Talk:Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

	Article milestones

Date

Process

Result

March 11, 2007

Good article nominee

Listed

December 12, 2007

Peer review

Reviewed

December 27, 2007

Featured article candidate

Not promoted

Current Status: Good article

	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.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.

[edit] Capitalization

Why the capital letters in "Hurricane Scale"? Michael Hardy 22:11 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It's part of a quasi-proper name, not merely descriptive. -- Cyrius | Talk 22:48, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

But Richter scale, Beaufort scale, etc., are in lower case on Wikipedia, and the many thousands of Wikipedia pages titled X's theorem, X's law, X's theory, X's hypothesis, X's axiom, X's lemma, X's corollary, X's method, etc., use lower-case. Michael Hardy 22:02, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Caps is what the NHC uses for it. Don't ask me why. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Then the NHC is stupid and wrong. They're weather nuts, not encyclopedia authors.

Nonetheless Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale *is* a proper noun (certainly more so than "Category 3" which is being treated as a proper noun throughout wikipedia), and the rename back to capitalization is correct. Jdorje 06:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Examples

It would be good to add example storms to each category. Storms in the higher categories are likely to have their own articles that we can link to. Pcb21| Pete 11:28, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How about an average number of each storms per year? Is there a Category 5 each year (on average)? Rmhermen 13:21, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

On average, no. If you look at the little bit of research done by Golbez over on Talk:2004 Atlantic hurricane season, the last one was Isabel in 2003, then you have to go back to Mitch in 1998 for the next one. I'll look into fulfilling both these requests tomorrow when I'm not as busy. -- Cyrius|✎ 14:29, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And Ivan too! Don't forget him... bob rulz 06:19, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Check the message date. Ivan had only hit Cat 5 a few hours earlier. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I changed the examples. I picked examples where the given intensity is both the maximum intensity and the landfalling intensity of the hurricane. I think this will avoid confusion, both because people may remember (for instance) that wilma was a category 5 and because storms that weaken just offshore will do more damage than a weaker storm that made landfall at the same strength (examples: Katrina and Mitch). Finally I changed the formatting a little bit so the year is given for each example storm, and I cut it down to four examples per category (though if people think it looks better, we could easily find more). I took no particular pains to distribute the examples by region, year, or month, but that's something that should be done in future to make the examples more globally useful. Jdorje 02:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Katrina should NOT be listed as a category 5 storm under current policy of only including storms that made landfall at peak intesnity (a policy with which I concur, by the way); in fact, after further evaluation NHC has classified Katrina as a *category 3* upon landfall.

Although there definitely is a difference between a storm that was relatively not long prior much stronger vs. a stable storm of the same intensity, for accuracy, precision and consistency, the listing must be that of the actual intensity at landfall. No special cases. In the case of Katrina, the western side of the storm especially weakened; and max winds everywhere were consistent with cat3. It is true that the storm surge on the right side (not the left side/New Orleans) of the storm was more like that of a cat5. There is a delay of winds vs. water mass, and other non-meteorological factors greatly affect storm surge height, so it is not a valid marker of intensity. Evolauxia 03:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

From the article: "Intensity of example hurricanes is from both the time of landfall and the maximum intensity." - Someone had better make their mind up then, because this is getting stupid. Either someone goes right through the list, resorting by their landfall intensity, or we allow additions based upon highest Saffir-Simpson categorisation. For reference, the NOAA offically labelled Katrina as a category 5 storm at its peak, with landfall as a category 3. Dancraggs 23:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, for the example hurricanes, they are only listed if their peak category coresponds with the area of highest damage, and weren't unusual. Katrina was a Cat. 5, Cat. 3 landfall, but caused Cat. 4+ damage. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frequency

Something about the number in each category per decade or century would be nice. —wwoods 01:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The table from Hell

That's what it looks like after all: a cross section of the earth, ending at Hell. Why do Wikipedians strive toward Newsweek-like infographics instead of encyclopedic figures like in Britannica or any college textbook? The funny thing about is that it fails at both. It has neither the aesthetics and conciseness of a magazine graphic, nor the clarity of an academic reference. What should be a simple table of numbers has been warped into a fucking horrible, ugly mess of an article summary in table form. Here's one tip: tables should NOT contain paragraphs of text. That escapes the purpose of table, which is the easy comparison of quantitative data. --Herr Xtablenazi

I've thought about this on several occasions in the past several months, during which the color scheme and layout of the table have been continually modified (but not necessarily improved). I just reverted the colors back to the white-tan-yellow-orange-red, but i agree with some of your points, and above all agree that it isn't perfect yet. There needs to be some sort of progression - whether it is in black and white, the unisys colors, or the "newsweek" infographics look which you mentioned. However, one of the reasons why newsweek is so successful and widely read is that it is easily understood by the average person -- which is what we're going after for the most part, right? As to the information in the table, that is a complete mess. It is very difficult, upon first glance, to find out a certain windspeed or example of a storm. There are way too many rows and columns, and the alignment of text is all off. I see nothing wrong with paragraphs in tables, as long as they are easily understood. We are going for the "academic" encyclopedia look, but it still needs to be easy to read and visually pleasing, because this is being viewed online rather than in a textbook. --24.26.120.39 21:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The discussion on colors is at Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics#New colors. Please discuss there first - the decision is extremely complicated. --AySz88^-^ 03:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scale

I understand the definitions of cat 1-5 but why cant there be a cat 6? It seems that if there was a 200mph one would not fit into the ratio for cat 5... or 250mph? Just because there has not been one that bad in recorded history does not mean it can not happen. Should not the scale be flexible enough to handle the scaling up of winds?

Most likely, at the time they made the scale, it was thought to be virtually impossible. CrazyC83 02:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It's an open-ended scale, so greater than observerd before intensity is irrelevant. Regardless, it's not only lack of observation of very intense storms, but atmospheric physics dictates a maximum intensity for tropical cyclones.

Also as described in the article the scale was originally devised by civil engineers, who likely decided that anything above 155 MPH would be catastrophic. Its also likely that they had four categories, and decided to throw in a 5th one for good measure. So maybe CAT5 was the solution to thier CAT6 debate. You'll also notice the steps in MPHs between the different CATs are not equal. For instance the jump from CAT2 to 3 is only 14MPH, while CAT4 to 5 is 24MPH.Thatmarkguy 22:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ophelia?

If we're adding storms to the list based on landfall, why is Ophelia on it as it never officially made landfall? -- NSLE | Talk 01:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

EDIT: To clarify, it never made landfall as a hurricane? -- NSLE | Talk 01:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Ophelia should be taken out, but I also think that we should put some more storms from the past five-ten years as examples because people are more likely to remember them. For example, Dennis and Emily (2005), Fabian and Isabel (2003), Floyd and Lenny (1999), Georges and Mitch (1998), and the storms from 1995.--Cool Genius 20:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

In addition, why is Hurricane Katrina listed as a Category 5 if it, in addition to 'only' making landfall as a Category 4, it also did not have a major effect (damage-wise) as a Category Five. While I understand that this is basically to show that Katrina, at some point, was a Cat-5, but this is sort of like saying that if someone threw a dirt clod, that no matter how much it fragmented, that it was still the original size. (I'm officially trying to get that declared as The Worst Simile Ever.) Refugee621 23:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

There are some disputes over the estimate - the pressure was 918 mb and the storm surge was well over 30 feet, which suggests that Katrina might have been a Category 5 at landfall, although they would need to re-analyze to make sure. Likewise, Hurricane Ivan is not included due to the disputed estimate (the NHC classifies it as a Category 3 at landfall, but some sources a Category 4). CrazyC83 03:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Katrina's Rank on the Scale

Katrina was a ctegory 4 at landdfall, but is considered to be damaging on a ctegory-5 scale. The Katrina example should be removed.

I concur; in fact, after further evaluation NHC has classified Katrina as a *category 3* upon landfall.

Katrina should be mentionned regardless, as it is one of the most expensive and deadly hurricanes in US History. Perhaps it could be mentionned in 5 with a note that it landed as a 3/4, or something like that.... M.nelson (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that discussion was over 2 years ago. However, Katrina is an unusual example that should not be included here. The scale is based on the winds, but it was the surge and waves that caused it to be so deadly/costly. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, if Katrina is to be mentioned anywhere, it should probably be in the "criticism" section as an example of why the Saffir-Simpson scale, based on winds, is not always a very good measure of what people really want out of a hurricane scale, which is basically damage potential. But would need a cited source for that so it isn't original research, of course. --Delirium (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] scale colors?

out of curiosity, does someone know where did the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane scale color scheme start out? for example, http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/

the current article (as of sept. 28) uses an alternative scale coloring scheme (white, yellow, orange, red)

[edit] Hurricanes That made landfall as a Cat 5 storm

What storms made landfall as a Cat 5 Storm other than Mitch (i think)

Remember to sign your name with ~~~~! Labor Day (1935), Camille (1969), Gilbert (1988) and Andrew (1992) all made Category 5 landfalls. -- NSLE | Talk 09:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

There have also been others, I'm sure, especially Pacific typhoons, but these four hurricanes I can think off the top of my head. -- NSLE | Talk 09:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I've added hurricane Edith because it made landfall as a Category 5 Hurricane. By Irfanfaiz (STARTER OF DISCUSSION) at 5:15PM 13 October 2005 (UTC+8)

Relisted alphabetically. -- NSLE | Talk 09:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay thanks! Irfanfaiz 5.23PM, 13 October 2005

See List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes. Jdorje 02:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Catagory 4 redirect

Why is there a redirect for Catagory four but not for the other catagories? Am I missing something? Or are you guys, and this should be fixed? HereToHelp 18:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Category 1, Category 2, Category 3, Category 4 and Category 5 all redirect to this page, and that has been noted. -- -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The note at the top of the article actually says this:

Category 1, Category 2, Category 3, Category 4 and Category 5 redirect here. For other meanings, see their respective disambiguation pages.

Note the lack of wikilinks. A newbie would have no clue how to see anyone's respective disambiguation pages, whereas an old hand would think of that on his own. Also, Category 3 and Category 5 actually don't redirect here; they're dab pages. I took the liberty of adding information to the Category dab page which encompasses most of the information from the other dab pages, so it might be appropriate to link to that dab page, as follows:

Category 1, Category 2, etc. redirect here. For other meanings, see the Category disambiguation page.

This has the advantages of (1) not being blatantly false, (2) having a helpful wikilink, and (3) helping to teach newbies what a disambiguation page is. But, bold as I am, I am somewhat afraid this change would step on some toes, so I want to discuss it first. Hearing no objection, I'll make the change later.
--GraemeMcRae^talk 19:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It has now been changed so that those category numbers with other meanings go straight to their disambiguation pages, not to the SSHS page. 'Category 4' for example is way too vague to redirect to a specific page. Others without disambiguation remain unchanged. Dancraggs 16:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wilma resistance

Why the resistance to adding Wilma? It's already mentioned on the Hurricane Gilbert page. Just honest curiosity. Turnstep 01:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Storms are only added based on strength at landfall. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 04:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Let me be more specific: why are storms only added based on strength at landfall? Turnstep 12:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how I missed the text below the table stating that requirement, but I've added a non-specific hurricane comment just above the table so hopefully others won't make the same mistake I did. Turnstep 02:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I've been trying to add a few historical examples as well, so that this page isn't overloaded with recent hurricanes (although they should generally be mentioned as they strike the eye first and foremost). I know I have put Diane in Cat 1, Dora in Cat 2, the 1938 New England storm in Cat 3 and Donna in Cat 4 recently. CrazyC83 00:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

A good example is one that doesn't confuse anybody. Thus we should pick examples where both the landfall intensity and the maximum intensity are of the category being exemplified. Thus Katrina, Wilma, Rita, Ivan, and Isabel are not good examples because some people may think of them as Category 5's whereas others think of them as of their strength at landfall. With older hurricanes this may not be as much of a problem: few people would think of Hugo, Donna, or Carla as Category 5 storms for instance. However I don't think there's any clear line to be drawn here. Since we have plenty of choices for examples we should choose those that are most intuitive to readers. Jdorje 02:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur with only including storms that hit at maximum intensity. For Katrina, after further evaluation NHC has classified Katrina as a *category 3* upon landfall.

[edit] Improvement drive

Hurricane Katrina has been nominated to be improved by WP:IDRIVE. Support it with your vote and help us bring it up to featured standard! Vote here. --Fenice 12:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Katrina rank now

Why it is in the Cat 5 section? It made landfall as a Cat 3 storm. Irfanfaiz 04:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't have been there at all, since it did well beyond Cat 5 damage but made landfall at Cat 3 (so it's confusing). There was even a warning not to add it, but everyone initially forgot to move it to the template when we turned the table into a template. --AySz88^-^ 04:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Record for number of Cat. 2 or above hurricanes

Does anyone know what it is? Weatherman90 15:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Storms

The examples for each storm doesn't give a real example of what that category can do. I hardly would expect a Category 1, for example, to kill thousands of cause over $1 billion in damage. I propose this section be redone with some more realistic examples for each category. Hurricanehink 04:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we should take out those example storms because any example giving it as "typical" could well be non-neutral. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and good point about typical being non-neutral. There's too many factors to even deem something as typical; landfall location (major city or mountainous), speed (slow doing more damage), or strength (cat. 3 peak vs. weakened from 4 or 5). Anyone opposed? Hurricanehink 19:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

All of the example storms are ones where the peak strength (on the SSHS) is also the landfall strength. While there is obviously some bias in choosing of storms (most are Atlantic, and most are names people would recognize), I think it's better to work to fix the bias than to remove the list. We don't (or shouldn't) claim those storms are "typical", they are just examples. Having examples is good. — jdorje (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, the strength parameter is fixed, but there's still too many factors. For Cat. 1, Agnes and Stan caused significant damage under unusual conditions, while Ismael was damaging to a relatively poor area. I think Gaston and Danny are more typical Category 1's, and the list should be edited to include any of the following; Ophelia, Cindy, Claudette (2003), Chantal (1989), Jerry (1989), or Gladys (1968). The rest of the table isn't as bad. Also, Jdorje, if people recognize the names and remember the damage it caused, they might be able to put 1+1 together. If you give examples of obscure storms (which in an American point of view being anything EPAC or WPAC), 1+1 might equal 3 and they won't understand as well. This is just my little opinion. Hurricanehink 21:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the bias in favor of destructive storms should be fixed. Ophelia isn't a good choice though since it never made landfall...pick a storm that was Cat1 at peak strength and Cat1 at landfall. We should also go for some worldwide examples, so Gaston and Danny are probably enough examples for the Atlantic...even that is America-centric; we should probably have one landfalling U.S. storm, one landfalling non-U.S. Atlantic storm, and 3 storms from other basins if possible. — jdorje (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there aren't too many articles for Cat. 1's worldwide. Possibly Adrian is a good example, because it only caused 2 deaths and minimal damage. That sounds typical. Hurricanehink 11:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking for a good Cat 2 article as well. Hurricane Fifi is a poor example in the same way that Hurricane Stan was a poor exmaple. —Cuivi é nen, Wednesday, 5 April 2006 @ 16:47 (UTC)

True. What about Marty (2003)? That's the only EPAC one that is fairly typical for a Cat. 2. In addition, there's plenty of Atlantic Cat. 2's, so an EPAC one should be there. Hurricanehink 21:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class

Before the article becomes A-Class, there should be a few more things done:

Flesh out the history section more.
Figure out which examples to leave on the table.
Perhaps change the layout of the table to be more easily understood?
Add a blurb about the 10-minute and 1-minute usage.

Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

How about putting "1 minute" in front of the current "sustained winds" rows; and "10 minutes" in front of a new row for that? And having a blurb explaining the difference? Seeing as all TC articles link here, and the non-NOAA regions use 10mins, that would seem sensible. Also could we add some non-hurricanes into it? Tip for Cat 5 is an obvious example.--Nilfanion 13:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Not really sure about non-hurricanes, as the scale is used solely for them in official forecasts. Also, there should be at least one detailed example for each category in prose form, as well as satellite images of the example storm, to give an idea of what is going on. Tito xd^(?!?) 01:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category 6?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Science/story?id=1986862&page=1 According to this news, someone out there is thinking about it. Probably just a lot of hype, but should there be a note in the article about Category 6, and what the cultural significance of it is, as well as the current discussion?SargeAbernathy 14:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. That's unofficial, though if scientists are talking about it, there could be a little paragraph on it. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I made a paragraph with a few citations. Edit it as you please, I'm not very good at finding mistakes in my own writing. SargeAbernathy 20:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no such category on this scale, and any mention of a Category 6 tropical cyclone is fictitious or incorrect. This sentence seems odd, given its placement at the start of the section. I think it's better to explain who has mentioned it first. – Scartol • Tok 16:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Should we list hurricanes that would qualify under the proposed category?

Year	Hurricane	Highest sustained wind speed kph
1950	Dog	295
1955	Janet	280
1959	Patsy	280
1961	Carla	280
1969	Camille	305
1977	Anita	280
1979	David	280
1980	Allen	305
1988	Gilbert	295
1992	Andrew	280
1994	John	280
1997	Linda	300
1998	Mitch	285
2005	Katrina	280
2005	Rita	285
2005	Wilma	295

Is there a sortable list elsewhere? -- Jeandré, 2008-01-13t08:02z

No. Category 6 is completely unofficial. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, anything over 184 mph. Those under 900 mBars number 45 according to List of most intense tropical cyclones.

[edit] GA Passed

This is an excellent article, and it passes all aspects of a good article as mentioned in the good article criteria. I have no qualms about passing it. Consider nomination as a featured article, as it seems almost ready. It may fail on the first try, but that should; give you some tips for improvement. If it isn't feature worthy yet, it may be soon. This article is proof-positive that an article does not need to be excessively long or verbose in order to be of the highest quality. Good job, and good luck! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mention or link "super typhoon" qualification description

One sees

Typhoon Wipha (Goring)
Super Typhoon 13W       4

and wants to know why it is called "super" but all one can click on is the "4" which lands one on this Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale article where there is no mention of "super". Jidanni 07:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[moved from my jidanni talk page:] The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale was originally formulated for hurricanes in the Atlantic and Eastern(/Central) Pacific; the JTWC does not actually use it. Including super typhoons on the scale would be incorrect. Super typhoons are already accounted for on Tropical cyclone scales. --Core desat 23:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, but be sure that the word "super" is clickable to reach an explanation, on the template. Jidanni 14:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category Six Change

I added the cat 6 section under the Cat heading. -munkee_madness talk 19:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And I'm removing it. There's never been any large controversy over whether or not there should be a sixth category, and there obviously isn't one, so it shouldn't be mentioned.TheNobleSith (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I added it back in, as there is factually incorrect mention of Category 6 floating around, especially in news sources. Juliancolton ^{(St. Patrick's day)} 23:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

IMO it should be more separated somehow. Currently the "Category" section has six subsections, named "Category 1" through "Category 6". The Category 6 subsection does say that it doens't really exist, but only if someone goes and reads the text itself. It might be better put in a separate section about "Proposed additions" or something, maybe combined with other proposed revisions to the scale. --Delirium (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Ok, I'll try to work it into a subsection of criticism or something like that.TheNobleSith (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I edited it slightly to put Category 6 into the criticism section, and I made a minor change to an image caption.TheNobleSith (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)