the first hurricane (since Europeans settled?) is no guarantee, much less the first hurricane spawned tornado, however, the earliest listing in Significant Tornadoes is 10 Sep 1811 in South Carolina. Interestingly, it also lists a killer waterspout that never reached land on 30 June 1814, also South Carolina. Evolauxia 23:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I've started a page at History of tropical cyclone spawned tornadoes, I'll get to finishing the table with available information within a few hours. Evolauxia 01:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Off-topic: Most northerly U.S. hurricanes
Another bit of trivia here. This is a list of the strongest/most northerly hurricanes to hit the U.S. east coast. Each hurricane is stronger than any that struck north of it. The easiest source for this is http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastint.shtml. A secondary, more complete source is http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/ushurrlist.htm. — jdorje (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Christine '73
As it formed over land, should it be added to Unusual Landfalls:West Africa?  Jamie |  C  15:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know. It didn't actually make landfall. Maybe under extreme latitudes? Hurricanehink 17:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delta didnt make landfall either. Christine was tropical when it was over land.  Perhaps not a landfall, but notable enough for mention IMO.  Jamie  |  C [[Image:Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg|22px|]] 19:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Delta did make landfall as an extratropical storm. Hurricanehink 22:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * So is the definition of landfall "to pass from ocean to land" or "to be on land"? If it's the second one, then Christine should definately be mentioned.  Jamie  |  C [[Image:Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg|22px|]] 22:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I would guess it is to pass from ocean to land. The best place for this, IMO, is under the extreme latitudes section. Hurricanehink 22:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It should definately go in the extreme latitudes section, but I think also should be at least mentioned in the African landfalls section.  Jamie |  C [[Image:Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg|22px|]] 23:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What about something along the lines of "Christine did not technically make landfall in Africa, but it did form over this area"?  Jamie |  C [[Image:Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg|22px|]] 19:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

New England's 6 year curse?
I just thought I'd mention this coincidence. In the past, whenever a major New England hurricane occurred, another one would happen 6 years later. Here are some 6 year twins.


 * Great September Gale of 1815/1821 Norfolk and Long Island Hurricane
 * New England Hurricane of 1938/1944 Great Atlantic Hurricane
 * Hurricane Carol&Hurricane Edna (1954)/Hurricane Donna (it did cause major damage in New England)
 * Hurricane Gloria/Hurricane Bob

Hurricanehink 15:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's pretty intresting actually. Nice Research Cyclone1 22:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you mind if i use this in my Tropical Cyclone Coincidences user-subpage? Cyclone1 20:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, go for it. Hurricanehink 21:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I felt it right to ask first. Cyclone1 17:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Lat. and Long.
There is an extreme latitudes section, but not an extreme longtitude section. Should longtidute be added to the existing section, or should a new section be made?  Jamie |  C  21:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In Talk:Hurricane Vince (2005) is a list of most-northerly and most-easterly and most-northeasterly-forming storms. — jdorje (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * So should a similar table to this page?  Jamie |  C [[Image:Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg|22px|]] 18:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If you like. Do you want a table for each of the 8 directions? — jdorje (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That would be helpful, where would I find one? And also is there a record for furthest West and Southwest?  would it go to one of the crossovers?  Jamie  |  C [[Image:Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg|22px|]] 19:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The tables can be built from http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/Data_Storm.html. One could potentially have a nearly unlimited number of tables (and thus records) - for most extreme formation (in each of the 8 directions) of tropical depressions, tropical storms (the default), hurricanes, and major hurricanes - that's 32 tables right there.  And before you go talking about how most of those tables are unnecessary, just look at the current section in the article which, though incomplete, covers just about the entire spectrum of those records.  Finally, most westerly and southwesterly (and maybe northwesterly) formations would go to storms that formed right on the coast; for instance, the most westerly formation (through 2004) is 1984_Atlantic_hurricane_season. — jdorje (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

See /Formations. — jdorje (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Are the records from the 1800s reliable though?  Hurricane 1 for the most West formation doesnt seem desperately reliable.  Also, should any of the 2005 storms be on that chart?  Jamie  |  <i style="color:red;">C</i> [[Image:Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg|22px|]] 15:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * They are all just estimates. That shouldn't throw you off though - even for modern storms, all the positions, pressures, and windspeeds are estimates.  In fact the older storms (1851-1890) may be more accurate than some of the newer ones (1920-1980) since the older ones were re-analyzed just a year or two ago, whereas the later ones were re-analyzed nearly a decade ago or, in some cases, may not have been re-analyzed at all yet.  All data is subject to future revisions, and I'm hoping for some pretty hefty changes this year. — jdorje (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Question...
Hey, whats with the gap in the retired names table? Just an accident? Ive never noticed it before... Cyclone1 22:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Because of Gracie...see Talk:List of retired Atlantic hurricanes. — jdorje (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What? Gracie wasn't retired?!? Huh? That's messed up! Err was it? AHH! I'm so confused! Gracie was bad! Bad! I coulda sworn she was retired!!! Cyclone1 22:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary Sections
There are some sections that I feel are unnecessary:


 * November Major Hurricanes: While uncommon, it's not like they are unheard of. If we have these, why don't we hane June ones as well, which are also rare?
 * Unusual Landfalls: As I raised elsewhere, the Georgia (and others) sections are ridiculous; Georgia landfalls are rare because there is a short coastline, the Europe section is implied by the Latitude and Longitude extremes.
 * Named Subtropical Storms: Nothing unusual, they were named because the policy at that time was to name subtropical storms.

I think we can get rid of these sections with minimal loss to this article. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Definitely. — jdorje (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delmarva Peninsula, Costa Rica, and Georgia, November Major Hurricanes, and Named Subtropical Storms have been taken out. If you disagree with a removal you can add it back. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline


 * And speaking of the Unusual Landfalls, instead of having it in the ad-hoc way it is, perhaps we should have like the Northernmost, Northeasternmost, Easternmost, Southernmost, Westernmost, Southwesternmost etc. landfalls instead. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with removing named sts. I created the November list and i was gonna create a June list and a July list, but i almost got finished and the internet cut off. I gave up. Heck, delete it if you want to. When i was makin it, I kinda considered ot might be deleted eventually. I dont care. Cyclone1 03:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * One thing we should consider is archiving these things that we delete in the talk page or a subpage. The list itself isn't that bad...the problem is it has no context.  Why should we care about November hurricanes when we don't have a list of May major hurricanes (which are even rarer!). — jdorje (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, given that there are only 6 or so, I vote the November Major Hurricanes section stays. Climatology simply doesn't favor it, and those that somehow do make it are anomalies that deserve mention. In addition, a list of June hurricanes would have similar value, due to it being at the edge of the season. Hurricanehink 04:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * So Hink, I created it, Do you want me to add it back? With June major hurricanes? The list shouldnt be called like June Major Hurricanes or November major Hurricanes. It should be called Unseasonable major hurricanes. That way we can add Able. — Cyclone1 22:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know. Unseasonable major hurricanes might be a little too long. However, you could mention your information, provided you have a source, on the Atlantic hurricane page, which provides climatology on a monthly basis. Hurricanehink 22:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I don't have time now, but I'll get around to it. My source would most likley be simply Unysis. Maybe this site, too. Cyclone1 00:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Unisys is not a source, though it can be a useful tool. The source you should use is the best-track data.  This can all be found at http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/Data_Storm.html; the "easy-to-read" one is probably the best to look at but you can also use the tab-delimited one and import it into a spreadsheet to filter by month and strength. — jdorje (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Way to go, man!
Dude, jdorje, you really improved the fastest forward speed list. No offense to who made it but the first one in the List of notable tropical cyclones was kinda unorganized and unreliable. Cyclone1 03:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I encourage everyone to use the best track data (http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/Data_Storm.html) to improve the verifiability of the information in this article. — jdorje (talk) 09:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Damages
There should really be a costliest total damage section. Wikipedia is a worldwide website, not a U.S. site. Hurricanes like Joan ($2 billion), Michelle ($2 billion), Mitch ($5 billion), Alma ($1.23 billion) and Kate ($1.2 billion) are excluded because much of their damage was outside the U.S. I propose there be a costliest Atlantic hurricanes section. Hurricanehink 14:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As discussed elsewhere, ranking storms by cost is very dubious, because you have to convert to present-day dollars which is not a fixed conversion rate. I find it easier when making comparisons to look at "absolutes" like number of people left homeless - this will generally compare across time periods and across locations with different levels of wealth, although building codes in first-world countries (as in south Florida in particular) do have an impact. — jdorje (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yet the problem with homeless is that is not always known. Quite a few storms in the Caribbean have their damage totals known in that year's USD, many of which can be found in the monthly weather review. Anything before 1950 is mostly unknown, but a lot after that is fair game. Hurricanehink 21:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That is certainly true. However I believe (just based on reading and researching articles) that it is better known than the damage totals.  And no I'm not saying we should have an entry in the infobox for homelessness - I agree that we should have the total damages, I just don't think we can (anytime soon) make them complete enough so that an Atlantic-wide list is accurate enough to be worth including.  An additional problem is calculation of inflation, as the GDP deflator used for U.S. hurricanes cannot legitimately be applied to non-U.S. hurricanes (see Talk:List of retired Atlantic hurricanes). — jdorje (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, all of the retired hurricanes outside of the United States have damage totals. Here's a list of every major hurricane (excluding fish storms) that made at least 1 landfall on Mexico or in the Caribbean, and their damage total in that year's USD, then 2005 USD.
 * Baker (1950)- $2.55 million, $19.8 million
 * Dog (1950)- $2 million
 * King (1950)- $30 million
 * Charlie (1951)- $75 million
 * Dog (1951)- $3 million
 * Charlie (1952)- $1 million, $7 million
 * Fox (1952)- $10 million, $71 million
 * Dolly (1953)- Minimal
 * Edna (1953)- Moderate
 * Edna (1954)- $42 million, $280 million- Carib damage unknown
 * Hazel (1954)- $381 million, $2.6 billion
 * Hilda (1955)- $120 million, $824 million
 * Janet (1955)- $47.8 million, $320 million
 * Katie (1955)- $200-300,000,
 * Betsy (1956)- $36 million, $250 million
 * Greta (1956)- $3.6 million, $25 million
 * Ella (1958)- $200,000
 * Donna (1960)- $400 million- $13 million in Carib and Bahamas
 * Anna (1961)- $300,000
 * Carla (1961)- $325 million- Carib damage unknown
 * Frances (1961)- Minor damage in Puerto Rico
 * Hattie (1961)- $60.3 million
 * Flora (1963)- $528 million
 * Cleo (1964)- $200 million- $70 million in Carib
 * Hilda (1964)- $126 million- $1 million in Carib
 * Isbell (1964)- $20 million- $10 million in Cuba
 * Betsy (1965)- $1.5 billion- $14 million in Bahamas
 * Alma (1966)- $210 million- $200 milion in Cuba
 * Inez (1966)- $222 million- $217 million outside of U.S.
 * Beulah (1967)- $208 million- $8 million outside U.S.
 * Camille (1969)- $1.42 billion- $5 million in Cuba
 * Francelia (1969)- $4.7 million
 * And so on. The modern ones would be easier to get, anyways. As you can see, this is only the major hurricanes (not MH landfall but MH's), so it probably emcompasses some of the costlier ones. Damage is very doable. Hurricanehink 14:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Getting "a" damage total isn't hard, the problem is in making sure it's complete. The issue is that damages have to be researched separately for every country, and particularly for Caribbean hurricanes that can mean a lot of research.  A couple of examples: Hazel is listed as $381 million, but this includes only the U.S. ($281 million) and Canada ($100M) - it does not include Haiti or anywhere else.  Hurricane Lili lists $860 million, but this is only damage in the U.S., which is probably less than half of the total damage.  One start would be adding to the "deaths by region" table so that it also shows damage by region - the Lili article has this, and it at least shows locations where research is incomplete.  Even so I think researching many of the Caribbean countries will be next to impossible.  Most articles say something like "the storm caused $3 million in damage on St. Croix", without mentioning any of the other dozen islands the storm would have had to cross to get to St. Croix. — jdorje (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, good point. In case you're interested, Lili caused $362 million in damage in Cuba, per this useful Cuban link. To avoid this problem, we should have one table per season and go place by place, if possible. This way we can source it right there, and can add to it without worrying too much. They do this at the monthly weather review for some of the older seasons, and it could really help organizing. Hurricanehink 00:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That is a very useful link. Interestingly, it also touches on the inflation issue we've discussed elsewhere: they convert Flora's Cuba damage from 1970 to 1997 values by using the GDP deflator using Cuba's GDP during those times.  This is, finally, one possible solution to the inflation issue - however it means we have to calculate inflated values for each storm and each location and add them together; a hideously tedious process.  Again, a table showing damages for each storm article in each location would be a good start, as we can then add the inflated value to the table and re-add the numbers. — jdorje (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahh, also, I don't quite follow what you're suggesting with the one-table-per-season idea. Can you give a sample table? — jdorje (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hah hah, and finally, that is the wrong lili. The $362 million is from Hurricane Lili (1996), not Hurricane Lili of 2002.  According to the rest of the impact sections it looks like the 2002 storm was worse in Cuba than the 1996 one. — jdorje (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL, whoops. Here's an example for it. Here. Hurricanehink 01:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Landfalls
So should the Unnamed Storm of 2005 be included to landfalling storms on the Azores? tdwuhs


 * Yes. Hurricanehink 21:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Joan-Miriam
Now that i have your attention, I have a question... should Joan be added to the longest lasting section? It lasted 22 days if you count Miriam. Technically they were the same storm. Sorry about the Alert thing. No one would have paid attention other wise.  →Cyclone  1 →  19:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL, though interesting point. I would vote no for longest Atlantic, though it could work for worldwide. Miriam wasn't part of the Atlantic. Hurricanehink 19:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So, should I add it for longest lasting in the notable cyclones page?  →Cyclone  1 →  20:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, currently there's no TC longevity extremes section, but if one were made, then it could be added. Hurricanehink 21:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Really? Hmm, coulda sworn there was one. Oh well, I aint makin it. LOL. How bout we just say below the longevity list on this page that joan-miriam as a singular tropical cyclone lasted 22 days, but they were in two different basins?  →Cyclone  1 →  22:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe. Anyone else? Hurricanehink 01:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * C'mon peeps! Speak up!  →Cyclone  1 →  17:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Only the Atlantic portion should be counted for this page. A footnote can be added.  Just like C-D on List of retired Atlantic hurricanes. — jdorje (talk) 21:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll do that.  →Cyclone  1 →  00:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

List of Atlantic hurricane records
Can we merge that article in already? These two articles cover the exact same topics. They each just list notable storms, and the records they hold. — jdorje (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure. Hurricanehink 11:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

American Civil War
No major hurricanes listed are here from 1861 to 1865, but there must have been some effect on combat. Does anyone know?


 * ... Ican't figure out what you trying to say.  →Cyclone  1 →  22:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The Expedition hurricane of November of 1861, while not a major hurricane, was a minor hurricane that affected a Union fleet trying to attack the Confederacy. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Fastest forward speed
The New England Hurricane of 1938 article insists that "its forward speed approached 70 mph". Why is it not on this list? I know that some sources list it as extratropical when it impacts New England, but nothing I've found has been consistant. -Runningonbrains 13:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's my big question too, on reading this page. It's listed everywhere as a hurricane, it's extremely notable for its forward speed since unlike most of the others it had that speed at landfall, so if it's not on the list there should be a really good reason. --Xkcd 01:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Xkcd

Cyclone Catarina
...should technically not be on this page. While it should be here in the spirit of the page, Catarina was not a hurricane, but a cyclone, per Southern Hemisphere naming conventions. I hate to play devil's advocate like this, and I would like to hear what others have to say. -Runningonbrains 10:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, we also list 2001's Allison here even though it wasn't a hurricane. To be fair, Catarina never was an official storm by any means, and definitely not a hurricane. I'd support removing it from this list. – Chacor 10:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it should be mentioned somewhere. We could move the South Atlantic basin from the List of notable tropical cyclones into this article, and change North and South Atlantic basin to just Atlantic basin. I think Catarina should be mentioned, though it should be carefully stated like "A cyclone unofficially named Catarina struck Brazil after forming in the South Atlantic Ocean. Its status is unknown, though meteorologists consider it the first known tropical cyclone in the South Atlantic to have winds exceeding 64 knots (74 mph, metric)." Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Including southern hemisphere storms will render useless a number of the categories for "notability" on this page: particularly earliest/latest formations, strongest storms in each month, off-season storms, extreme latitudes and longitudes, seasonal activity. All of these categories include ONLY north Atlantic storms, as they should. South Atlantic storms should have another page or just be merged into South Atlantic tropical cyclone. — jdorje (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A change in plan?
As it is, I don't think there is a good chance for this ever passing FLC, as notable is a bit POV and very vague. However, might it be better changing it to a List of Atlantic hurricane records sort of page? That is a lot more defined, and several of the categories here could stay. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Seeing as the page was moved, I think it should be thought about again. The current title of List of Atlantic hurricanes is completely wrong, as no one ever attempted on this page to list every Atlantic hurricane. I'm going to bring this up on the WPTC talk page, as well, as something should be done. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Whats the difference between a cyclone and a hurricane?
Coz I'm doing a report on hurricanes.Sooo, sorry if I'm bothering people here.. I'll be asking a few questions on this topic. I'm home schooled. I believe everyone here goes to school? Anyways, please reply as soon as you read this k? Koge donboKoge donbo (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In the global sense, a cyclone is a low pressure area in which winds spiral into the center. A tropical cyclone is a specific type of cyclone, which has a warm thermal core and organized convection. When a tropical cyclone attains winds of 74 mph, it is classified as a hurricane in the Atlantic and eastern Pacific Ocean, or in the North Indian Ocean, they are classified as a cyclone. There is much more information on the subject at tropical cyclone. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 14:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Greenland
Has any extratropical storms made landfall or even left some effects on this Island? Alberto (2000) got close.Mitchazenia (8600+edits) 19:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Per this image of the Atlantic best track, it appears one storm struck island, while a few others got close. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This looks odd, one extratropical cyclone got farther north than Hudson Bay. Wouldn't that be a world record? And the only tropical cyclone to get close to Nunavut. If you're confused its the farthest one north on Greenland's west side.Mitchazenia (8600+edits) 20:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What about purely tropical storms? CrazyC83 17:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The closest was Hurricane Erin in 2001, which passed over Greenland about 24 hours after becoming extratropical. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Earliest Formation
I was looking at the earliest formation by storm number list, and shouldn't Stan be at number 19 rather than previous record holder at number 18 to a storm from the same season? Also, Earliest by catagory is a duplicate of earliest from the "Earliest/Latest Formations for Each Category" section. Jelloman 14:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Greek letter vs Phonetic letter
I made a few changes to the page where Subtropical Storm Alpha (1972) was listed as the first storm named after a Greek letter. This is incorrect, as subtropical storms were named after the phonetic alphabet at this time. Besides STS Alpha in 1972, STD Bravo (which became Hurricane Betty), STS Charlie, and STS Delta formed that year... all four named from the phonetic alphabet. 2005's TS Alpha (followed by Beta, Gamma, Delta, Epsilon, and Zeta) came from the Greek Alphabet. Hopefully this clears up this confusion. Senorpepr 15:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

To piggy-back on my previous comment, I just noticed that the list of subtropical storm names (stating them as the first year to use the phonetic alphabet for such storms) is present on the 1972 Atlantic hurricane season page. Therefore, my corrections are essentially a form of horizontal consistency. Senorpepr 15:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracy prior to 1965?
I'm really trying to envision why the year 1965 was chosen as a break for the "years of least storms" lists using some meteorological basis. It's not even consistent with the "years of most storms" list, which goes back to 1878. I only event I'm aware of which happenned in 1965 was unknown to the meteorological community at large for another couple decades. It would have been a defining moment, if known to NHC at the time, which is not clear. If something else important happenned in 1965 that changed the face of tropical cyclone observation, please correct me and add it to the tropical cyclone observation page. Here are a list of years that could be used as a more meaningful break, and have some well-known-to-the-whole-meteorological-community observational change to base it upon.
 * 1943 First year reconnaissance was used for an Atlantic hurricane
 * 1944 First year weather radar depicted an Atlantic hurricane and first full year of aircraft reconaissance.  Currently considered the first year of reliable records in a number of published papers, including Gray'''
 * 1954 First year a rocket viewed a tropical cyclone, or its remains, from space
 * 1957 First year of the United States' radar fence
 * 1960 First year of polar orbiter satellite coverage
 * 1965 First year of high resolution polar orbiter satellite coverage (DMSP).  It was not used operationally by non-military meteorologists until at least 1972.  This is the problem with using 1965.  While it is a milestone, as far as I know, the old imagery has not yet been used to refine HURDAT.
 * 1966 First year of geostationary satellite coverge
 * 1987 First year of satellites with microwave imagers (I think).  Quikscat was not the first.
 * 1995 First year of high resolution geostationary satellite coverage.  Wilma's eye would not have been initially visible using older geostationary satellites.
 * 1997 First year of Quikscat.  Appears to have paved the way for an increased amount of marginal tropical storms to make HURDAT.

The early 1980's have a number of cases which may be added to HURDAT (oh yes, including 1983), a couple of which have supporting recon data. =O The changes in 1995-1997 may have exaggerated the tropical cyclone numerical upturn seen since the mid-1990s in the Atlantic basin. There could be inaccuracies even in more recent years, depending on what your definition of tropical cyclone is. The tropical gale center which followed Lee, before absorbing Lee and somehow becoming Lee in 2005, is a case in point. Thegreatdr 23:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The dates could be changed. The FAQ, an easy-at-hand source [says http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E10.html Here] "both Neumann et al. (1993) and Landsea (1993) recommend utilizing data since 1944 for computing climatological statistics". This would make 1944 reliable for Atlantic. The Eastern North Pacific has "Reliable records go back in this basin to around 1966 when geostationary satellite coverage began." The Western North Pacific has "Reliable records for this basin begin around 1960." There's nothing specific for the southern hemisphere, but the first table starts at 1968-69. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Good find. I suppose that works, but like David said it is easily debatable. Chris Landsea in this paper estimates there was an average of 1 more storm per season than recorded, up through the 1990s. Not sure about EPAC, tho. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The CPC says that "Reliable tropical storm and hurricane data for the tropical eastern North Pacific began in 1971. So, yes, it is debatable. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Unusual Landfalls - United States
Per precedent on this page, I have removed the New Jersey and Virginia headings under the unusual landfalls section. Though these states have a short coastline, landfall in this region is not unusual. The general consensus seems to be that unusual landfalls are decided by a place's unusual latitude or longitude, not the arbitrary length of its coastline. Ua747sp 07:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice source
This NHC source covers all US hurricanes up to 2006. — jdorje (talk) 05:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Intensification?
I know you wrote Humberto set a record for fastest declared depression to hurricane. But I heard it just beat all other storms "within 18 hours of landfall"? -Winter123 00:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The latter is correct (based on NHC wording), though I'm not sure where the former is used. However, given how quickly it strengthened, it could be found in post-analysis that it did indeed achieve the former (maybe for a certain time period). Time will tell (whenever the TCR comes out). Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Just curious
Why is the link to Tropical Storm Allison in the retired names box green? -- § Hurricane E  RIC  archive 21:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone completely changed the template a few days ago. I personally don't really like it, and I would prefer to how it was before. Here is the EPAC retired template - - which is what I based the Atlantic one off of. Here's the new retired Atlantic one -  - and here's the way it used to be - . The new one seems bigger and too robotic, and I guess I prefer seeing it centered with a pic on the top right. But to answer your question, the user who changed the template probably felt that Allison should be differentiated since it was a tropical storm, hence them making it green. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Central Pressure appears to be falling out of favor
From the Hurricane Dean report just released today: "This well-monitored hurricane illustrates some of the pitfalls of using central pressure as a proxy or measure of tropical cyclone intensity." The more I research these amazing systems, the more I agree. Central pressure, while impressive in its own way, is not representative of a storm's true intensity. Andrew had a 922 pressure and was incredibly powerful and destructive. Opal was 25 mph weaker than Andrew at peak intensity but had a 916 pressure, 6 mbar lower than Andrew. Hurricanes Camille and Allen both had the exact same wind speed as Typhoon Tip, Camille maybe higher, but who's regarded as the world's strongest? Reconaissance planes measured surface winds very near 200 mph in Camille, yet it is only the seventh strongest Atlantic storm? If intensity is a measure of a storm's destructive power, then central pressure doesn't cut it. It's a good tiebreaker, but wind speed should decide the final rankings. One of the reasons it's not is that it's inspecific. In terms of raw destructive power, Camille is probably on top and could easily challenge some of the West Pacific's greats. I feel this should be discussed here because it pertains to the rankings in this article. -- § Hurricane E  RIC  archive 22:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Irene Duration
Irene is in the duration table as 18 days. But she "developed into Tropical Depression Nine on the afternoon of August 4" and "became extratropical on August 18". So should be 14? Drop from table or change to 14? (There could be other storms lasting between 14 and 18 days.) Should the duration table have a few dots then list Bertha as longest duration pre August TC? crandles (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Right you are. Irene did not deserve to be in the table, and to be easiest we should keep it at 18 days. We could include Bertha, for monthly records, but I'm inclined to keep the list to just overall longest. After all, Bertha already has its records in its article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Atlantic-Eastern Pacific crossover storms
Do these go Atlantic to Pacific or vice versa or some each way? The table should give some indication. Rmhermen (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Joshua?
While reading up on this article, I found two strange pieces of information. In the Earliest formation records section, it reads "Joshua is awesome", and under the Naming section, it reads "joshua is my bro". Both were written by 76.100.49.205. I have removed the useless information, if anyone wants to discuss this, please do so. Kael-kun (talk to me?) 21:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What's there to discuss? Good work! Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

ATTENTION!
For anyone who cares, I took the necessary move to convert this to a dab. The majority of the content was placed into List of Atlantic hurricane records, with List of costliest Atlantic hurricanes and List of Atlantic-Pacific crossover hurricanes. Send hate mails here. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case a vast amount of work is needed to fix all the links in each article (particularly see-also) to go to the correct sub-page. — jdorje (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

What about Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana?
What are we? Chopped Liver?

Florida and Texas aren't the only states that periodically get waxed by hurricanes.

The LA/MS Gulf Coast hasn't completely recovered from Katrina.

The human and economic damage that hurricanes do to these states can't be understated.

They devastate princes and paupers alike as is evidenced by a photograph of what used to be Senator Trent Lott (R, Miss. retired) house in Pascagoula, MS.

After Katrina hit, the national media made it sound like New Orleans was where the real damage was and Mississippi had a few trees down. The truth is we had whole towns wiped off the map.

Jamessavik (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Be bold! Assemble one (or all) of these lists on your own. ––bender235 (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, I know how you feel. Not sure why they have entries for NC and MD, but none for VA.  But I don't have the knowledge to set it up myself.  Oh, well.  FideliaE (talk) 12:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)