Talk:2014 Pacific hurricane season

Weather: Tropical / Eastern Pacific High‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pacific hurricane work group (assessed as High-importance).

North America Low‑importance

	North America portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject North AmericaNorth America articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Hurricane Polo (2014) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 January 2023 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into 2014 Pacific hurricane season. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Specialized archives: Tracking Data \\ ACE calcs

Other basin talkpages (2014): Atlantic - W. Pacific - Central and East Pacific - N. Indian - S. Hemisphere

Hurricane Amanda possible article

Should hurricane Amanda have significant impacts on land following landfall (e.g. produce significant flooding, be at sufficient intensity, kill many people, etc.), an article would be best created at Hurricane Amanda rather than Hurricane Amanda (2014) because none of the other tropical cyclones with the name "Amanda" appear to have been of significance. I just wanted to say that. Dustin (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda is unlikely to hit land. I'm not gonna comment on whether or not Amanda is worthy of an article, but I will say it is the strongest May storm on record. Amanda's article would have no (201$) since it's the lone usage of the name. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say no. Even though Amanda is an amazing storm, breaking many records, it is unlikely to significantly impact land and has not lasted long enough for a Meteorological history-only page. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Yellow Evan: - Regarding impacts of Amanda on land, I have heard of incidents where tropical depressions or the remnants of tropical cyclones have caused catastrophic flooding and had other major impacts, so I think there may be more to come, regardless of whether or not the storm is still an officially classified tropical cyclone once it reaches land. I am not a professional in this field and I do not know how much rain Amanda will actually produce or how strong it will be one it impacts land, but I do think that there is the possibility of some sort of significant impacts occurring in the future. To cut it short, there may or may not be an article created in the future, and I was just saying what we should do if and article was to be created. Dustin (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TropicalAnalystwx13: - I am not asking what you think because, no offense intended, it does not matter what you believe will occur, it matters what does occur. See my comment to Yellow Evan above. What I am trying to say is that we must wait and see. Dustin (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and make the article now. You can always merge it later. There's nothing to lose.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 17:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the records do help bulk up the MH. I don't see any reason not to; it's not likely it's be stubby if we made one. Impact on land is highly unlikely, this storm IMO will be long gone before it comes close to the coast. But in general, it's in the same boat as many recent system worldwide that are epic, but not necessarily impactful. I'd lean toward yes personally. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does look like if we create an article, we probably won't be short on sources. In about two minutes, I found these:[1][2][3][4][5]. I don't know how many of these are duplicates, but still... I think that there are probably enough sources out there already to create an article for the hurricane even if it suddenly dissipated at this very second. Dustin (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are just reharshes of NHC advisories. Those are next to useless. If you're looking for impact, try Spanish sources. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what action is to be taken, I would suggest that we wait until the next NHC update in about three hours. Dustin (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Yellow Evan: - I forgot to say, I did notice the Spanish sources, and so I actually added an external link to the bottom of the season article. Alos, on the "rehash" thing, I am aware that most of those sources do just rehash info from the NHC, but in citing them, we can surpass WP:PRIMARY. Dustin (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We never cite those "rehash" stuff in the 9 years the this project has been around (1000+ GA's). As for WP:PRIMARY, I don't think anyone cares that much about it; to me, it's more of a content issue. Storm article are-subsets of the season, and whenever they're long enough to handle a separate entry, they are created. As for waiting for the next NHC update, it's weakening now, so I don't think it'll mean much. FYI, you don't have to ping me; I have this watchlisted. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 18:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Yellow Evan - What about when there's that one guy who hasn't been a part of the project who has 500,000+ edits who suddenly sees the article? At one point, I saw an editor like that, and it did not end well for me. In this situation, I think that we might be able to work around that policy considering the long-term methods used in tropical cyclone articles; I was bringing up WP:PRIMARY for the purpose of reassurance. Back to the first thing I said, before we try to do anything else, I would advise that we wait about 2 hours and 45 minutes until the NHC releases its next update on Hurricane Amanda. Dustin (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we say that we know it was published, but it's better IMO to use advisories since they're official. Why wait for the next advisory though? This storm is weakening, not deepening, so it's not likely it's going to change much. Granted, there's no rush for an article, given it is fairly far from land (though could provide some moisture to Arizona and California). Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 18:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have read from the National Hurricane Center, it appears that the hurricane is at or near peak intensity and weakening is expected to begin tonight which, at the location of the storm, is 8-10 hours, I believe. If what I read is correct, at least in terms of wind speeds, the Amanda's winds are only 2 mph below Category 5 intensity. Dustin (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the ATCF update did bring it down to 130 knots. Also, looking at the storm itself, it's clearly weakened. I think it's best to re-evaluate tonight, when we are all hopefully less emotional. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been saying that we should wait for hours now. To keep this discussion from continuing non-stop, I think that no one should reply until after the next update is released, at least. Dustin (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The hurricane has started to weaken. Dustin (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been since this morning really. As for the actual article, I don't see why not. TA has a point above and I don't think in this case, it should be awarded based on the MH alone, but I think MH and records combined, it can handle a reasonably sized article. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just so I can get all of this out here at once:

First, I need to be informed on how an actual article for a currently existing tropical cyclone would be set up. Would it just be the same as the summary on its relevant tropical cyclone season's article but with more information?
Second, I need reassurance that other editors would be willing to contribute; not really with tc articles, but with some articles, the article will not grow much beyond maybe Start or C class due to a lack of contributors. It's not super fun to be the only editor on an article.
Finally, I need to know what types of sources would be the best to use. I know about the US National Weather Service and subdivisions, of course, and then there's the Mexican weather service. What else would be good sources to use?

If there's enough information for the task and the conditions are met, I think that creating an article for Amanda would work pretty well. I've already created a redirect at Hurricane Amanda, so I know where it would be placed. I am new to this kind of thing, so sorry if I am asking too much on my first bullet point. Dustin (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need for an article. The storm hasn't affected land, and it has only lasted three days. Despite the extreme intensity, the meteorology history has been rather boring. Furthermore, Amanda is the first storm of the season, so the season article is fairly short right now. Whatever additional info that would be in the season section. If you want to make an article, at least wait for the storm to dissipate. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I will do whatever is best (at least on that last part). Dustin (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a second thought, what Hink said is reasonable. In answer to your question, more or less yes. Secondly, there is no guarantee. Thirdly, mostly the NHC and spanish sources for preps/impact. But now that I think Hink is somewhat right. We need to link at this retrospectively. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. However, in the event that this storm does make landfall, feel free to start an article. But unless it happens, we need to watch things play out. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I always try to look at it from a perspective that looks at how much can fit into a regular summary/history on the main page. I don't think it has done more than will fit into the season page. It hasn't affected land (other than maybe a few waves/rip currents), I don't think it has caused deaths, and it has been pretty average in regards to its lifespan. The only abnormal thing is the intensity, and I think that could easily be covered in the write-up on the main page. So, I would not be in support of an article. United States Man (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are we seriously going to do this again this year...? If there's enough info, go ahead and make an article. If not, don't. Simple as that. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with this kind of discussion once per year :P But long story short, there are arguments for and against an article. The more I think about it, the more I think it's probalby best to wait a bit to make an article if at all. As of now, it can handle it's own content, partially since there's only one storm. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 18:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should probably wait a bit longer until we do anything; we can pass judgement then. Dustin (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I do not see anything about Amanda that cant be covered in the main article here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the current time, there is not a huge amount to write about Amanda. However, we should wait to see if more information becomes available in the coming days to months. I created this section with the purpose of saying "if" we create an article anyway. Dustin (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-breaking spaces

I don't know why you keep on removing the non-breaking spaces, but this is getting really irritating. Line breaks will occur in places where it messes with the appearance of the text, and I am not happy to see that my last comment was ignored with no explanation given. Non-breaking spaces are represented by " " and have a reason. See WP:Non-breaking space. You don't want line breaks to occur within dates or measurements. You wouldn't, for example, want a line break to occur between "May" and "26." So instead of entering it as "May 26," you would enter it as "May 26." The same goes for measurements; instead of entering "100 mph," you would enter it as "100 mph." Please, at least give me a reason for which you are removing the non-breaking spaces. Dustin (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "you" in this case? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Yellow Evan: United States Man and Keith Edkins were removing the non-breaking spaces. Maybe they weren't aware? In any case, I hope that the issue will be quickly resolved. Dustin (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I don't think they were removing them on purpose. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally i do wonder if it honestly matters? My browser (Firefox) doesn't break them these days and at least 1 date script that i know off removes them for various technical reasons.Jason Rees (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the MOS requires them. Though I don't think it matters much. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that it is not difficult to add them or work around those that already exist, I don't think we should be removing the  s. Dustin (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, another new season, another rule is suddenly enforced, it's Tropical Cyclone Mao time again! The problem I (and perhaps others) face is that I generate the entire Current Storm Information paragraph afresh for every upload from a spreadsheet, and the format stays the same until I observe a need to change the spreadsheet. So it was still generating the same format I agreed (not without a similar free and frank exchange of ideas) with United States Man last year, when the   question wasn't raised. I don't know where Dustin's "last comment" was posted, but I haven't seen it and wasn't aware of the debate until this thread showed up on my notifications button. I have now updated my spreadsheet to match Dustin's usage, except in the date and time right at the beginning of the paragraph - putting   there is superfluous as it could only have any effect in a ludicrously narrow browser window.

Of course we could resolve this annual discussion by not having the current status sections at all. After all, "Wikipedia is not a newspaper"..."Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events" (my emphasis) (WP:NOTNEWS). The status sections should probably not be created at all.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 14:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A spreadsheet... that would explain a bit. I'll comment on this more later. Dustin (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would using {{nowrap}} make things easier to edit? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To the IPs on the chart dates

I will add that if there was going to be an intermediate advisory, it could be downgraded. I just think it is better for consistency purposes to use a progressive form of system updating; in that way, the same type of updating may be used every time. To the IP, sorry if I frustrated you or something. I just don't feel like listening when you don't give an edit summary. I haven't been in the most excellent mood today, so sorry if I ticked you off or something. Ask for clarification, if needed. Dustin (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Location of 5-day forecast maps

Can somebody say a bit more about the rationale for not putting (e.g.) File:06E 2014 5day.gif on Commons? I don't see that "Time sensitive image, which is likely to be updated over the next few days." is an objection - it's never bothered us in the past, and Commons even has a template {{current}} to cover this eventuality. The obvious drawback of putting these on English Wikipedia is that they are not available to other language wikis.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 08:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't fully think the "{{current}}" thing makes a difference unless we start uploading every version of the file. Dustin (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{current}} isn't supposed to mean "this is bang up to date, trust your life to it", it means "this file is subject to change, don't use it as a permanent fixed snapshot". I mentioned it only as evidence that there is no prohibition on loading time sensitive images to Commons.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 16:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It probably would be best to leave the files on Commons so the other language Wikipedias can use them too. Dustin (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fausto impacts

I don't recall Fausto ever making it even close to Hawaii, but someone has added Hawaii to the impacted locations from Fausto in the Season effects section multiple times now. Could whoever is doing this please give an explanation? Dustin (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it did. Fausto was low-latitude deep tropical storm that was part of the ITCZ, which never comes close to Hawaii. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 18:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Season summary section

Some of the paragraphs in the season summary section don't read very well or appear useful. For example, it implies July was slower than usual "However, activity diminished after Cristina [which was in mid-June], as only one storm attained hurricane status during the ensuing six weeks." However, this has actually been chugging along at a well above-average pace thus far. It still is - if the current disturbance becomes Lowell before August 20, we will it will be earlier than 1992's Lester.

Perhaps it would be better to wait until the season is over? This will allow all climatological contexts and records to become clear. Until then, we can say that the pace has been above average so far and put the bits about Cristina and Amanda into the individual storm sections. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I re-worded the aforementioned sentence. I highly oppose removing the section (I like having elements of past season articles in current ones), rather, I strongly think we should tweak it at a later date. Regarding 1992, you have to remember there were 2 CPAC storms in 1992, while we currently have 1. Also, both 1982 and 1985 are behind 2014 in pace. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 18:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against removing the section either, and the rewritten sentence is better, but the bits about Hurricane ABC being the earliest XYZ probably belong in the individual storm sections. As for CPac systems, our next tropical storm would have to form before August 19 to once again exceed its pace. Also, 1985's Linda strengthened into a tropical storm on July 31, so we are still behind that year's pace, even when we take CPac storms into account. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed one other tidbit. The other sentence I re-wrote I still think is kinda weird. Still, I'd rather have the records in one place than scattered around all the storm sections, but that's just my preference. Regarding 1992, that's pretty doable to have system to form before the 19th. 94C is at 60%, and shear is finally diminishing, though it's IMO elongated, but I won't get any more off topic than I already am. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the seasonal summary if we can get it flowing well with details from NHC/SMN, would be better written as we go during the season.Jason Rees (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(To YE) Storm records ought to be in the section for that storm, because that records is held by the storm. The season summary ought to have facts held by (part of) the season as a whole. For example, if this September is the most active ever, that would go in the season summary section, whereas if TS/H Marie becomes the earliest 17th named storm, it would go in its own section. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is some of the records are seasonal records. Had Storm 1-16 not happened, then Storm 17 would not set such record. Granted, I don't feel particularly strong either way as long as we are consistent and sourced from something else other than HURDAT. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh or Eight?

Today, the NHC declared Lowell as the seventh hurricane of the season. But if we see the article, there are eight hurricanes in the season. So, I'm a little bit confused with that.... -- Byralaal - (talk!) 17:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remember the EPAC also includes the CPHC's AOR, where one hurricane formed (Genevieve). Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what Yellow Evan has said here, I believe it is reasonable to assume that the NHC was regarding the EPac and CPac as separate areas, for seven hurricanes to date have formed in the literal eastern Pacific, exclusive of the central Pacific. The article is just talking about the "Pacific hurricane season", which includes the Pacific east of the International Date Line, the reason for which the article differs. Dustin (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In most NHC's products eyes, yes. From a HURDAT/IBTRACS standpoint, no. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ATCF

Why are we using them to update now? It's preliminary and arguably unofficial and not widely known. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 13:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as far as I remember, the NHC sometimes changes their advisory intensity from the ATCF values; IMO until the advisory comes out, these values should be taken as unofficial (or at least not "official enough" to appear on the article). — Iune (talk) 12:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never use the ATCF for advisory updates. It's not meant to be used in lieu of them, and it frequently changes. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed article for Hurricane Marie (2014)

While this is looking to be nothing more than a fish storm it already has records broken, namely being one of the most intense Pacific hurricanes ever. The article would look similar to what we have for Hurricane Celia (2010). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, though it's not a priority. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and started it, seeing as how Celia has one. This may even strengthen a little more at 0300 UTC this evening. United States Man (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we are clear if we are keeping the article, it has to be at GA Class or better, within 3 months of the TCR being released so that the good topic can be maintained.Jason Rees (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it'll intensify further. Still probs enough for a stand alone article, but not of high importance. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of doubt strengthening as well, but any Category 5, seeing as they are not too common, is deserving of an article. Plus, the way NHC talks, there may be some coastline impacts for the Baja peninsula and California because of how large Marie is. United States Man (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No notability is inherited. However, I think a combination of its intensity and your second point is enough to put Marie over the top (abiiet barely). Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if it gets stronger or not, the pressure already puts it up there with the strongest hurricanes so that is notable there. As for importance yeah it I not high importance seeing that this is just a fish storm. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not a storm impacts people may affect importance, but it does not determine it. If there is highly significant meteorological information concerning a storm and/or this is the sort of storm you can only expect a few of a century, then it would most certainly not be "low" importance. Dustin (talk) 11:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's of low importance is right though. Aside from the 3 deaths and the waves, it was almost a run of the mil Cat 5. And we shouldn't expect a few Cat 5's per century, we should expect more than that. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 11:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Post-tropical" vs. "remnant low"

I meant to say don't make judgments which don't go with the sources. Not all post-tropical cyclones are remnant lows, and as Marie still had winds of tropical storm-force, I find it hard for you to continue calling it a "remnant low" without an official source (NHC) saying so. Can you provide a specific source saying that being post-tropical is the same as being a remnant low? Was Post-Tropical Cyclone Sandy a "remnant low" with winds of hurricane-force, just because it was post-tropical? Cristobal? No. I know those are Atlantic storms, but they were tropical cyclones, which is all that matters here. I think that is enough reasoning to necessitate sources to support this claim. Dustin (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that the post tropical category was introduced because the systems are not Extratropical or a remnant low.Jason Rees (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally considered an alternate term. In Cristobal's case, it was etratropical INIT 29/1500Z 45.5N 47.1W 65 KT 75 MPH...POST-TROP/EXTRATROP. In Marie's case, I guess it was post-tropical arguably, since the NHC wrote "Remnant Low: A post-tropical cyclone that no longer possesses the convective organization required of a tropical cyclone...and has maximum sustained winds of less than 34 knots. The term is most commonly applied to the nearly deep-convection-free swirls of stratocumulus in the eastern North Pacific.", even though the ATCF used the "LO" position, which indicates a remnant low. As for the history behind it, I know the NHC borrowed it from the CHC. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My wording isn't incorrect regardless of what the NHC meant, so I just ask that you consider leaving it as is. By the way, it seems that some sort of "remnant low" parameter has been added to the main storm infobox, so I don't know if that should be used on Marie's actually page to clear this up? Something like that? Well, that's probably a discussion for another talk page... Dustin (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin is right. The NHC officially classified it as post-tropical. Unless there is a source that says it became a remnant low, then it should be left as is. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WPC

Why are we not using their information for advisories and just remove the CSI stuff? We did for Sandy... Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has Ana set any records?

Most northern or one of the most northern cyclones in the central Pacific basin? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. Getting there though. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ana just became post-tropical between the 40 and 45 degree line which is as far north as the California/Oregon border. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few have made it that far north actually. It's within the top 5 though. Problem is we don't have a source. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More active than the typhoon season?

In the article, it says that "The season also featured more activity than the typhoon season of the same year. This had occurred for the first time in history." But as far as I can see, the two seasons are tied for named storms, and the EPac is actually behind in terms of tropical depressions. Also, the typhoon season has not ended yet. What is the criteria for featuring "more activity"? Is it the number of hurricane-strength storms? --Weatherlover819 (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The general standard is named storm. Also, remember that Genevieve crossed over into the typhoon, so if you count it towards EPAC only, it has a slim 22-21 edge. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With only 0 to 1 difference i named storms per JMA/NHC, I oppose any mention of the EPAC having more activity than WPAC.Jason Rees (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine if we got a source. That's a huge if. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With the formation of another tropical storm in the western Pacific, the eastern Pacific clearly doesn't beat the typhoon season, so I removed the sentences in question.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HURDAT and CPAC

Recently we had some questions about Genevieve's official intensity while being in CPHC's AoR, if we should follow the intensities given by CPHC's advisories or HURDAT database while the TCR. I stongly oppose following HURDAT in Central Pacific because they follow NHC's estimatives instead of following CPHC's estimatives, which is the CPAC's RSMC, thereby making its advisories and estimatives the official ones for the basin. There are some discrepancies between HURDAT and CPHC (Emilia in 1994 is a clear example), and in this case we should favor the official RSMC for the basin. ABC paulista (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I'd absolutely disagree with you, but keep in mind that the CPHC never updated their ATCF file (which had 100 knots) until their final advisory package (that increased the winds to 115 knots) came out which means that the ATCF/HURDAT data is operational, arguably more so than the official advisory. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HURDAT follows the CPHC data in the Central Pacific, not the NHC's. It's a joint project between the two warnings centers. The time resolution within HURDAT does not allow for the advisory in question to show up (advisories are at 03, 09, 15, and 21z whereas HURDAT is at 00, 06, 12, and 18z), hence why the intensity has seemingly dropped to 100 kt. HURDAT always supersedes operational advisories since it's refined after the season. Using the advisories simply because it shows a higher intensity is improper given the standard data. It's not our place to choose when and when not to ignore HURDAT. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, explain why 1994 Emilia is considered to be only a Cat 5 hurricane for 6 hours, when CPHC's Best Track data states that it was a Cat 5 for 18 hours. 189.110.114.43 (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Past errors that are not corrected yet. It's a low priority correction since Emilia is shown to be a Cat 5 in HURDAT already. Human error is natural in a database this size. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, given the discrepancy in winds/pressure at the time of the supposed second period as Category 5, it may be a correction to the database that simply hasn't been shown on the CPHC site. The CPHC is notorious for slower updates since they're predominantly a WFO, the status as RSMC for the CPac is a secondary function. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, CPHC always considered Emilia to be a Cat 5 for 18 hours, but in old NHC databases it was considered to be a Cat 4. It was only in 2007 that the database was updated to show Emilia to be a Cat 5, but only for 6 hours. Even the study published last year by CPHC and showed Emilia as a Cat 5 for 18 hours.

But there are more differences between CPHC data and Hurdat, and they are not few. ABC paulista (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ABC paulista: Sorry to go a bit tangential to the discussion on Genevieve...but can you list the discrepancies/errors for me? I'm involved in the HURDAT reanalysis so if I know what the errors are I can notify my boss about them. They may not be incorporated immediately, but whenever we next update the NE Pac HURDAT2 database we can include them. I've already made a note to bring up Emilia 1994 to him. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The HURDAT data isn't re-finded post-season AFAIK in this case, as the most recent edit to the ATCF file is "bep072014.dat 07-Aug-2014 01:51 14K", which was a little over an hour before the CPHC increased the intensity to 115 kots. So idk what to do here. On one hand, the operational advisory is the newer info, yet what it's HURDAT is the most recent data. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An email to the CPHC might suffice to clear this up. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And what we should be asking CPHC, exactly, to solve this question? ABC paulista (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CPHC TCRs

@Cyclonebiskit: @Jason Rees: @Yellow Evan: @Supportstorm: @Hurricanehink: CPHC updated both Iselle's and Julio's TCRs. Please, could you guys update both sections, track maps and Iselle's article? It's not possible for me now, and I don't have the tools to create the maps. ABC paulista (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI NHC not CPHC.~~Source? I can not see the TCRs on the CPHCs page.~~Jason Rees (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iselle's report from NHC now includes the CPHC best track, but unfortunately no analysis: Original report date 29 January 2015. Updated 12 February 2016 to include best track analysis from CPHC.

Julio's report from NHC now includes full CPHC analysis: Original report date 29 January 2015. Updated 11 February 2016 to include analysis from CPHC.

@Jason Rees: When a storm travels on both NHC's and CPHC's AoRs, normally their report are united in one single document. ABC paulista (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ABC paulista: Julio's final track was already updated in HURDAT (strange that it took so long to add to the report); went ahead and updated the track map for Iselle. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyclonebiskit: Actually, Julio's Best track suffered slight changes from CPHC and Iselle's track map here is still outdated, with it's remnant's stage lasting longer. ABC paulista (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ABC paulista: purge your cache, Iselle's map is updated. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyclonebiskit: Now Iselle's map is appearing. But Julio's map is outdated, since CPHC made some changes in its BT as shown in the report.ABC paulista (talk) 12:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ABC paulista: Uploaded a newer version of Julio, only difference between the TCR and HURDAT (at least what was uploaded by Supportstorm) was the first remnant low point. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2014 Pacific hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://smn.cna.gob.mx/ciclones/tempo2014/ciclonesTropicales2014.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/advisories/WDPN32-PGTW_201408071500.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2014 Pacific hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://smn.cna.gob.mx/ciclones/tempo2014/ciclonesTropicales2014.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/advisories/WDPN32-PGTW_201408071500.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.prh.noaa.gov/data/HFO/PNSHFO.1410200650
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutnames.shtml
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.prh.noaa.gov/cphc/pages/names.php
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140903092801/http://www.notisistema.com/noticias/marie-causa-la-muerte-de-dos-personas-en-la-costalegre-de-jalisco/ to http://www.notisistema.com/noticias/marie-causa-la-muerte-de-dos-personas-en-la-costalegre-de-jalisco/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]