User talk:Thegreatdr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a Wikipedia user page.

This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thegreatdr.

Contents

[edit] Re: ST in Eastern Atlantic

There's a better than even chance they'll be adding the system in as an unnamed ST after the fact...found that out yesterday. Its central pressure was at least 1004 hPa as of last night. It would be a shame for them not to recognize this system, when Andrea, Barry, and Jerry were recognized as sub/tropical cyclones with significantly worse satellite signatures. The IR temps of the thunderstorms northeast/east of the center of this cyclone dropped down to -70C, and the system was non-frontal, for 2-3 days. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for your meteorological input. I agree completely how it would be a shame if it was not included; I saw a comparison between Andrea and the storm, and indeed this one looked better. Also, your post on the 2007 AHS talk page was certainly welcome! :) My comment was to the user speculating about Olga (which was unrelated to the discussion). But yea, thanks for the heads up. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] GA passages

[edit] Your GA nomination of Hurricane Cleo

The article Hurricane Cleo you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Hurricane Cleo for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Rt. 14:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Effects of tropical cyclones

replied on the article's talk page. kindly have a look! Sushant gupta (talk) 07:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

kindly have a look at the talk page. Sushant gupta (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
congrats, i have passed it. Sushant gupta (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Climate of North Carolina

First off, great job on that article, your really improving it. Secondly, since you seem knowledgable on weather, do you know where I could find a public domain image showing North Carolina's climate. I thought the one showing the world was too broad. Thanks! --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Not offhand. There may be one out there though...do a google search for climate zones and NC, and you may get lucky. Even though I'm a meteorologist, I don't know where every image is offhand. I do a google search just like anyone else would. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I made my own picture and uploaded it. Climate of North Carolina is now a GA nominee. Thanks for all your help to the article! --Mr.crabby (Talk) 20:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Volcanic ash

Great work on getting the volcanic ash article up to GA status. Joyous! Talk 23:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your GA nomination of History of surface weather analysis

The article History of surface weather analysis you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:History of surface weather analysis for comments about the article. Well done! Juliancolton The storm still blows... 17:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Flossy 1956

Yes, it looks much better, and thus I passed it. Thank you for your hard work in improving it. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 13:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GAN on hold for Hurricane Ione

Another overall good article that needs a few tweaks. I left some notes on the talk page. Keep up the good work! Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GAN on hold for Bounded weak echo region

Great job on Bounded weak echo region. It just needs a few more tweaks to get it up to Good article status. I have left notes on its talk page. Good luck, Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've passed the article. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GAN on hold for Hurricane Isidore

I am also reviewing Hurricane Isidore for GA. I have left some notes on its talk page. Overall, it just a few more references. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I passed the article. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GAN on hold for Surface weather observation

I have put the GAN on hold for Surface weather observation. I left some on the talk page, the article needs some work. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I passed the article. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your GA nomination of Monsoon trough

The article Monsoon trough you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Monsoon trough for things needed to be addressed. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The article Monsoon trough you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Monsoon trough for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Your GA nomination of Hurricane Lili

Your adopted good article nomination for the article Hurricane Lili has passed , see Talk:Hurricane Lili noting my passage of the article. Fantastic job on it! Hello32020 (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your GA nomination of Jet stream

The article Jet stream you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Jet stream for things needed to be addressed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TC rainfall questions

[edit] Tropical Storm Elena (1979)

I was wondering whether there would be an upcoming rainfall map for Tropical Storm Elena in 1979. I am writing an article on it, and those maps look ever so pretty :) --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I can tackle that tomorrow. Elena's rainfall pattern will likely look like Gabrielle's from this past year. Looks like the system made landfall, then went right back offshore on satellite imagery. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, very interesting, and thank you much! --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
As always, thanks a lot! --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Someone's on the ball. You saw it right after I posted it online between the 12z and 15z surface analysis (1330-1500z). Thegreatdr (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Heh, but it's easy to tell when you update; the last few days, all I had to do was search for 2008 in here. Sure, it's bordering on stalking, but I like being on the ball. ;) --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Another way to check for updates is to reorganize the list by date of modification, which can be done by hitting the "last modified" link twice, to get the most recent additions/changes to the top of the list. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh cool, thanks; that's much easier! --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 central Pacific cyclone

Do these storm summaries, which were issued regarding heavy rain in the Pacific Northwest, have anything to do with the 2006 central Pacific cyclone? Thanks. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Only slightly. Most of the rain came from days of onshore flow into the region, intensified by the next cyclone upstream. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricane Daisy (1962)

Hi. How far back do the rainfall maps go? Juliancolton (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Look and see. I do have some fairly old cases on the website. This page lists them chronologically backwards from the present. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. While it does go back far enough for the one I need, it doesn't have the storm. I was looking for a rainfall map for Hurricane Daisy (1962). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliancolton (talk • contribs) 21:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah...it's not complete past 1975. I'm in the process of dealing with Gracie (1959) now. I could tackle Daisy next. Give me a week. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. You don't have to rush, just as soon as you get a chance. Juliancolton (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Mexican hurricanes/Hurricane Lane

I was wondering when and if you would be making recent rainfall maps for recent Mexican hurricanes. You have 1995-2003 covered very well, but from 2004 to the present, it appears Javier 2004 is the only one with one. The main reason I am asking is because I am taking Hurricane Lane (2006) to featured article status, and those rainfall images are always good additions. I'm assuming the Comision Nacional del Agua doesn't have the data available, but I just wanted to check. Cheers. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked, that data wasn't available. I can check again and see if it is through CPC. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I figured. Thanks. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I have another related question (sorry I keep doing this!). Is United States rainfall data available for Lane or John in 2006? The remnants of both hurricanes brought rainfall to the SW United States. I just thought I'd ask. Cheers. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope your semi-break is going well. In case you happen to come on here and are looking for a rainfall map to produce (heh), is there any chance you could add the United States rainfall for Hurricane Isis in 1998? The reason I'm asking is because I'm taking the article to featured article candidates, and it (as always) would be greatly appreciated. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense, and hopefully that won't be too bad for you. Thanks as always, and good luck with Flossie. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Cool! The totals are great. Oh, while I'm here, I just wanted to point out that on the tcwest page, you list Liza (1975), but I think you meant Liza (1976). Also, the graphic at the top of the page excludes Washington and Oregon, but seeing as you include them for Ignacio, they should be colored as well. Oh, did you see that Hurdat was updated to 1920? It's not like it's up to 1950 yet, but it's the first sign of progress for a while. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Also, just to let you know, the link to the colored-filled map needs to be fixed. Currently, both maps (the one with the lines and the colored-filled one) link to the one with the lines. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, I see Hink had already asked you about this. By the way, do you have rainfall maxima for John / Lane / Henriette / Dean for Arizona? I'm trying to get List of Arizona hurricanes up to date, yet I don't know where I can find that rainfall data. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kenneth (2005) and Ginny (1963)

When time is available, I would like to suggest Hurricane Kenneth (2005) as a rainfall distribution map. A future article on it is being made my Hurricanehink and me and a map would be a a nice addition for the article. I don't mean to like cause overwork or a backlog etc so I don't think its urgent or a rush.

Also, unless there is something wrong with my computer/browser, the Ginny 1963 link gives a 404.

Thanks again. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to look into data after 2004. The data we received from SMN did not have enough info after that year (retrieved in 2006). As for Ginny, the page and graphics should be there. I'll check that out when I get to work tomorrow. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I believe Miss Madeline means Kenneth's rainfall in Hawaii. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
That map's already there, isn't it? Thegreatdr (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This page says the only Hawaiian rainfall map is Paul from 2000. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Something else for the list then. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Heh, thanks as always. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes

Hi. As you may or may not know, List of Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes is on AFD. As the author of this article, I am looking for a source that signifies Category 4 hurricanes so I can prove my articles notability. Do you know of any good sources that focus mainly on Category 4 hurricanes? Thank you. Juliancolton (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This source explicitly gives Saffir-Simpson hurricane category impacts for hurricanes that affect the United States, listed at the bottom of each storm section. For instance, NC2 at the end of the storm file segment would indicate an impact of category two winds on North Carolina from that cyclone. For many years (through the 1980s), hurricane categories were only used for landfalling storms. During the past decade or so, the hurricane center and media mention hurricane categories even for storms out at sea. I don't know offhand of any official source that merely lists category 4 or 5 hurricanes. You'll have to go through the link and check for storms between 100-110 knots for category 3, 115-135 knots for category 4, and 140 knots and greater for category 5. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. Would you mind commenting on the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes? Juliancolton (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image source problem with Image:Wayne21-08-19861730ZBD.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Wayne21-08-19861730ZBD.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Shizhao (talk) 03:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An article which you started, or significantly expanded, surface weather observation, was selected for DYK!

Updated DYK query On January 16, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article surface weather observation, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:METEO Active members

User:Juliancolton/Active

[edit] Weather front

Hi. I was wondering if you were planning on trying to get Weather front, an article which you created, to FA. If not, please let me know. Thank you. Juliancolton (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I had no immediate plans for it. If you want to improve it to FA, be bold! Remember, there is no such thing as article ownership on wikipedia, no matter what people may or may not say or imply within the TC project. I've been in a long struggle over the past year or so to improve many articles from stub to start, then start to B, then B to GA. I'm in the GA mode as of late. Extratropical cyclone and surface weather analysis are the only articles I've helped get to FA, so far. Although I've helped tropical cyclone, it apparently still has issues and we've all been struggling to get it to FA for a year or so. The whole FA process (for non-individual storm articles) can take quite some time; in my experience, at least a month per article. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I think I will put Weather front on PR and see what it needs. I didn't know the FA process takes so long, though. Juliancolton (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
It can take quite a while. Some articles don't appear to be in bad shape during GA, but all possible wikipedia flaws become exposed during peer review and FAC, since it requires a consensus to pass it. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Well, if you don't mind, could you take a look at it, and comment on the PR? Juliancolton (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
In this case, I can't. I did most of the work on the article, and really can't be the one to peer review it since it's mostly my own work. Besides, I'd likely miss my own mistakes, which are usually linked to article wording. This is why you don't see me approving many articles for GA within the meteorology or TC project...I've been heavily involved with many of the non-storm related articles and can't be objective. I'm willing to PR any other article you submit, just as long as it is not mostly my work. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Station model

I think I can help with this, but I don't have time at the moment. A couple things that jumped out at me, was I think the lead needs a more definitive opening statement so that everyone understands right away what is it that's being talked about. This is partially ripped off from a NOAA glossary, but I think something like A station model is a symbolic illustration used on weather maps that represents and reflects the weather occurring at a given reporting station. would be a good way to open the article. Also, one other thing I was wondering about, is the article one bit of conflict I think. In one spot it says: a station model is plotted at each point using its surface weather observation. Later is says: Outside the United States, and for station models seen on upper level charts, . I think the aritcle should say one way or the other if they're only used for surface weather observations, or used for both upper level & surface. I'll try to give more feedback later on today or tomorrow. Gopher backer (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NTROP newsletter

Hi. As you may know, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Non-tropical storms/Newsletter was started. If you would like to receive the newsletter, place you name here. Also, we need editors for the newsletter. So, sign up at the nesletter HQ to be an editor, and to help out with the next issue, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Non-tropical storms/Newsletter/February 2008. Thanks. Juliancolton (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Missing meteorology topics

Greetings. I wonder if you could have a look at my page of missing topics related to meteorology? - Skysmith (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Re: Erin 07

I don't see how it's that much different from Agnes 72, Danny 97, Helene 00, or Gaston 04, since they all strengthened back to TS status over land, but them being closer to the coast all made the distinction easier. I saw in the ATCF best track that they called it a 50 kt low, per here. What's your take on that? It's clearly not extratropical, so the question becomes whether to call it subtropical or tropical? Calling it a 50 kt remnant low seems quite unusual, so I'm hoping/guessing that designation was preliminary. What do you think they'll do? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Great analysis, thanks. I wonder why they're so hesitant to call it a tropical storm, then. Or, maybe they're not hesitant. Perhaps they knew it was a tropical storm all along, but they just don't know how it strengthened. After all, they've dealt with their fair share of unusual critters over the last few years. It'd be only fitting to have a tropical storm over Oklahoma. That's interesting about Olga, too. I thought they might re-upgrade it to tropical depression status, but perhaps sometimes they like to keep things simple, and certainly Erin was anything but simple (how would they explain that to the public?). I don't think using the term "remnant low" for NHC basin storms will be a problem, and given that most other basins don't tend to have remnant lows as often (at least, if I recall correctly), then there's no need for worry. Two more things I'd like to bring up, while I'm here. Do you have the Isis 98 rainfall map for the United States ;) Also, regarding Ivan 04 - I didn't really take a part of it, because I still plan in the future to add sub-articles to it, along the lines of Hurricane Isabel. I believe that there's too much information available for just the one article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Isis already passed FA, so that's no longer a problem, and no longer should it be a priority if you have a presentation coming up. I wish you luck with that. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tornadocane

Hi,

I ended up on that article from a mention of the 2003 case in the BWER article. I made Tornadocane more general when I saw that the article was only for the NC case of 1999 as if it was a unique occurence. I'm not particularly aware of the term and I don't really care about a deletion but I just wonder why not merge the info from landphoon to make a more complete article?

Pierre cb (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: California hurricanes

I mainly like consistency and having a short, to-the-point title. Potentially, in the near future, there will be list articles on each state bordering the Atlantic Ocean, all of which have "List of XX hurricanes". "List of tropical cyclones that affected XX", while more correct, is unnecessarily long, IMO. The article deals with, generally, Pacific hurricanes that affected the U.S. state of California. If the occasional typhoon affects the state, then that would just be an exception. It's similar to the NHC including TS Allison in their list of retired hurricane names. In fact, they don't even specify that Allison wasn't a hurricane. Perhaps we could have a project-wide discussion on it (although project discussions don't tend to reach many people). Personally, though, I prefer the simple title of List of California hurricanes. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Re:Reference for tufao in tropical cyclone article

The complete web address is OK. How is the reference broken exactly? Ramisses (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no. I don't fixed that reference, named CWB Taiwan Typhoon. I fixed the reference #72. Ramisses (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of category from your userpage

Hi. In enacting consensus from User categories for discussion, I have removed the category Category:Wikipedians interested in books from your userpage. It was determined in that deletion debate that this category should be depopulated of individuals, but kept as a parent category. If you wish to display a category reflecting your interest in books, please consider one of the specific sub-categories under its umbrella. Thanks, and please excuse the necessary editing of your user page! ----Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tropical cyclone FAC

Just wanted to say great job on improving that article. (and yes, I did change my vote to support ;) ) When I looked at the history of the article before you started working on it, I was very impressed at how much better it is now. Also, just one little thing, you may want to remove the {{done}} templates from the FAC page because graphics like that aren't really supposed to be used on FAC because they slow down page load times. Again, great job! Regards. Thingg⊕⊗ 16:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Same here. I feel the article now meets the FA standards, and so I changed my vote to support. Good job. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 16:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You've done a ton of work there, and I think people should take a second look at it. The FAC process can get quite draining at times, especially when the first few votes are opposes or comments. Great job taking care of the objections so far, and I agree that third time should be a charm. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Congrats on the FA!

Well deserved. ---CWY2190TC 20:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Barnstar

Aw, thanks! The red is quite bold! Is that supposed to be representative my boldness in tackling TC articles? :) ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, I prefer my theory. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Southern Oscillation

Rainfall patterns in the United States is greatly improved. Thanks for your extensive (footnoted!) contributions. Having said that, you are clearly the expert and the best judge of what goes there. I get lost watching the weather channel!  :) My only axe was to try to get Wikipedians (where legal. No OR, I realize) to use El Nino comparisons against El Nino from prior years. It irks me that the media tries to get our attention with these gee whiz statements implying global warming is the culprit when it's just as likely a known fluctuation in the Southern Oscillation. Student7 (talk) 22:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Once, I contributed to the climate change article. It was an experience I dare not repeat. It is the clearest case of WP:OWN I've ever seen within wikipedia. Experience with editing articles like that is enough to put off anyone from contributing to wikipedia articles. With that said, there's something more than El Nino/La Nina going on with the global SSTs. In the northern hemisphere at the beginning of January, nearly the entire Atlantic and Pacific (outside the cool La Nina tongue in the eastern tropical Pacific) was above normal. At least lately, a cool patch has developed in the central tropical Atlantic. All of this cannot be due to the multi-decadal SST oscillation either. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, you are the expert. You should know. Still, it is warmer here in Florida than usual, and dryer, consistent with La Nina. In Vermont, there is a LOT of snow, also consistent with the same phenomenon. Neither of these matches well with years when the temperatures averaged lower (Florida) or there was significantly less snow (Vermont). If you are saying that it is okay to average all figures together knowing that it is comparing apples against lemons for a political purpose of demonstrating global warming (even the meteorologists agree with the political scientists on that one. Just differ on what is causing it), then I would respectfully demur, but defer to your better judgement. Student7 (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: List of wettest tropical cyclones in the United States

Thank you. I hope you didn't have to make long-distance phone calls to get the information. Whether you did or not, I'd like to say that you do a lot for the encyclopedia.

I added widths to the tables by adding "width="X%"" (less the outside quotes, where X is some percentage). You can see other examples at Help:Tables#Width, height. Sorting is at Help:Sorting, although I'm not sure it will work at the List of wettest US tropical cyclones by state because of columns spanning more than one row and vice versa. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] BWER

Hi,

You have done a great job finding references for the BWER article. I have one point to make though. You have taken out the mention of the date McGill radar has begun to have an overhang alogrithm (late '80s) by saying that it was not Doppler before 1993. I must remind you that BWER and overhangs are reflectivity features and do not need velocity data to be performed. McGill radar has been built in 1968 as a conventional S-Band radar and a software to treat data digitally has been developped into the 1980's to replace the analogic displays. One module of this program has been for overhang detection by simply comparing reflectivities at 7 km with those at low level using Cappis. I'm working in Montreal Weather Office of Environment Canada since 1984 and I can assure you that this algorithm was used since. On top of that, I've done my Master degree at that radar. Pierre cb (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I figured out the mistake concerning Doppler in Canada soon after I made the change...which was 1985 not 1993. And you're right about BWERs...any radar should be able to capture them. My problem (and that of the GA reviewer) was that references were not provided for that line, and I could not find one on the internet. If your masters is such a reference, or you know of a text reference, readd the date wording, providing your master's or the appropriate paper/book as the reference. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I did Master much later an not on that algorithm but I know the person who developped it. I will ask him a reference. Pierre cb (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Climate of Florida

I misunderstood what you had meant by the original wording of the snowfall section, which is why I went and found the references (from List of snow events in Florida, which gets a lot of attention when it does snow here in the state). While I understand your concern about "people of European descent", it is incontrovertible that 1774 was the earliest recorded snowfall in the state, which is why I added that qualifier. It's relevant, and it's silly to let political correctness dictate what can and cannot appear in an article. I think the data you re-added, about the earliest and latest recorded snowfalls during a calendar year are still a bit confusing, but I need to think about how to reword those two sentences. Horologium (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: List of wettest tropical cyclones in the United States

Lists are a fickle fiend. They are articles, meaning they need a lede, as well as some stuff to explain the lede in depth to make it comprehensive. Using tables are a great way to fill it up and list every item in the series (or top amounts, such as in List of wettest tropical cyclones in the United States). However, some accompanying text is needed to explain the tables. As an extreme for a list, List of Florida hurricanes is much more like an article, as there are only a few tables, and the majority of it is explained in prose & paragraph form. Some lists, such as yours, are largely sufficient with tables. Indeed, the FL/FA process is a great learning experience for what and what not to do in the future. I clarified my position as support on the FLC, and I hope all goes well. It has two supports, and no outstanding opposes, so I am optimistic about its candidacy. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Surface weather observation

With regard to the surface weather observation article, I'm glad you took the time to make improvements to it. However, saying another editor's work ruins the format of the article doesn't seem to respect the collaborative nature of the project. I think the article looks fine the way you changed it, but describing my work as ruining the article's format is a bit hard for me to swallow.

On a related note, if you'd like to have a look at a table I'm developing in my userspace, I'd be interested in your opinion. I need to condense it somewhat and break it up into more than one table (it's too visually massive as it is), but I think the article needs a better explanation of the METAR code. Please let me know what you think. --SSBohio 20:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:St. Patrick's Day

Wow, I didn't know that. Thank you for informing me. Happy day-that-would-otherwise-be-St. Patrick's Day to you too. Juliancolton (Happy St. Patrick's day!) 22:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Thanks for helping with Jerry

No problem, I'm happy to help. I can never remember the NCDC event report site either, so I just usually go to the NCDC homepage and direct myself from there. Good luck with getting it to GA. Juliancolton (Happy St. Patrick's day!) 19:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the barstar! If you need help with another article, just tell me. Juliancolton (Happy St. Patrick's day!) 20:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Invite

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Florida State University, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Florida State University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! ~~~~

 
Jccort talk) 19:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Addressed Your Criticisms

I believe I've dealt with all of your listed problems for Charley. TheNobleSith (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the TCR has plenty more information, so even 5 TCDs could be easily used. As for the references, while Cite web is prefered, the references have to state the author, the publisher, and the access date. Charley isn't a bad article, but it just doesn't meet GA standards. Also, the writing is just not up to the WPTC standards. If you want, I could work on it in my sandbox, and I could explain how it could be expanded. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 14:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've cleaned up those TCR and NHC references, along with the writing,etc. Check it out, and thanks for your help.TheNobleSith (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


Ok, finally finished with the references. Darn that took awhile. You'd think they'd have some sort of automated way to do that.TheNobleSith (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If they do, I'm unaware. I'll take a look at it in a bit. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricane Fox (1952) and other miscellaneous details

I recently finished this article. Do you want to review it? You have always been an excellent contributor to meteorological articles, so you'll have the honors for this one. On another note, what do you think about Erin's TPC designation over Oklahoma in HURDAT? I think the "remnant low" listing may refer to a mesoscale convective system. That may be the classification in the upcoming TCR. Feel free to offer your thoughts, unless your profession prohibits it. CVW (Talk) 20:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Barbadosdustgraph.gif

Thank you. MECU≈talk 00:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:LOTD

Congratulations on getting what appears to be your first successful WP:FL during the last month. You may want to get involved in our List of the Day and List of the Month experiment. Feel free to help us select next months lists at User:TonyTheTiger/List of the Day/voting/200805 or nominate your list for consideration to be a LOTD in June at User:TonyTheTiger/List of the Day/Nominees/200806.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricane Hall of Fame

I've been working on the Tropical cyclone WikiProject for almost four years now and I know that at times it can be pretty draining. Hurricanehink and I started a fun little thing two years ago called the Hurricane Hall of Fame (based on a concept I'd created much earlier). It works just like any other Hall of Fame: every year, five storms are voted in based on notability. Up until now, the voters were just me and Hink and the honorees were just Atlantic storms. Both of those are changing (hopefully). I'm trying to get more Project members involved in the voting and I'm going international this year. This ballot is for the Eastern Pacific. Following this election, I'll send out ballots for the Western Pacific and then perhaps the Indian Ocean...all leading up to the Atlantic ballot early this summer. I'd really appreciate your participation. It's just for fun; something to lower stress levels. I'll announce the winners next weekend. The nominees are...

  • 1939 Long Beach Tropical Storm - Only tropical storm to make landfall in California in the 20th Century, killed in excess of 40 people at sea and in floods.
  • 1959 Mexico Hurricane - deadliest Eastern Pacific storm in history, 1000-1800 dead.
  • Hurricane Tara - killed over 500 people in floods in central Mexico.
  • Hurricane Liza - over 600 people were killed in devastating floods in Baja California.
  • Hurricane Paul - slow-moving storm left over 1000 dead in Central America.
  • Hurricane Iniki - most damaging hurricane in Hawaii's history, causing $2.6 billion in uninflated damage.
  • Hurricane John - longest lived tropical cyclone ever recorded worldwide; 31 days.
  • Hurricane Ismael - caused devastating flooding that killed 116 people in Mexico.
  • Hurricane Linda - strongest Eastern Pacific storm ever recorded.
  • Hurricane Pauline - devastated Mexico, killing 230 people and causing $7.5 billion in damage.
  • Choose three of these that you most want in. Post your votes on my talk page. The five top vote-getters will be inducted.

-- §HurricaneERICarchive 01:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)



[edit] GA for climate: lead!

I note that you were the nominator of this article. I know virtually nothing about climate but I can still see it blatantly fails the GA criteria by virtue of its lead being too short. Given the number of articles on your user page I'm surprised (and somewhat concerned, though I'm getting used to the idea that nobody understands leads) that you didn't realize this yourself before nominating. Richard001 (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that's enough now. It's really more the length than the exact number of paragraphs; I would say it should be at least 10% of the total article length in most cases. I'd like to see the guidelines reflect this, as they currently seem to imply a lead can be 'expanded' by simply breaking a paragraph into two. Richard001 (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GAN of Tropical cyclone track forecasting

I'm afraid I had to quick fail this article. See the talk page for my reasoning. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)



[edit] 1949 storm deadliest of all-time?

I noticed that time given for the "1949 Eastern Guatemala flood", which killed 40,000 people according to EM-DAT, is less than a week after Tropical Storm #10 stagnated over the country for three days. There's no way the two cannot somehow be related. It might be similar to Hurricane Stan where the weather around the storm helped out, but this could really throw a wrench in the list of deadliest Atlantic storms (or the deadliest Eastern Pacific storms). Could you offer me some professional insight? -- HurricaneERIC - Class of '08: XVII Maius MMVIII 00:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

NHC is very sensitive about Stan...but I could bring up the 1949 event to Eric. I was unaware of it myself. Stan of 2005 was the only weather system in the area at the time...there was no other upper low and it was not embedded within a larger monsoon-like low pressure area. When you see the wording "monsoon flow" they were just talking about the broad southwesterlies on the south side of its large circulation. Thegreatdr (talk) 09:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
(Yikes, sorry, I forgot some people reply on their pages). Yeah, the whole Stan thing sounded a little farfetched. I'm glad the full death toll is given in the article. As for 1949, I'm not sure what to think. The earliest exact date I've seen is October 18, which is pretty far removed from Storm 10's last day in Central America; Oct 1. However, the implication seemed to be that these flooding rains had been going on for a while. The MWR doesn't mention anything about destructive floods in Central America. Hink found an enthusiast's page that prominently mentions the storm as having "devastated the Yukatan (sic) Peninsula, Honduras and Guatemala before striking Texas." Also an article from the Natural Hazards Center on Hurricane Stan includes the following statement: "The western highlands and south Pacific coast...had been relatively free of major flooding and landslides since a Pacific hurricane in 1949." Maybe Storm 10 was just the kickoff of a very bad month, but I find it hard to believe that not a single one of those 40,000 deaths was attributable to that storm. -- HurricaneERIC - Class of '08: XVII Maius MMVIII 20:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure it did. I had a feeling when I started looking at newspaper dates that there was another system involved, but that storm probably did cause at least some destructive flooding in what was a catastrophically wet month for Central America. Thanks for the information. -- HurricaneERIC - Class of '08: XVII Maius MMVIII 03:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Icons

All you got to do is use the following code:

<div style="position:absolute; z-index:100; right:40px; top:0px;" class="metadata"> 
{| style="background-color:transparent;border: 0px"
|-
|{{click|link=Hurricane X (XXXX)|image=Symbol support vote.svg|width=15px|height=15px|title=This user wrote Hurricane X (XXXX), a Good Article.}}
|-
|}
</div>

To have more than once icon, just repeat the |{{click|link=... as many times as you need it. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It looks good.  :) Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Effects of Hurricane Dennis in Alabama

Thanks for giving that article a look. I felt I could no longer be unbiased. I trust your judgment, and so I passed it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia meetup

As someone who may live or work near Washington D.C., you may be interested - if you've not heard already - about the meetup scheduled for Saturday, May 17th, at Union Station. For details, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 4.

You are receiving this automated message because your userpage appears in Category:Wikipedians in Maryland. Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 19:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hey. I logged in and saw that Lili had passed with your help. Thanks alot, I shouldn't have left it like that. Happy editing. TheNobleSith (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)



[edit] 1981 AHS

Would you be up to a collaboration on getting 1981 AHS to Featured Article status? Its turning out very well so far and I feel it could be even better. Thanks!Mitch32contribs 21:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That reminds me, I do need the depressions for 1979 and 1982 if possible as well.Mitch32contribs 22:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Something's off, 27 depressions were recorded in 1979, and 7 were supposedly formed in 1982. Why does 1982 only have 2 listed?Mitch32contribs 22:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Correcting self-- Well, I meant to say there was 9 depressions (6 storms and 3 depressions) according to [1] - Page 3 says there was 9 depressions in 82.Mitch32contribs 10:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Then go by the source, and check the daily newspaper entries every day during that hurricane season to find them. I can search the maps at work, in case any got near the United States, tomorrow night. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
1979 AHS had supposedly ...27... depressions that seasons. Something tells me 17 depressions that didn't strengthen into storms seems a little off. I know Hurricanehink has said to me that a few may have not existed in real time or were just lows, but you have better access. But yeah, when I added the depressions to the button bar, they added up to 22, and that I got from news sources.Mitch32contribs 20:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(indent reset) - With that in mind - how would feel about working on a TD 8 (1981) article? Seeing it was more destructive than Dennis, I think it might have the notability for one. Anyway, I'll keep looking over 1981 for other things.Mitch32contribs 20:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I put all the information that I found onto the TC rainfall page and that depression entry within the wikipedia season article. Unless more information is found, we might want to keep its history only in the season article. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1983 AHS

Please don't FARC this, I have no idea what to do with TD6, it was dropped by the NHC and didn't appear in the MWR. If Tropical Systems of 1983 existed, it would be easier. However, it doesn't and I'm stuck currently.Mitch32contribs 19:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding??? A 1983 AHS unnamed storm? WOW! If its true, that'll be beautiful.Mitch32contribs 19:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1987 AHS

What do you have outside details on TDs 9 and 14 - all are listed in the article, but have nothing but news sources. Do you have any official sources on the remaining depressions? (1, 4, 6, 8, and 11)? Also, I'd like to go through these for 1980, 84, 85, and 86 as well.Mitch32contribs 19:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricane Gracie (1959)

Hey, seeing as you got it to GA and you're in the know, I was wondering if you knew anything about the retirement of Gracie in 1959. The newest press release that mentioned the 2007 retirements also indicated there have been a total of 70 retired names; we have 71, and I'm guessing that discrepancy involves Gracie. The NHC list of retired names, which has been updated for 2007, does not include Gracie. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TD newspapers

I know you actually asked Mitchazenia about this, but I saw your request and found some stuff:

  • Words of Warning says "Tropical Depression — An area of low pressure, rotary circulation of clouds and winds to 38mph"; dated 1986-05-31

I hope this helps. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 04:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead for climate article

Raymond has proposed a structural change for the article which might allow the current length to be reasonable. Even as it stands, throwing one line in the lead per each climate regime could make the lead too long. An editor (could have been Raymond) made a comment during an edit that the lead was too long, due to redundancy, during one of his edits of the article and it was shortened. I'm willing to leave the tag there for the time being...but there needs to be clarification as to what would need to be added to the lead (which is included in the main article) to make the lead a "proper length," so the editors aren't just left guessing. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The template was on the talk page since May 3; I simply moved it to the mainspace where it belongs. Dr. Arritt's edit was simply removing over-specific information from the lead, which doesn't negate the fact that, overall, the lead is too short and does not adequately summarize the main points of the article. To wit, I would personally suggest explaining in more detail the classifications and explaining modern measurements and the current trend of global warming. (After the sentence on paleoclimatology, I think that could be a good spot to discuss current modern recording. After that is the sentence on climate models, which is there already. After the climate models would be a good spot to discuss the trend of global warming.) Furthermore, the way it's currently put together, it doesn't seem very coherent. The flow seems awkward. It's as if each sentence in the lead just summarizes a section of the article but doesn't really put it in any context for the reader. ~ UBeR (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David 1979

On User:TonyTheTiger's WP:LOTD idea, he commented on List of New York hurricanes, saying that Hurricane David 1979's remnants brough heavy rainfall to the Buffalo, New York area. Although, the HPC rainfall map shows the rain's western edge missing the area by miles. If you get the chance, could you look into this? Thanks, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: They've answered our question

Hmm, this new setup is indeed interesting. Personally, I don't like it, but apparently it will help get more comprehensive reviews. It's already caused some issues, so I don't know how long it will last. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Nom of Tropical Storm Alma (2008)

Are you sure nominating it so soon after dissipation is such a good idea? Information is still coming in, as in [2] and [3], added after you GA nommed it. I just don't think that its stable enough to edit with information still coming in (if stability was not a potential issue, I'd probably promote it if I hadn't added to it). It might be good to withdraw it and wait a bit. (Not a GA review, I just think its better to wait a bit longer). Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't really expecting huge changes unless something drastically unexpected is revealed in the TCR... which is probably months away. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know there is no specific advice against submitting an article, but there's been hesitation expressed somewhere (I don't remember where offhand) about doing it in case changes are made in post-analysis. Personally, the most drastic changes possible (in terms of the amount of editing at Wikipedia) would be concluding Alma was really a hurricane or that it never stopped being a tropical cyclone. If I had no reason to think the article would change, I would not fail a GA nom solely for that reason... but it might be an issue for other reviewers. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no specific rule against GANing an article before the TCR; however, it is preferred. Especially considering Alma could have numerous significant changes in intensity, duration and such during the post-season analysis. GA criterion #5 states that an article has to be stable. This doesn't apply to further changes, but rather to edit wars. So technically it would be fine to nominate it, if and only if it is constantly updated with any new or update info that comes along. Granted, if an article is a GA, there is an incentive to update it more often. So, it would be fine either way. I don't see a strong reason to not nominate it now, but it might be a better idea to wait. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Climate references

Hi, I was looking back at my comments at WT:GAN and I realized that they sounded pretty negative toward the article. I wanted to apologize and to clarify that I think the article is well-written. My frustration is with reviews that don't give constructive feedback (eg. "may need wider coverage"). In response to your question about where references could be added, I was referring to:

  1. In the first paragraph of the "Climate classification" section, there is a list with two items sourced (plant hardiness and evapotranspiration), but the others don't have references. It seems a little strange. The paragraph also ends without a reference, although I'm not sure that it needs one.
  2. At the end of the second paragraph in the "Köppen" section, a reference would be good for the definition of a subarctic climate.
  3. Most of the "Climate models" section could use references.

I hope this helps, and congratulations on your Good Article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You have long deserved this

The Original Barnstar
For all your painstaking work determining starting and ending dates for old Atlantic hurricane seasons, as well as your use, collection, and production of rainfall information and graphics, I award you the Original Barnstar. You have long deserved this and now is the time for me to give it to you. Congratulations and keep up the great work! Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tropical cyclogenesis GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I have reviewed Tropical cyclogenesis and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and a related WikiProject to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)