Talk:Hurricane Erin (1995)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which collaborates on tropical cyclones and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.

[edit] Todo

It's more than a stub, but without more content in the impact it should be merged. Jdorje 06:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cat 2 hurricane?

Where's the proof that Erin reached Category 2 status? because all of the other souces put Erin at a Category 1 status. Storm05 17:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The NHC report. Hurricanehink 17:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "proof" or "all of the other sources". The only sources that matter are the TCR and the best-track: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/easyhurdat_5104.html#1995_5 . The best-track clearly shows the hurricane at 80 knots (90 mph) max. The TCR is not referenced in the report so it can't be used as a source. If there is disagrement between the two, you need to find out why. It's possible that the best-track doesn't include the datapoint for the strongest winds. More likely though is that the max winds were changed in re-analysis. — jdorje (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yea, it was 100 mph at landfall, but that was at an in-between point. Erin report. Hurricanehink 17:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

what damaged occured in central Florida??

I don't think that's landfall but it is an in-between point, and BTW that point also says 973 mbar. I find it really annoying that the best-track doesn't include those in-between points for landfalls and max strength that the TCRs do...once some of these storm do get re-analyzed if those data points aren't included it makes it impossible to determine the correct value for max winds. A few storms, like andrew (http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/easyhurdat_5104.html#1992_1), do have these extra points but almost all do not. Even more odd, a few of the TCRs (in 2005 at least) don't have the in-between points for landfalls listed. — jdorje (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, that will be a big problem that hopefully won't happen. Hurricanehink 19:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the top-level reanalysis page at http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/Data_Storm.html does have numerous other forms for the data. The "list of U.S. hurricanes" here does indeed give 973 mbar and 85 knots for Erin's landfall intensity. — jdorje (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That's good. I just hope they will update that, then. Hurricanehink 20:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I really wish they'd update it all in one document. Once the 2006 hurdat update comes out I'd like to update the track map generator to use the complete version (so that it will show andrew as a cat5 at landfall), and it would be nice if all the storms showed their landfall locations and intensities. — jdorje (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] B-class

Seems to fit the standards to be a B-class article, there is a good amount of information in the article. Hello32020 01:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Needs a good copyedit to get rid of all the silly typos like "Jamacia". – Chacor 01:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyedit done, errors fixed, upgrading. Hello32020 01:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think it's quite comprehensive enough to be considered B class. Impact is rather short, there's some stubby sections, and some places don't have sources. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)