Talk:Hurricane Ioke
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Hurricane Ioke is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do. | ||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Hurricane Ioke is part of the "Retired Pacific hurricanes" series (project page), a featured topic identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do. | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
 |
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. |
 FA |
This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones. |
 |
This article has been assessed by editors of the WikiProject. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Micronesia, which collaborates on articles related to Micronesia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||||||
| FA |
This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
.svg/21px-Flag_of_Johnston_Atoll_(local).svg.png){kind=spacer}
[edit] Most intense
It seems that Hurricane John (1994) has incomplete pressure data. Since the winds speed of John was higher, then it seems likely that John had a lower pressure.Reub2000 18:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well you can't simply say that John was more intense than Ioke cause of the wind speeds. In 1994, they didn't have accurate tropical cyclone data as they do today, and even if you re-estimate John's centrsl pressure, you still may not get his accurate pressure. --§ Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody (talk + contribs + userboxes) 18:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well the answer will probably never be known. So it's the most intense hurricane with a recorded pressure in the central pacific. Reub2000 19:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think so Reub. It appears to be due to satellite estimates. If this is true, than John would have a lower pressure estimate since its winds were higher via Dvorak. If there was a measured pressure from an island or ship below 950 hPa, it should be included in this article. Thegreatdr 20:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well the answer will probably never be known. So it's the most intense hurricane with a recorded pressure in the central pacific. Reub2000 19:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reintensification
Now that Ioke is back up to Category 5,(1 min. mean), it makes it the third time it has weakened then reintensified to a Category 5. How often does that sort of thing happen in the W.Pac., as it is a fairly rare occurence in the Atlantic.WotGoPlunk 21:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I wrote this in the record section: "Ioke tied Hurrican Emilia of 1994 by hitting Category 5 status two times, twice as hurricane. Ioke hit Category 5 status again but as a typhoon, thus not counting towards the record.". Does it answer it-This ties Allen and Ivan for hitting Category 5 three times. Tip only hit Cat5 once.Mitchazenia 21:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is clownish to assign human names to things based on an imaginary line. One cyclone has hit category five three or more occasions in it's existence. If that is a record or ties a record, say so. Whether people call it by differing names does not change the physical reality of a physical event.
- This storm has unique qualities, not based on crossing the dateline, but based on physical forces. Coming as it does as the 24th category-3 or higher in the 12 months since Katrina, the uniquenesses need to be highlighted, not swept under a rug of bogus definitions.
- It happens to be aimed at Tokyo, is one unique feature, and if it hits there, the most populous density on Earth, people are going to be very interested in it's history.
- The US stopped keeping archives after it passed out of the Central Pacific. THere are gaps between the CEntral and Guam archives. Japan listed it as a Tropical Depression when it crossed the dateline, even though they listed the winds as cat-5.
- THere are gaps in the public archives, and if no other place exists on planet Earth keeping the incrimental record, then THIS PLACE should. That means finding the interim reports before they are lost and storing them here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.119.178.78 (talk • contribs)
- Typhoon Tip, the most powerful cyclone on record, was aimed for Tokyo too.
-
- It weakened substantially before landfall, causing a handful of deaths and minimal damage.
-
- You simply cannot predict what a cyclone will do more than 3 days out. Ernesto should have taught you that. --Golbez 01:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Isabel also reached Cat 5 three times.
- Because it is an annular hurricane, means that it can maintain a strong intensity for a long period of time. Please sign comments with ~~~~. --IrfanFaiz 12:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- But why are you talking like this? Sometimes predictions are NOT right. And, why are you are complaining about the naming of tropical cyclones and why is it clownish? And what it'll be named? Hurricane Car? Typhoon Bamboo? Cyclone Kangaroo? and with greek alphabets, it will ran out. And JMA, NOAA, JTWC. etc, sometimes wrongly designate storms like i saw some named tropical depressions in the east pacific and a single named depression in the atlantic. This is an online encyclopedia, not a crystal ball (like your overprediction or what Golbez said). And a repeat of Tip would not be possible, i think around 5 storms tried to reach 870 mbar but stuck at 872 or 875 mbar. This storm is uniqe but it depands on the conditions, the area where Ioke was has low wind shear and warm sea surface temperature. Paka for example, it weakened dramatically from a Super Typhoon days after it crossed the IDT. I think this will end up a depression off the coast of Japan and making landfall as a small remnant low causing light to no rainfall. Think again before posting in article's talk pages. --IrfanFaiz 12:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] HurricaneWarning tag
Is this really relevant in this article? Ioke is nowhere near a landmass, and the people on Wake are already evacuated. Until the storm actually approaches somewhere where people could be in danger, could we take this tag out? --Merovingian - Talk 22:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- I couldn't agree more. I'll take the tag out for now. Should anyone contest this decision, respond here with a decent reason. -Tcwd 23:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thanks! --Merovingian - Talk 23:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Retirement question
Can the name "Ioke" be retired for impacts in Asia, which is far out of the Central Pacific? Or can a name only be retired for impacts within its basin? CrazyC83 05:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sure it can be retired no matter where it is. --Golbez 05:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
It's going to recurve north and hurt no one. I don't think it'll be retired. Linda and Monica weren't retired after all... 201.112.93.172 05:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Neither had serious land impacts though...if there was a stronger-than-Wilma fishspinner in the Atlantic (highly unlikely), that likely wouldn't be retired either. CrazyC83 05:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Renaming
Shouldn't this article be renamed to Typhoon Ioke, like Typhoon Tip is? Mace 16:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- No. John of 1994 was left as Hurricane John (1994), means this shouldnt be changed either.Mitchazenia 16:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Our policy, which I think is a reasonable one, is to use the terminology of the original basin; in this case, hurricane. Other similar systems such as Typhoon Paka that formed in the Central Pacific before crossing into the Western Pacific are referred to as typhoons by Wikipedia because they were not upgraded to hurricanes before crossing over. —Cuiviénen 20:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- However, if TY Ioke has a significant impact, I'd suggest the name change might be appropriate.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Why not Hurricane/Typhoon Ioke? RaNdOm26 09:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- You don't see Tropical Storm/Typhoon Paka, do you? – Chacor 09:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I see Hurricane/Typhoon Ele and I see Hurricane/Typhoon John. Also, I don't see Tropical Storm/Typhoon/Super Typhoon Saomai. hahaha RaNdOm26 10:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- That's not my bloody point. Paka was a crossover, and we didn't name it TS (it's max CPac strength)/TY Paka. John 1994 was a crossover, but there isn't a Hurricane/Typhoon John (1994) article. "Tropical Storm/Typhoon/Super Typhoon Saomai" is quite frankly ridiculous. – Chacor 10:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I see Hurricane/Typhoon Ele and I see Hurricane/Typhoon John. Also, I don't see Tropical Storm/Typhoon/Super Typhoon Saomai. hahaha RaNdOm26 10:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- You don't see Tropical Storm/Typhoon Paka, do you? – Chacor 09:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Why not Hurricane/Typhoon Ioke? RaNdOm26 09:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- However, if TY Ioke has a significant impact, I'd suggest the name change might be appropriate.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Our policy, which I think is a reasonable one, is to use the terminology of the original basin; in this case, hurricane. Other similar systems such as Typhoon Paka that formed in the Central Pacific before crossing into the Western Pacific are referred to as typhoons by Wikipedia because they were not upgraded to hurricanes before crossing over. —Cuiviénen 20:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Typhoon Ioke, as well as all similar names, are redirects to the article anyway. CrazyC83 00:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't get it. If Ioke was in both basins, the name of the article should acknowledge Ioke's existence in both basins - Hurricane/Typhoon Ioke. The same applies with John 1994. Look, you even put Hurricane/Typhoon Ioke in the Pacific typhoon season page. I see no good reason why you would want to leave the name as Hurricane Ioke. RaNdOm26 07:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- No. Ioke existed in oth basins - and the CONTENT of the article acknowledges that. We are going by its highest strength - in this case, both hurricane and typhoon, therefore we're going by its formation basin - CPac - HURRICANE. – Chacor 08:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- What a weird criteria for naming a cyclone. Is there a fixed criteria written somewhere for naming crossover storm articles? It's not just the content that matters. People's first impressions on an article is always its TITLE - people only then look at its content. RaNdOm26 09:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- And people know it was both a hurricane and a typhoon. Typing in "Hurricane Ioke" gives them this article; typing in "Typhoon Ioke" redirects to this article. I don't see where you're coming from. – Chacor 09:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- How about typing in "Hurricane Ioke" or "Typhoon Ioke" redirecting to "Hurricane/Typhoon Ioke". If people know it was both a hurricane and a typhoon, why doesn't the title reflect that. People in Asia will be wondering why the article doesn't acknowledge "Typhoon" in the title. If you're thinking that more people will certainly type in "Hurricane" instead of "Typhoon" in their search, you are wrong. RaNdOm26 09:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest you read the Wikipedia naming conventions. – Chacor 09:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- How about typing in "Hurricane Ioke" or "Typhoon Ioke" redirecting to "Hurricane/Typhoon Ioke". If people know it was both a hurricane and a typhoon, why doesn't the title reflect that. People in Asia will be wondering why the article doesn't acknowledge "Typhoon" in the title. If you're thinking that more people will certainly type in "Hurricane" instead of "Typhoon" in their search, you are wrong. RaNdOm26 09:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- And people know it was both a hurricane and a typhoon. Typing in "Hurricane Ioke" gives them this article; typing in "Typhoon Ioke" redirects to this article. I don't see where you're coming from. – Chacor 09:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- What a weird criteria for naming a cyclone. Is there a fixed criteria written somewhere for naming crossover storm articles? It's not just the content that matters. People's first impressions on an article is always its TITLE - people only then look at its content. RaNdOm26 09:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- No. Ioke existed in oth basins - and the CONTENT of the article acknowledges that. We are going by its highest strength - in this case, both hurricane and typhoon, therefore we're going by its formation basin - CPac - HURRICANE. – Chacor 08:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, that took a long time. Finally, something. RaNdOm26 09:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Longevity Records
Since NOAA suggested that "IOKE COULD ENTER THE RECORD BOOKS FOR LONGEVITY AS A CATEGORY 4 OR GREATER STORM". What are the records to be beaten?
Also should ACE be calculated for the storm (wherever located) for comparison to other storms? Hurricane part has been calculated at Talk:2006_Pacific_hurricane_season/ACE_calcs crandles 22:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hurricane Donna holds the record in the Atlantic. I don't know about worldwide. —Cuiviénen 01:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- And ACE is not used in the WPac, so no. —Cuiviénen 01:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree, JTWC, even if not official, is reliable enough to be used to calculate the ACE.
I think Ivan probably holds the record for Cat 4+ in the Atlantic (nearly 8 days), and was just 6 hours short of Donna's Cat 3+ record (and further yet might hold the record for longest time at Cat 3+ in total). So far, I think Ioke has been at Cat 4+ for about 7 days. Pobbie Rarr 01:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Been through List_of_Category_5_Pacific_hurricanes. I couldn't find many details for Patsy, but I am sure Ioke has lasted longer at Cat 4+ than any of the other cat 5 Pacific hurricanes. Anyone know where to find details for Patsy? If Patsy is shorter, is this a record worth mentioning? More research to look at Cat4 hurricanes and Typhoons would seem sensible though. crandles 12:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
So, Ioke is now a Cat 2. Do we know if it broke the record? (The article said it did but the citation did not match the statement) --Golbez 10:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- I would say almost certainly. However, ideally the NOAA or the JTWC will say so. Otherwise its a manual search to see if it can be verified through the best track archives (not easy).--Nilfanion (talk) 10:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Year Storm# Name Dates Wind Presre Category #of 6hr reports at 4+ 1959 11 Hurricane PATSY 6-10 SEP 150 - 5 6 1959 15 Hurricane #15 23-29 OCT140 958 5 7 1973 1 Hurricane AVA 2-12 JUN 140 915 5 8 1994 7 Hurricane GILMA 21-31 JUL140 920 5 7 1994 11 Hurricane JOHN 11 AUG-10 SEP150 929 5 17, 16 consecutive 1997 7 Hurricane GUILLERMO30 JUL-24 AUG140 919 5 15 1997 11 Hurricane OLIWA 28 AUG-17 SEP 140 - 5 14 1997 13 Hurricane LINDA 9-17 SEP 160 902 5 10 1997 19 Hurricane PAKA 28 NOV-22 DEC 160 - 5 27, 25 consecutive 2002 5 Hurricane ELIDA 23-31 JUL 140 921 5 5 2002 10 Hurricane HERNAN 30 AUG- 6 SEP 140 921 5 6 2002 13 Hurricane KENNA 22-26 OCT 145 913 5 5 1957 12 Hurricane #12 20-22 OCT 120 - 4 2 1959 6 Hurricane DOT 1- 8 AUG 130 952 4 12 1967 12 Hurricane SARAH 9-22 SEP 130 933 4 4 1971 4 Hurricane DENISE 2-14 JUL120 951 4 2 1972 3 Hurricane CELESTE 6-22 AUG115 940 4 2 1973 4 Hurricane DOREEN 18 JUL- 3 AUG120 968 4 1 1973 5 Hurricane EMILY 21-28 JUL 120 972 4 1 1974 14 Hurricane MAGGIE 26 AUG- 1 SEP 120 934 4 4 1975 4 Hurricane DENISE 5-15 JUL120 - 4 2 1975 11 Hurricane KATRINA 29 AUG- 7 SEP 115 - 4 1 1976 1 Hurricane ANNETTE 3-14 JUN 120 925 4 9, 6 consecutive 1976 9 Hurricane IVA 24 AUG- 2 SEP 115 - 4 2 1976 13 Hurricane LIZA 25 SEP- 2 OCT 120 948 4 7 1976 14 Hurricane MADELINE29 SEP- 8 OCT 125 941 4 2 1978 3 Hurricane CARLOTTA 17-25 JUN 115 - 4 4,3 consecutive 1978 6 Hurricane FICO 9-28 JUL 120 - 4 12, 6 consecutive 1978 8 Hurricane HECTOR 22-29 JUL 120 - 4 3 1978 14 Hurricane NORMAN 30 AUG- 7 SEP 120 - 4 6 1978 18 Hurricane SUSAN 18-24 OCT 115 - 4 1 1979 5 Hurricane ENRIQUE 17-24 AUG 125 - 4 3 1979 9 Hurricane IGNACIO 23-30 OCT 125 938 4 3 1980 11 Hurricane KAY 16-30 SEP 120 - 4 3 1982 18 Hurricane OLIVIA 18-25 SEP 125 - 4 5 1983 2 Hurricane BARBARA 9-18 JUN 115 - 4 4 1983 8 Hurricane HENRIETTE27 JUL- 6 AUG115 - 4 3 1983 11 Hurricane KIKO 31 AUG- 9 SEP 125 - 4 11, 10 consecutive 1983 17 Hurricane RAYMOND 8-20 OCT 125 - 4 7, 5 consecutive 1983 19 Hurricane TICO 11-19 OCT 115 - 4 1 1984 4 Hurricane DOUGLAS 25 JUN- 6 JUL 125 - 4 8 1984 5 Hurricane ELIDA 28 JUN- 8 JUL 115 - 4 1 1984 9 Hurricane ISELLE 3-12 AUG 115 - 4 2 1984 17 Hurricane NORBERT 14-26 SEP 115 - 4 6, 2 consecutive 1985 9 Hurricane IGNACIO 21-27 JUL 115 - 4 4 1985 10 Hurricane JIMENA 20-29 JUL 115 - 4 2 1985 17 Hurricane RICK 1-12 SEP 125 - 4 7 1986 5 Hurricane ESTELLE 16-26 JUL 115 - 4 6 1986 10 Hurricane JAVIER 20-31 AUG 115 - 4 2 non consecutive 1986 17 Hurricane ROSLYN 15-22 OCT 125 - 4 6 1987 14 Hurricane MAX 9-16 SEP 135 - 4 7 1987 19 Hurricane RAMON 5-12 OCT 120 - 4 6 1988 6 Hurricane FABIO 28 JUL- 9 AUG 120 892 4 2 1988 8 Hurricane HECTOR 30 JUL- 9 AUG 125 935 4 6 1989 15 Hurricane OCTAVE 8-16 SEP 115 948 4 1 1989 17 Hurricane RAYMOND 25 SEP- 5 OCT 125 935 4 5 1990 8 Hurricane HERNAN 19-31 JUL 135 928 4 9 1990 14 Hurricane MARIE 7-21 SEP 120 944 4 4 1990 16 Hurricane ODILE 23 SEP- 2 OCT 125 935 4 6 1990 20 Hurricane TRUDY 16 OCT- 1 NOV 135 924 4 13, 7 consecutive 1991 10 Hurricane JIMENA 20 SEP- 2 OCT 115 945 4 8, 5 consecutive 1991 11 Hurricane KEVIN 25 SEP-12 OCT 125 935 4 12 1992 5 Hurricane CELIA 22 JUN- 4 JUL 125 935 4 7 1992 7 Hurricane ESTELLE 9-17 JUL 120 943 4 5, 3 consecutive 1992 8 Hurricane FRANK 13-23 JUL 125 935 4 6 1992 17 Hurricane ORLENE 2-14 SEP 125 934 4 10 1992 18 Hurricane INIKI 5-13 SEP 125 938 4 4 1992 22 Hurricane TINA 17 SEP-11 OCT 130 932 4 10 1992 23 Hurricane VIRGIL 1- 5 OCT 115 948 4 1 1993 4 Hurricane DORA 14-20 JUL 115 945 4 4 1993 6 Hurricane KEONI 9-29 AUG 115 - 4 4 1993 7 Hurricane FERNANDA 9-19 AUG 125 934 4 7 1993 8 Hurricane GREG 15-28 AUG 115 948 4 5 1993 11 Hurricane JOVA 29 AUG- 5 SEP 115 948 4 2 1993 12 Hurricane KENNETH 5-17 SEP 130 932 4 6 1993 13 Hurricane LIDIA 8-14 SEP 130 930 4 4 1994 5 Hurricane EMILIA 16-25 JUL 135 926 4 15 1994 13 Hurricane LANE 3-10 SEP 115 948 4 3 1994 17 Hurricane OLIVIA 22-29 SEP 130 923 4 4 1995 1 Hurricane ADOLPH 15-21 JUN 115 948 4 1 1995 2 Hurricane BARBARA 7-18 JUL 120 940 4 10, 6 consecutive 1995 10 Hurricane JULIETTE 16-26 SEP 130 930 4 4 1996 5 Hurricane DOUGLAS 29 JUL- 6 AUG 115 946 4 6 1997 6 Hurricane FELICIA 14-22 JUL 115 948 4 3 1997 10 Hurricane JIMENA 25-30 AUG 115 948 4 6 1997 15 Hurricane NORA 16-26 SEP 115 950 4 1 1997 17 Hurricane PAULINE 5-10 OCT 115 948 4 2 non consecutive 1998 2 Hurricane BLAS 22-30 JUN 120 943 4 4 1998 5 Hurricane ESTELLE 29 JUL- 8 AUG 115 948 4 1 1998 8 Hurricane HOWARD 20-30 AUG 130 932 4 10, 5 consecutive 1999 4 Hurricane DORA 6-23 AUG 120 943 4 12 2000 3 Hurricane CARLOTTA 18-25 JUN 135 932 4 4 2001 1 Hurricane ADOLPH 25 MAY- 1 JUN 125 940 4 5 2001 10 Hurricane JULIETTE21 SEP- 3 OCT 125 923 4 7, 6 consecutive 2002 6 Hurricane FAUSTO 21 AUG- 3 SEP 125 936 4 4 2004 8 Hurricane HOWARD 30 AUG-10 SEP 120 943 4 3 2004 10 Hurricane JAVIER 10-20 SEP 130 930 4 9 2005 11 Subtrop Storm KENNETH 14-30 SEP 115 947 4 3
Longest Paka 1997 27 (25 consecutive) 6hr reports at Cat 4+ (but that is a Typhoon). Next is John 1994 with 17 (16 consecutive) 6hr reports at Cat 4+.
Is that enough to put the record in? crandles 19:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- How many did Ioke have? --Golbez 23:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Looking at the track map, I make it 31. So Ioke would indeed take the record. Pobbie Rarr 02:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a manual trawl of Best Track data. I would hope that Best Track [2] could be cited rather than throwing out as original research. crandles 17:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Longest in other basins:
- South Indian 1994 Storm #20 20 6hr reports at Cat 4+
- North Indian 1999 Storm #5 6 6hr reports at Cat 4+
- Atlantic 2004 Ivan 34 (33 consecutive) reports at Cat 4+
crandles 00:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I count 32 from Ivan but that sounds like the world record. I count just 28 from Ioke and 25 from Paka. These are all consecutive. I did not count seperate, shorter stints at 4+. After all, the record is for consecutive time as a 4+ storm. Longest time spent as a major hurricane is undoubtedly the 1899 storm with 47 consecutive 6 hr periods as a major hurricane but spent most of that time as a 3. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 21:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Is that official for the San Ciriaco Hurricane or just probable? You see, Wikipedia currently has Donna down as the record-hollder in the Atlantic. Pobbie Rarr 22:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- I count 32 from Ivan but that sounds like the world record. I count just 28 from Ioke and 25 from Paka. These are all consecutive. I did not count seperate, shorter stints at 4+. After all, the record is for consecutive time as a 4+ storm. Longest time spent as a major hurricane is undoubtedly the 1899 storm with 47 consecutive 6 hr periods as a major hurricane but spent most of that time as a 3. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 21:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Advisory 20 to 29 is 10 ending 08/26/17Z [4] then on [5] there is advisory 31 to 51 which sounds like it should be 21 but 3 are missing 36, 39, and 46 so there is only 18 listed 18+10 =28 but if you count the missing 3 then it is 31. Then there is the question of number 30: 31 is listed as being at 08/27/12Z so it looks like there is a 19 hour difference since advisory 29. So I am struggling to work out whether it is 31, 32 or 33 6hr advisories. 08/24/11Z to 09/01/12Z looks like it ought to be 33. crandles 20:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] NWS Data
JTLYK, the NWS has a observation site on Wake Island, which will provide good data in the coming hours. Here's the most recent observations, and here's where that came from. The question is, how can we source it so we can put it in the article? Hurricanehink (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] First Cat 5 CPAC?
I am almost completely certain that Patsy was also a CPac storm, named from the typhoon lists (since that's how naming was done then). —Cuiviénen 23:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's the first CPac *name* to be Cat 5 while still in the CPac. --Golbez 23:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- That would trivia which wouldn't be that significant. The important record is first CPac storm to form in the CPac. If Patsy was the first then Ioke was the second, that is it. However, reading the JTWC ATCR and the CPHC CPHC summary does not clarify what where Patsy formed. From what I can figure, the track traces back into the WPac (implying a WPac storm) but the first positive data point is in the CPac. The HURDAT begins on the dateline and keeps it in the W Hemisphere (UNISYS=HURDAT track), though it is faulty. The JMA analysis starts later on the dateline and moves the storm initially into the E Hemisphere (JMA track map. Does a storm with its first data point at 180° exactly with 65 knot winds and initially moving east count as forming in the W or E part of the ocean? My opinion: Patsy is a WPac storm.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- The JMA picked Ioke up at 180.0°E. Therefore my view is that if Patsy formed at 180.0°E, it is a WPac storm. – Chacor 04:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, after all, typhoons exclusively move westward. - SpLoT 09:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Typhoons move exclusively westward? I'm afraid that sentence is wrong either way it can be interpreted; hurricanes move westward too (so not EXCLUSIVELY typhoons), while typhoons do move east, a la Typhoon John (also a crossover - it crossed from CPac into WPac and back into CPac) in 1994. :P – Chacor 09:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, after all, typhoons exclusively move westward. - SpLoT 09:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- The JMA picked Ioke up at 180.0°E. Therefore my view is that if Patsy formed at 180.0°E, it is a WPac storm. – Chacor 04:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- That would trivia which wouldn't be that significant. The important record is first CPac storm to form in the CPac. If Patsy was the first then Ioke was the second, that is it. However, reading the JTWC ATCR and the CPHC CPHC summary does not clarify what where Patsy formed. From what I can figure, the track traces back into the WPac (implying a WPac storm) but the first positive data point is in the CPac. The HURDAT begins on the dateline and keeps it in the W Hemisphere (UNISYS=HURDAT track), though it is faulty. The JMA analysis starts later on the dateline and moves the storm initially into the E Hemisphere (JMA track map. Does a storm with its first data point at 180° exactly with 65 knot winds and initially moving east count as forming in the W or E part of the ocean? My opinion: Patsy is a WPac storm.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Quite a storm...
Two things: first, does anyone have a link to satellite data now that it's over the W pacific (the NRL site picture is quite low quality).
Second, does anyone know what the size of that concentric eyewall is? It looks to be more than 100 miles across! -Runningonbrains 20:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Its probably a misnomer to call it an eyewall now.. Ioke is starting to becom extratropical etc.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ioke is dying, looks like STS Maria when it turned ext. --IrfanFaiz 23:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Nice image of it dying Good kitty 05:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ioke is dying, looks like STS Maria when it turned ext. --IrfanFaiz 23:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This article is horrible...
My first impression of this article is the repetitive images of the same thing without any purpose of its presence. You have got two images saying it's near Wake Island, and another image in the Impact section which shouldn't be there. You have got two somewhat identical images side by side without saying much about them. You really have to organise the article's structure, and delete a few of the pictures. I'm not saying that the images are bad, just too many of them. RaNdOm26 10:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Be Bold and remove them yourself :) Its obvious this article has too many pics - thats what its Commons category is for...--Nilfanion (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] September 8 Alaskan Low
Someone created an article on ex-Ioke, and I redirected it to this article. However, he keeps reverting it, so it may be a good idea to look at this one for any mergeable information, because I may take it to AFD if he doesn't stop, as the article is OR. --Coredesat talk. o_O 21:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's also wrong in several places, there is no special numbering for extratropical storms. It should be merged. We mentioned the extratropical effects of Maria in the Atlantic article. --Golbez 22:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it looks like he's going to leave it alone (though he did userfy it), so it should be a simple matter of going into the history and finding mergeable information. --Coredesat talk. o_O 01:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Since it is related to Ioke, it belongs here. Likewise, if Florence stays strong and affects the other side of the Atlantic, that goes in the Florence article. CrazyC83 04:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it looks like he's going to leave it alone (though he did userfy it), so it should be a simple matter of going into the history and finding mergeable information. --Coredesat talk. o_O 01:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Emilia
In the records section, there is a mention of Ioke and Emilia being tied for most stints as a 5 in the Pacific. It should be noted that the National Hurricane Center never designated Emilia as a Category 5 [6]. They list it as a 135kt Cat. 4 with a pressure of 926 millibars. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 00:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- See Talk:List of Category 5 Pacific hurricanes. The CPHC who are official for the CPac (not the NHC) did designate it as such, there is a HURDAT problem.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Extratropical storm history
So, why shouldn't the storm in its extratropical form be mentioned in the storm history section? It is, after all, storm history not tropical storm history. -Runningonbrains 13:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Read the page history. – Chacor 13:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, what I saw on the page history was that an anonymous user added information in good faith (even provided a source when the initial addition was reverted as unsourced), and was reverted and badgered without an explanation, but instead was read wikipedia policy citations. He at least deserves an explanation as to why his addition does not belong in this article (in laymans terms).
-
- Regardless, some info on the extratropical state really should appear in the storm history. Just because it appears in the impact section doesnt mean it shouldnt be there as well... -Runningonbrains 15:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. Thegreatdr 20:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Regardless, some info on the extratropical state really should appear in the storm history. Just because it appears in the impact section doesnt mean it shouldnt be there as well... -Runningonbrains 15:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New Damage Reports
This article appeared i the Honolulu Advertiser newspaper yesterday. It's titled, "Wake Survived Typhoon--Barely." I think that should say it all. The article also notes, "70 percent of the tiny island's facilities and buildings are moderately to severely damaged." Just thought I'd leave the link here in case someone wanted to merge this into the article. 青い(Aoi) 01:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Record only for Pacific?
So did it break the worldwide record? --Golbez 22:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- It may have done, I have added note to longevity section above. There is a bit of a problem with missing advisory 30, 36, 39 and 46 and time for 2 advisories between 29 and 31. Looks like 8 1/4 days consecutive (plus a non consecutive further 3 6 hr reports). crandles 20:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Haven't trawled through west Pacific yet. crandles 20:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
The world record is Typhoon Tip with a pressure of 870mb.Reub2000 21:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, record for time at cat4+ intensity, not pressure. bob rulz 21:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
West Pacific record for cat4+ longevity prior to Ioke was tied: 1961 Super Typhoon 18 and 2002 Super Typhoon 12 both with 28 advisories. So it looks like Ioke was a world record. crandles 17:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- I calculate Ivan's Power dissipation index (PDI) as 85.9 *10^6 Kt^3. I estimate (for missing 5 advisories estimated lower of 2 either side) for IOKE 102.4 *10^6 Kt^3 so that could be another record though I think a few others need checking like San Ciriaco, 1961 Super Typhoon 18 and 2002 Super Typhoon 12... crandles 19:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Nope 1961 Super Typhoon 18 managed 119.1 *10^6 Kt^3. It might be a record for a hurricane though. San Ciriaco only managed 69.76 *10^6 Kt^3. crandles 20:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] How is the name spelled?
The CIA factbook, in describing the damage on Wake Island, spells the name of the storm as Loke. Everyone else uses the name used in this article. Which is correct? - Thanks, Hoshie 09:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ioke is correct. Look at it this way - you certainly don't pronounce "Loke" as "ee-OH-keh" ;) – Chacor 09:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Epac/Arctic
since this storm affected the alaskan coast does this mean that it was an epac storm or a arctic ocean storm as well as an Cpac/Wpac storm ?Jason Rees 15:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- It was not an arctic ocean storm. Ioke remained south of the arctic circle. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- so does that mean that Ioke was an epac storm ?
-
- Yes, Ioke was an EPAC storm (as CPAC storms are usually combined with epac storms) as well as a WPAC storm. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] HURDAT update
The NHC site has the 2006 Pacific HURDAT up now.
35855 08/16/2006 M=22 9 SNBR= 803 IOKE XING=0 (CP) 35860 08/16*1041425 25 1010*1041439 25 1010*1041454 25 1010*1031467 25 1009* 35865 08/17*1021477 25 1009*1011488 25 1009*1011497 25 1009*1021506 25 1009* 35870 08/18*1021515 25 1009*1001525 25 1009*1001536 25 1009*1001545 25 1009* 35875 08/19*1001553 25 1009*1001560 25 1009*1001566 25 1009*1001573 25 1008* 35880 08/20*1021580 30 1006*1041589 30 1006*1071602 40 1000*1101617 45 999* 35885 08/21*1121632 65 996*1151644 70 990*1201652 75 985*1271660 100 960* 35890 08/22*1351670 115 945*1451677 115 945*1521685 115 945*1581693 90 964* 35895 08/23*1641698 90 971*1691702 90 971*1731705 90 971*1761709 90 971* 35900 08/24*1811714 90 971*1851720 100 960*1861725 115 940*1881729 125 935* 35905 08/25*1901734 125 935*1911742 140 921*1921747 140 921*1921751 140 921* 35910 08/26*1931758 130 930*1911765 130 930*1881774 140 920*1831780 140 920* 35915 08/27*1791787 140 920*1761797 140 900*1721807 140 900*1691814 140 900* 35920 08/28*1661824 135 900*1631833 130 910*1621842 130 910*1611850 130 910* 35925 08/29*1601858 130 910*1621866 135 910*1621874 130 910*1641881 140 910* 35930 08/30*1661888 140 910*1711895 140 910*1741902 135 910*1811911 135 910* 35935 08/31*1861918 135 910*1921926 135 910*1971937 135 910*2021947 135 910* 35940 09/01*2071955 130 910*2121964 130 910*2181977 115 927*2241992 115 927* 35945 09/02*2312008 115 927*2362023 110 927*2402038 110 927*2452052 110 927* 35950 09/03*2512065 100 927*2572076 100 927*2662082 95 927*2752092 95 927* 35955 09/04*2852101 85 958*2972111 70 972*3092120 65 976*3252125 65 976* 35960 09/05*3412128 60 980*3572126 60 980*3752109 60 980*3992085 60 980* 35965 09/06*4192066 60 980*4502033 60 980*4761988 60 980*0000000 0 0* 35970 HU
The important bit there is on the 27th: 900 mbar. Should this go in?--Nilfanion (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Pretty sure HURDAT qualifies as an official source, and it doesnt seem like a typo since that would have been about when it was at its most intense level. I'd update the min pressure. -RunningOnBrains 20:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Um, not for locations west of the International Dateline. Tokyo is the RSMC for the northwest Pacific. Since it went to 900 hPa first just east of the dateline, you're safe. I'm very suspicious of that 20 hPa pressure fall with no increase in wind. A sudden increase in storm size in six hours would be the only explanation for such a change, if it is real. Thegreatdr 20:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, thats why I posted to the talk page not directly to the article. 910 I could believe but 900 seems a bit much, especially at only 140 kts. /me hopes the CPHC get their report out soon.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- I wonder if this is due to a change from the Eastern Pacific to the Western Pacific Dvorak pressure/wind relationship. If you remember, the AMSU estimates were even lower than 900 hPa. I bet CPHC matches NHC, if it's in the track database. Thegreatdr 20:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- You have a point. If I remember correctly, the NRL estimates went from 920mb straight to 900mb after Ioke crossed the date line (with the winds remaining at 140kt). NRL estimates in the West Pacific usually correspond with the JTWC, which tends to be pretty bold (as opposed to the more conservative JMA). Pobbie Rarr 03:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- I wonder if this is due to a change from the Eastern Pacific to the Western Pacific Dvorak pressure/wind relationship. If you remember, the AMSU estimates were even lower than 900 hPa. I bet CPHC matches NHC, if it's in the track database. Thegreatdr 20:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, thats why I posted to the talk page not directly to the article. 910 I could believe but 900 seems a bit much, especially at only 140 kts. /me hopes the CPHC get their report out soon.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Um, not for locations west of the International Dateline. Tokyo is the RSMC for the northwest Pacific. Since it went to 900 hPa first just east of the dateline, you're safe. I'm very suspicious of that 20 hPa pressure fall with no increase in wind. A sudden increase in storm size in six hours would be the only explanation for such a change, if it is real. Thegreatdr 20:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] CPHC report finally out
CPHC report is finally out, someone please update the article as necessary? They provide synoptic situation, too, which might be useful for storm history. And the key thing is that in the CPac, the CPHC lists lowest pressure only as 915 hPa, not 900 as above. – Chacor 11:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- The best track data will be interesting when rereleased, because that still forces a 15 hPa difference right along the International dateline unless they got JMA or JTWC to change accordingly. Oy. Thegreatdr 14:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- The JMA's minimum pressure for Ioke in their BT was 920, however at the crossover the JMA has it at 925 hPa. [7] – Chacor 15:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- That must mean PHNL/CPHC is using JTWC data west of the dateline. A definite problem for both our purposes, and theirs. Thegreatdr 16:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- The JMA's minimum pressure for Ioke in their BT was 920, however at the crossover the JMA has it at 925 hPa. [7] – Chacor 15:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Records
I don't like how the last record is phrased. I think giving the number of consecutive hours (198) spent at Category 4 or above would be more effective than listing the number of 6-hourly reports. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 21:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pressure
UNISYS gives a minimum pressure of 900. I don't think they're talking out of their ass. Looks like it came from the West Pacific. That also would not be satellite measured because JTWC standard for 140 knot storms is 898. Perhaps it came from JMA. This should be researched (by me or anyone who has time). -- §HurricaneERICarchive 20:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Nope, not JMA. Valid or not, it came from somewhere and I'm quite curious to know where. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 20:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- It's from the Best track file. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Good article review
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
See above b (MoS): See above notes.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- a (fair representation):
- It is stable.
- It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
- a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
- a (tagged and captioned):
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail:
- a Pass/Fail:
Good work on the article. No problems anywhere I can see.Mitch32contribs 23:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] track map
Isn't it out of date? The last update was on September 9, 2006, and I remember it taking months to get reports out on this one. Good kitty 17:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I never noticed that. Is there a chance it could be updated? The JTWC, JMA, and CPHC best track has been released; since the article treats it largely from the point of view from CPHC and JTWC, I think it should use the Hurdat data, which provides the entire history of the storm (though the "depression" stage should not be included until 00z on August 20). --Hurricanehink (talk) 22:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] featured article
What can be done to finally get this up to FA Status? Juliancolton 22:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the article is up for Featured Article candidacy, if you're interested. --Hurricanehink (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
As a member of the WPTC would I be able to assess an article?-- Juliancolton (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- You can only assess articles as either Stub, Start, B, or A-class. GA class and FA class require reviews. Ioke is currently up for featured article candidacy. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Is this officially an FA? Juliancolton (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Thats good, another hurricane FA to add to the list! Juliancolton (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
![[6]](http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/storm_wallets/epacific/ep1994/emilia/prenhc/prelim01.gif){kind=link}