Jump to content

Talk:2024 Atlantic hurricane season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DJ Cane (talk | contribs) at 05:54, 22 June 2024 (#talk-reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Unsigned comment by IP User

This page need to be reverted its too early. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1013:B01F:F57D:4853:A772:B010:8006 (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally, we publish the season's article after the first major prediction. Therefore, no need for re-draftification. ✶Mitch199811✶ 19:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As long as there are official predictions by meteorology services, then it isn't "too early" to start this page. It's easier to start it now, especially if an early storm pops up such as what happened last year then this page is already set up and we can use it. zoey (trooncel) 20:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forecast from Weather Bell

This webpage cites people named Weather Bell of whom have apparently issued a hyperactive forecast. Should we add their prediction? ✶Quxyz✶ 18:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the informal language, the unknown ".bm" domain, and the fact that they cite several forecasters without naming them, I'd say this isn't a high quality/reputable source. JayTee⛈️ 13:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple dozen agencies / organizations that issue hurricane forecasts, and we cannot include them all. We have included near the same 7-10 groups the past few years. If these are the most highly regarded, why include others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdpw (talk • contribs)
I agree with Drpdw on this, we don't necessarily need to add other organizations to our list when we already have several more reputable sources on here. JayTee⛈️ 15:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, I think paring down the number of predictions would be best. Last year we had 22 predictions, several from the same agencies. I think making mention of some predictions is worthwhile, but that number seems unseemly, especially given how massive it makes the infobox for them. Perhaps we should pick a handful of agencies and summarize the average predictions, as well as the upper and lower predictions. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we want to go through last year's predictions and cut down on them? We also might want to codify these guidelines (and make a centralized page that links to all the guidelines of the project). ✶Quxyz✶ 01:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at French Wikipedia to see what they did about this problem. They have a list of half a dozen or so sources, even before they issue predictions. When a source issues multiple, they simply make a new line in the same table row. (Articles: 2024 Atl season French, 2023 Atl season French ✶Quxyz✶ 11:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which seasonal forecasts to include and not include is a problem we face in all basins and one that we struggle with year in, year out. The predictions issued fall into 5 main categories which can generally be summarised as:

  • Group 1 - RSMC/TCWC Predictions (CPC/CPHC/BoM/Meteo France/FMS etc)
  • Group 2 - NMHSS Predictions (UKMO/SMN/Meteo France/NWS Guam etc)
  • Group 3 - University Predictions (CSU, NCSU etc)
  • Group 4 - Public/Private Weather/TV Company Predictions (Accuweather/TWC/WeatherBell etc)
  • Group 5 - Amateur predictions (User:Jason Rees, User:Hurricanehink, User:Drdpw Force Thirteen etc)

I think we can all agree that under no circumstances any predictions from Group 5 should be added in, as they maybe unreliable, not written down or based on science. Group 4 is where it starts becoming trickier as they are generally reliable. However, we have to remember that there are approximately 30 countries that border the North Atlantic Ocean impacted by TC's off which lets say there are three Public/Private Weather/TV Companies that issue predictions per country, which brings it up to 90 predictions before we even start. The same generally goes for groups 2 and 3 except of course I think I would be murdered, if I suggested that Colorado State University was unreliable since the press has used their forecasts for years. I think it goes without saying that any forecasts by Group 1 should be implemented, however, Meteo France falls into both Group 1 and 2 for obvious reasons.Jason Rees (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that groups 1 and 2 should be cleared automatically. From group 3, we would need deliberation as I do not want to say "CSU and NCSU are good, everyone else can go suck it" as we could miss more obscure or foreign colleges (unless we want to minimize on forecasts, but it still seems biased and unfair). TSR is the only one I think that would get consensus in group 4.
Also, this is starting to feel like a project wide decision that we are making, should we move it to the project talk page? ✶Quxyz✶ 13:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes discussions go to die when they move to the project talk page, so I don't mind replying here. I think the first three groups that User:Jason Rees said make sense. They all constitute reliable sources, whether for forecasts, or for actual storm/season information. As for Group 4, it seems that Accuweather is not accurate enough for reliable source purposes. Granted, season forecasting is an inexact science. There might be 19 storms, but only 2 major hurricanes (like 2012), or 16 storms with 6 majors (like 2004), which could skew how active the season seems. I think the important thing to note is the reasoning behind these forecasts, rather than the exact numbers. If anything in group 4 adds something that none of the higher groups had, then perhaps it's worth adding. However, I feel like all of them are going to mention the likely transition from El Niño to La Niña, or the warm water temperatures (which we're already seeing signs of). I'd only think a Group 4 prediction would be useful if it was wildly different from the others, and ultimately proved accurate, like if they correctly forecast only 10 storms, when there was a strong consensus for double that (along the lines of 2006). The article is supposed to be a comprehensive look at the topic, but that doesn't mean it has to be exhaustive and include everything. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed The Weather Channel from last years based on this discussion. It provided no new information and was not an outlier. ✶Quxyz✶ 20:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the above categorization, I feel that to consider a forecasting agency reliable, they should satisfy at least two of the below conditions:
  1. The agency publicly details the methodology used to make the forecast. Examples: UKMO using their GloSea6 ensemble, UPenn with their statistical model.
    • The agency needs to explain how they arrived at their numbers, and not just handwave expected conditions. Anyone can look at a favorable ENSO setup and say the season will be above average; this criteria serves to act as a differentiator.
    • It significantly helps if the methodology is described in scientific literature (i.e. published in reputable journals).
  2. The agency provides an evaluation of past forecasts. Examples: UA has a table with their forecast errors, CSU's 2023 forecast verification.
    • This allows readers to see the skill of the forecasts for themselves, and demonstrates accountability.
  3. (Helps if either of the first two are not met) The agency's forecasts are reported on in reliable secondary sources; e.g. NOAA in BBC.
    • Caveats are that mainstream media tends to mention only the big names like NOAA and CSU, and journalistic standards can vary.
    • Self-reporting like TWC by weather.com and AccuWeather would not suffice, since they would be primary sources in this situation.
These allow us to assess entities outside of Groups 1, 2, and 3. TSR, for example, meets criteria #1 and #2 (though TSR being partnered with University College London does mean it straddles Groups 3 and 4), and I would thus consider TSR reliable enough for inclusion. TWC and AccuWeather look like they fail #1 and #2 (perhaps they're paywalled, which is about as good as not publishing), so I would lean against including them. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 20:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria is fine, however, if we need to back up every single source with a second citation, the section is going to inflate decently fast. Also, I found one source that does essentially what we have been doing: [1]. They seem to have some pretty strong supporters like Axa, CSU, and some supercomputer in Spain. ✶Quxyz✶ 20:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my intention to have to add extra sources to every single forecast - the current practice is fine IMO. This is merely a metric by which we can evaluate which agencies are reliable enough (for Wikipedia purposes) to warrant a mention.
As for seasonalhurricanepredictions.org - that's a neat website, but they're an aggregator with their mission being to show as many forecasts as possible (with some level of quality control), meaning they're not much help if we're trying to trim the forecasts section. Their graphs are nice but copyrighted so we can't borrow them, and for accessibility reasons we can't exactly substitute prose with images. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 00:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Weather Channel

Slightly disjointed but related to the previous discussion: are we adding The Weather Channel to the forecasts lists or keeping them off. We currently only have the updated forecast and their previous forecast was removed along the way. The current condition of half citing The Weather Channel is unacceptable (or at least odd), in my opinion. I am mostly neutral on the inclusion of The Weather Channel, though, it might be one of the easiest to axe should we want to keep numbers down because of the nature of The Weather Channel. ✶Quxyz✶ 00:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

University of Pennsylvania

Can someone please add this? I don't know how. https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/2024-tropical-cyclone-prediction VehicleandWeatherEnthusiast2022 (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – You are not a new inexperienced editor, no reason you could not have done it your self. Take a look at the edit ([2]), and be empowered for your future editing. Drdpw (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I am not used to editing Wikipedia tables though. VehicleandWeatherEnthusiast2022 (talk) 22:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have several questions regarding adding UPenn’s forecast. One, it has not been added previously in past years, and also, the forecast is just an extremely unrealistic forecast (39 named storms? Thats 1964 WPac-level and is far more like an hypothetical forecast let alone 2020 reached only 30 annd that was an extreme scenario) and sticks out like a sore thumb. I think we should just remove it. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 03:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A UPenn forecast was included last season. Being an outlier is not a justifiable reason for removing this season's forecast. Drdpw (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like since the median is the more commonly cited number in news articles, we should use 33 instead of the range. Still a bit extreme but better and less likely to be fearmongering. ✶Quxyz✶ 20:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How should "+/-" be rewritten?

UPenn's forecast is written in the body as calling for 33 (+/- 6) named storms. I don't really think "+/-" is the best thing to use in this case, but I'm stuck between replacing it with the "±" symbol or just writing "plus or minus." For this article, and for future reference too, which is more appropriate? Poxy4 (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

± is used around the astronomy side of Wikipedia (and probably other areas) so I would go with that. ✶Quxyz✶ 17:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

other systems

Should the June 2024 South Florida floods be added to the 'other systems' category? B137 (talk) 03:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn’t a tropical cyclone, so no need. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 08:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only the invest, its meteorological history, and its effects should be included. IMO, I'd wait until another system develops into a tropical cyclone before adding --ZZZ'S 08:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don’t include invests unless reliable sources consider them tropical cyclones. The exception is if the NHC initiated advisories on a potential tropical cyclone and it is therefore numbered. The Florida floods belong in a hypothetical Floods in 2024, not this season article. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 08:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. It seems I have confused invests with PTCs. ZZZ'S 08:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries at all :) Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A bit on a tangent, should we create a redirect like Invest 90L (2024) to either here or there and have a hatnote redirecting to the other article? ✶Quxyz✶ 15:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, as the designation 90L will be used again (likely a couple times) this season. Drdpw (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so. It was an invest with a chance of developing. A bunch of tropical moisture was dropped. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. That’s like saying we should add the 2016 Louisiana floods to 2016 because it caused major flooding in Louisiana from an invest area. Believe me I tried adding it like seven years ago and it was removed for the above reasons. As Hink said, we only reserve the Other systems section for POTCs that fail to develop. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 22:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting

"Current storm information" is a sucky heading and section in a WP-article, MOS:CURRENT, WP:NOTNEWS etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The proper place to voice your issue with weather articles presenting current storm information and watches and warnings is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather, not here. The scope of the issue is beyond this one article. Drdpw (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Editors removing formatted citations for bare URL citations for further information. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The proper place for me to voice my issue with this article is this talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiprojects have no authority to impose preferences, rules or ownerships on articles. They have no special rights or privileges. They cannot ignore the MOS, policies or guidelines nor override them. They are purely social collaborative groupings. Canterbury Tail talk 18:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Implementation of policy in the various tropical cyclone articles will be a challenge. I suggest posting a message concerning the AN/I consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather. Drdpw (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2023 Atlantic hurricane season seems to be doing ok on these particular points (EL and "current"). Maybe that's a model to follow. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the preceding two decades of season articles, which we’ve been doing the same way… See this edit from 2004, or this edit from 2005. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is because that season is finished. Go into the article history to see how active systems were treated during the year (same for active systems in other basins). Drdpw (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That just shows editors have been violating policy for nearly two decades. Maybe a full policy-based RFC is needed actually. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or people just ignoring the rules for the sake of public safety, perhaps? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, the Wikiproject talk page cannot override the MOS, Policy and Guidelines. The external links are against our guidelines, the wikiproject cannot change that. Canterbury Tail talk 18:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ANI is not the best place for discussing a content dispute. But neither is a WikiProject. The discussion is here relating to external links being placed in the body of this article, contravening guidance at WP:NOELBODY. You may, of course, signpost this discussion at the WikiProject to get more eyes on this, but the issue relates to this article and very much belongs here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly, Sirfurboy (talk · contribs) - this same practice has occurred in the various tropical cyclone season articles around the world. This is a broader discussion affecting more than just this article. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, it happened in previous seasons, but for each previous season that is now historical and it does not affect them now. This is the right page for discussing this issue now. The external links can be in the article, but they should comply with WP:EL and be placed in a section at the end of the article. Information in the article should be written encyclopaedically, which means not reporting latest news (see WP:NOT), but written in such a way that the page will fully describe the topic of the hurricane season for future readers. The policy is already clear on that already. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the event of multiple tropical cyclones, I think it is more useful to link in the individual section. I added a citation for the information, which can easily be redone if that is the consensus. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The added citation addresses the presenting issue in what has morphed into a broader topic of concern. Drdpw (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This does not affect just this article even if we ignore past articles, for it will affect future seasons as well. Thus you are wrong about this being the right forum and I stand by my closure. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion like this, according to WP:CLOSE may be summarily closed when it is disruptive or irrelevant. This is neither. The issues exist on this page and this is the appropriate forum. You suggest there is a larger problem to be corrected, which is fine. That does not preclude discussion on fixing the failure to follow policy and guidelines on this page. That is the meta discussion. Here is the relevant discussion:
There is a section on this page for Current storm information. This should not be there. There is a claim in the ANI thread that it is a public safety matter to place this information our page, but that is not Wikipedia's purpose, and there is a counter argument that it is dangerous to place such information on a Wikipedia page, where it relies on volunteer editor effort to keep it updated. You appear to do an exemplary job of updating it, but it is not your job, and you could walk away from it at any time. If you did so when a major alert arises, and if someone were relying on Wikipedia for their storm information, they may get the wrong information or outdated information. So that should be removed. However, since yesterday we have now lost this from the body of the article:

For the latest official information, see:

These are external links, so they should be in an external links section at the foot of the page, but they are also pretty good external links. We should indeed be signposting readers to the latest advisories as maintained by those whose job it is to maintain and inform through these advisories. But again, those are very specific advisories that need updating. The NHC already have a landing page that signposts readers to latest information, so I would suggest this go in external links:

For the latest official information and advisories, see: the US National Hurricane Center

We could also link any other official information for those outside the US. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting for the record that I added {{Current weather event}} with a link to NHC's website, in the spirit of the public safety argument outlined by Hurricanehink above, but that was promptly removed by Drdpw with the edit summary "never need (sic) in previous years" – despite the obvious caveat that, unlike previous years, we are apparently no longer providing current storm information. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 05:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing valid information

I’m wondering if there’s a reason anyone keeps removing the verifiable fact that Alberto caused ports to close. That’s the sort of information we usually include. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at 2023's article and it doesn't look like preparations were covered there so I decided to agree with Drdpw on removing the information. ✶Quxyz✶ 23:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Preparations are supposed to be covered. It's always preparations, impact, and aftermath for every storm. Noah, BSBATalk 23:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont mind their inclusion but it is worth noting that, of the storms from 2022 and 2023 I looked at, preparations were seldom mentioned. ✶Quxyz✶ 01:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For land impacting storms, they tend to get a sub-article, so the content in the main season article would reflect a general summary (deaths, impacts). We don’t have that yet, but Alberto could warrant an article if the effects become bad enough, at which time maybe the information could get moved from the season to the sub-article. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a reliable source for it I say it's free game for inclusion regardless of what is included on other pages. Port closures are fairly impactful. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 19:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article for Alberto?

Considering the information I found online that could be used to expand the article, and the fact that it caused 3 fatalities in Mexico, I think an article for Alberto should be considered 2600:4808:353:7B01:79A6:B17C:1089:5A9A (talk) 12:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’d add the information first to the section. There’s no pressing need at this point for an Alberto article, but possibly if there’s enough information. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd imagine yes but we should give it a bit more time for more news sources to cover the situation, then an article could definetly be constructed Shmego (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point in time, barring significant widespread damage, a standalone Alberto '24 article may not be warranted. I can see the possibility of an article on the topic "June 2024 Central American Gyre flooding", given the torrential rains and deadly mudslides and landslides throughout Central America preceding Alberto. Such an article could easily include a TS Alberto section. (Like October 2021 nor'easter with Tropical Storm Wanda.) Drdpw (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but 4 deaths caused is certainly noteworthy. I believe the article is notable enough but i believe we should wait until more information about the storm is found and possibly an amount of damage is determined. The "June 2024 Central American Gyre flooding" is not a bad idea either, but Alberto specifically hit Texas with damage which isn't associated with Central America. Maybe a draft could be developed and we could see from there? Shmego (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a draft at Draft:Tropical Storm Alberto (2024).
Also, I'd be fine if Texas was just lumped into Central America for simplicity's sake. ✶Quxyz✶ 16:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there is a good chance of another large storm (with a chance of becoming a tropical cyclone) causing additional widespread flooding in the impacted regions of Mexico. I think we should wait until after that storm to see how things go and consider having a general flooding article that covers both (and possibly other) relevant events rather than splitting it between articles for individual tropical storms. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 19:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. this could possibly end up with us doing what we did with Tropical storms Amanda and Cristobal, one article for two storms. Shmego (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Amanda and Cristobal are one page because of the continuity between them, while this upcoming system is separate enough from Alberto. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 13:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Amanda and Cristobal are essentially the same system. The ongoing situation in Mexico is due to two (according to forecast). DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 14:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my mistake. Shmego (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Cyclones Judy and Kevin would be a more appropriate analog. ArkHyena (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As there is precedent for this method (thanks @ArkHyena) I favor following it assuming the forecast of an additional tropical cyclone verifies. I think the impacts are notable enough for a separate article, but I think we create excessive redundancy if two similar storms back to back become two articles. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 01:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum, perhaps redundant, but I will point out that there are tentative hints in models of the CAG sending up yet another disturbance after 93L (however it develops) by early June. Therefore, I'd argue Drdpw's suggestion of a broader title may be more appropriate especially if impacts continue to be severe after 93L ("2024 Central America and Mexico floods", perhaps?). Of course, this would require waiting even further, but it could be an alternative to consider. ArkHyena (talk) 04:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think waiting is fine. The event is clearly notable enough for an article and waiting seems like the most reasonable action to have a quality article immediately upon being published. We don't have to be an aggregator for breaking news. In the meantime severe impacts can be appropriately summarized on this page. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 05:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe call the proposed article June 2024 Mexico and Texas floods? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but i would wait for the next system to come by that is currently in the gulf like Dj Cane said. I would say we do Tropical Storms Alberto and Beryl, but we could also just make an article about the floods. Shmego (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would the hatnote for the article go under both Alberto and the-storm-maybe-called-Beryl (or Chris depending on how 92L wants to go) or just Alberto? ✶Quxyz✶ 15:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Atlantic_hurricane_season&oldid=1230345968"