Talk:Hurricane Ike

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hurricane Ike article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

If you clicked discuss on the impact part of the page, please go to Sub_Articles

Category 4 tornado

Why does it say that above a picture of a Hurricane Ike? Someone doesnt know the different between a tornado and a hurricane? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Einlanzer (talk • contribs) 19:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Way too soon

This Article has been published way to soon imo No Watches/Warnings have been posted yet for TD 9 which is wat i believe is required for an atlantic storm to have an Article Jason Rees (fartknoker talk) 20:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's only a matter of time, and I don't see the harm. Plasticup ^T/C 20:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plasticup is there any reason why you decided to create your own when another was being created? Itfc+canes=me (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd created the other as a redirect to the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season article, in anticipation of TD 9 becoming Ike. In hindsight, I should not have done that because it would not have been possible to move the existing TD 9 article to the Ike article without deleting the original Ike article, which is what ended up happening. Plasticup proceeded correctly. --Winger84 (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Winger84, an admin simply moved this page over your redirect. It wasn't much trouble, so don't worry about it. Itfc+canes=me, I didn't see your sandbox until I had started my own. That said, your sandbox was just a copy of the information in the 2008 season article. I had been working on my own version a little anyway. Plasticup ^T/C 21:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... and Plasticup... i start with the stuff on the main article.... and then i organise it and try and build on it. Itfc+canes=me (talk) 09:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So much for being to early...Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe someone should announce when they're creating an article in their own personal sandbox. That way, there is less duplication of effort. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer

I'd like to get opinions on whether or not the Template:Current disaster should be used on these (tropical cyclones in particular) articles. My own opinion is that while the template as it is could use some work, I believe it has value seeing as Wikipedia itself is not just an encyclopedia, but has become a source of information on general current world events, and those not as familiar with how it works may assume all information is current and, if they are potentially affected by such disaters, may end up risking their lives based on such false or outdated information. It is important to make known that they should consult other sources for the latest information about these disasters from which to better make life and death decisions. --Resplendent (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could use it, and use |red=yes when there's watches or warnings issued. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resplendent and I had a little conversation about this on my talk page, but I'll reiterate here: Does that template improve the encyclopedia? That is our basic principle. It isn't our job to offer advice; it is our job to document the event. Plasticup ^T/C 23:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to recognize that Wikipedia is not just about documenting the event, in the case of ongoing disasters such as these. People may look to it for information about the storm in preparation for evacuations, as well as updates on the damages as the event progresses. Further, I don't see how its use detracts from the article, especially considering the short length of time it is in use (in the case of cyclones, until they dissipate); this is hardly a permenant addition to it, and its only purpose is to give the temporary notification that there are better and more reliable sources out there for information. --Resplendent (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the fact that this template can be turned red when life-safety becomes an issue, how is it different in principle than any of our other current event templates such as {{recent death}} or {{current}}? —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 17:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preparation

People preparing in FL? Buying shutters, that sort of thing? [1] [2] the Federal Emergency Management Agency and relief groups found themselves juggling three storms Plasticup ^T/C 15:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man, I've gotta run right now but we should follow up on this. Maybe get an order history of something. Hilarious. Plasticup ^T/C 15:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, that's awesome! I would get it, but it's kind unnecessary here in New York for the time being. Hanna doesn't pose that much of a threat, just gotta bring in the chairs and what not from the deck. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Though maybe Ike will turn up the coast via the weakness Hanna caused and get us here in NY... –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The newest models show Ike heading further south, either into Cuba or the Gulf. But wherever it ends up it is going to be nasty. Plasticup ^T/C 16:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The GFS (which has been handling tropical cyclones awfully this season) has Ike getting into the Gulf and curving back out into the Atlantic. It's still to early to have any legitimate idea. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The GDFL has been "good" with the track...but not the intensity...latest model for Hanna shows it becoming a Category Four Extratropical cyclone after is passes by Newfoundland. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evacuations ordered in the Florida Keys. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some didn't evacuate in Texas because they had just gotten back from the Gustav evacuations and couldn't afford to do it again. [3] Plasticup ^T/C 05:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incoming

This thing is predicted to hit the US. You may want this link: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/index.shtml 65.173.105.207 (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo from the Space Station

I can't find the original source for this, but as it is (obviously) from NASA it is PD, right? Do we need a .gov source to upload/use it? Plasticup ^T/C 16:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the nasa.gov source [4]. cheers — Navy Blue 20:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Resolved

– Moved by User:Hurricanehink here. user:j (aka justen) 14:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal that Hurricane Ike (2008) be renamed and moved to Hurricane Ike.

Support:

This page should be moved to Hurricane Ike. Just as Hurricane Gustav. There is no need for the ...(2008) for now. — Navy Blue 23:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. Untill another storm is made with the same name (unlikely in the next 5-10 years) there is no need for the "(2008)"... EvilHom3r (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No other storms of this name in the Atlantic, to date, plus a good chance that this storm name may be retired from usage in the future if some of the predictions of damage hold true, equals move per BOLD. Unrelated, if this storm name is retired, it would be unique in that it would be the first time (that I have been able to find) that a storm name would be retired after its first usage after replacing another retired storm name. --Winger84 (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's significant coverage and interest in the storm, so we can move it at least temporarily. If it doesn't do anything (unlikely) we can move it back to the disambiguated title (which is not even necessary, as it is the only occurrence of Ike as a tropical cyclone name). Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ike is passing directly over the Turks and Caicos Islands as a Category Four, severe damage definite. The forecast also shows Ike heading right over areas that have been inundated with rain from Fay and Gustav (central/northern Cuba) so severe flooding is likely. Once back out over the warm waters of the Gulf, it's forecast to impact the Florida Keys. From there on out, it's anyones storm in the northern Gulf. It might be worse than Gustav but it depends on the location of it's final landfall. We'll just have to wait and see. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I usually oppose early moves like this, but whatever happens Ike is going to hit at least somewhere extremely hard. The chances that it won't do anything significant are too small to consider in my opinion. Pobbie Rarr (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

The storm has done absolutely nothing as of yet. I'll support once I see damage as severe as Gustav. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Zero impact so far. If the damage is less than expected, it will need to be moved back again anyway. CrazyC83 (talk) 02:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page was already moved, BTW. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that. To prevent an edit war, we should leave it as is, but if the damage is not on the scale of Gustav (i.e. an obvious retirement case), then it should be moved back. (Hanna should be left alone despite its death toll, as Haiti has a poor record on retiring names) CrazyC83 (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there is no retirement, the Gracie/Nargis precedent still applies, as this storm is the only one to have the name Ike. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. It should be Hurricane Ike (2008) because it hasn't been retired yet, and, even if it will be, it hasn't been retired yet. Although it is likely the name will be retired, until it is, it should be left as Hurricane Ike (2008). Not only should it be left as Hurricane Ike (2008) because the name hasn't been retired yet, but there were 2 Pacific typhoons named Ike in 1981 and 1984, and the 1984 storm killed thousands in the Phillipines, and caused billions of dollars in damage, making it the deadliest and most destructive typhoon in that countries' history. Certainly this storm could be confused with the Hurricane Ike you are refering to in this article, because that typhoon was very deadly and destructive. Therefore, leave it as Hurricane Ike (2008) until the name is retired, if it will be! Okay? Because, although the 2 Pacific storms were Typhoons, not Hurricanes, they can be confused with this storm so don't leave it as Hurricane Ike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.160.31 (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those typhoons can be confused with this hurricane, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't name the article Hurricane Ike, any more than the reverse means we shouldn't name Typhoon Ike's article Typhoon Ike.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Report for impact

[5] Already some damage reports. Use as you like. Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 12:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I webcited it... its up on the page. Itfc+canes=me (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disam page for Ike

Seeing as Ike has been used under two name sakes... (A typhoon and hurricane) why does it say Tropical Storm Ike? It should read Tropical Cyclone Ike.... anyone agree? Itfc+canes=me (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it never was used for a cyclone --Elena85 | Talk to Me | 1000 edits!!!' 12:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but a hurricane and a typhoon are both tropical cyclones right? Itfc+canes=me (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Itfc+canes=me on this one. This might affect other disambiguation pages so perhaps we should discuss it on the project talk page? Plasticup ^T/C 16:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Cyclone Ike would refer to a 65 kt storm in the Southwest Indian Ocean. Tropical Storm Ike could occur in any basin (pretty much). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No.... it wouldn't... as ALL tropical cyclones... whatever they are locally called they are ALL Tropical Cyclone's.... . And BTW this has been transcluded on the project page. Itfc+canes=me (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be TC Ike, as Hurricanehink said. Tropical Storm strength is used in the North Pacific, North Indian, Atlantic, and the Southwest Indian basins. Also, a Category 1 tropical cyclone in the Australian region and the SW Pacific is equal to a tropical storm. So I think it should be kept at Tropical Storm Ike. Weatherlover819 (talk) 05:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If not, why can't you make the dimbiguation page Typhoon Ike? After all, there were 2 Pacific storms (typhoons) named Ike, neither of which were of tropical storm strength, but no other Atlantic/East Pacific storms were named Ike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.160.31 (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing Intensification and weakening

While reading the Storm History it seems like the up and down of the storms intensity gets very confusing for the reader especially if the reader is not familiar with metrological terms. I found this graph that uses the Dorvak intensities to estimate strength... It does have Wind Speed in knots and times and dates.Can we put this in here somehow and clean up the "up and down" intensity of the storms history and not confuse the general audience? Graph -WxHalo(T/C)

Perhaps you would like to submit the graph to the Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop (maybe get it SVG'd) before uploading it? — Navy Blue 18:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

The lead section doesn't mention it's a category 3 hurricane, or that what its predicted track is, or current warnings in effect.

Wikipedia:Lead section says The lead [section] should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. I think no one would dispute that the lead section of this article is not, in any way, shape, or form, something that could "stand alone" as an overview.

So - my question, since I don't want to start an editing battle if I start changing the lead section of the article to conform to WP:LEAD - does Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones have some sort of criteria/specifications for the lead section - is that why this article begins the way it does? And if so, has the WikiProject made it known to the wider Wikipedia community that it feels that its criteria/specifications overrides the standard guideline concerning lead sections, even for what is obviously a very widely type of article (strong, active hurricanes projected to do lots of damage)? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, not really. The only general guideline is to have it be more than one paragraph if possible, and have one paragraph for meteorological history (including a current position and a brief forecast) and the other one for impact, but that's pretty much covered by WP:LEAD. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infared Image

I uploaded another image, this time in infared, of Hurricane Ike about to make landfall in Cuba. I wasn't quite sure where to put this since there is no storm history section about Cuba yet. If you want it removed or feel the article is becoming too cluttered with images just remove it. RockManQ (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox can grow as over-wide box

08-Sep-2008: There is/was a wiki-format bug that sometimes widened the infobox way beyond the coded "280px" which normally would cause text to wrap within the 280px-width. I have removed similar bugs from several other old templates in the past, and I think this over-wide bug is caused internally by coding the title-corner hurricane category as "Hurricane Ike [2]" where the title-corner "2" (or whatever) is a forced section that causes the infobox to freak-out about the total box width of 280px when "2" has been forced into the infobox title. Discuss at that template talk-page:

Template_talk:Infobox_hurricane_current#Infobox_sometimes_grows_to_over-wide_box

It should be possible to have category "2" or "TC" in the title without auto-widening the box beyond 280px-width. Such bugs can be time-consuming to fix, when ensuring that data spacing would be similar to the older coding. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a miracle (!), by God, and I found/fixed the bug which caused the infobox to display over-wide beyond the width of images: the data-columns had width="100%" so I fixed reduced them all (as width="80%"). See infobox talk page:

Template_talk:Infobox_hurricane_current#Bug fixed to avoid over-wide box

If there are other infoboxes displaying similar over-wide formatting, look for the data columns having width="100%" in those templates as well. I'm sorry I didn't fix that hurricane-infobox sooner, but the over-wide bug had existed for 2 years, and I've been distracted with hundreds of other problems lately. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weather channel death toll claims

I just heard on the weather channel that the death toll from Ike in Haiti has risen to 300. I haven't found any online sources to back that up. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go. Plasticup ^T/C 17:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh...I think they misread what was on the news. The death toll from all four storms, Fay, Gustav, Hanna, and Ike, in Haiti is over 300. They read it on air as Ike caused all 300 of the fatalities. –Cyclonebiskit 18:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post-season we might want to write an article on the Effects of the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season in Haiti. Plasticup ^T/C 20:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That could be a good idea, i'm open to it. RockManQ (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So am I. Normally, unless it's Katrina or maybe Rita or Wilma, I don't like hurricanes spawning articles. I mean Dean may have been strong and big, but it hardly caused any media attention, like, oh say, Gustav or Ike. But Haiti is getting slaughtered this season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.253.110 (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Video from Cuba

Stunning video from Cuba... from Cubavision via CNN. The commentary is all in Spanish. Can someone translate it for us so we can use what they are saying... The footage is unbelievable anyway. Waves hitting a seawall and reaching heights of 5+ story buildings.

Unbelievable Video from Holguin Provence Cuba -WxHalo(T/C)19:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The video starts talking about how the waves crest above the rooftops of five-story buildings. Unprecedented storm surge in Baracoa, where all of its residents abandoned the city's boardwalk, as the surge reaches 200 m inland. The narrator says, "The entire city is in this shape" as they show images of a flooded street. Heavy downpours are starting, and the wind has left severe damage to single-family and multi-family dwellings. "Tonnes" of debris left on the street due to gusts of 140 km/h, with sustained winds of 70 km/h. The video finishes pointing out that there's 5,000 residents evacuated. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lowest Category One pressure?

I'm not sure but I think Ike has lowest pressure while having Category One winds. The pressure is at 957mb, but the winds are only at 90mph according to the latest Advisory from the NRL. Winds at that pressure should be between 110-120mph. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thought that was weird too, Can anyone confirm that this is a record —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniean (talk • contribs) 23:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This happens with large storms. I don't know whether Ike is demonstrating this phenomenon more than others but the NHC, when commenting on the "mismatch" didn't mention a record: THE LARGE EXPANSE OF HURRICANE AND TROPICAL STORM FORCE WINDS EXPLAINS THE APPARENT MISMATCH BETWEEN THE PEAK WINDS AND THE CENTRAL PRESSURE. Plasticup ^T/C 00:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that. Recon just found a pressure of 941mb, but no change in winds. only because the eye hasn't formed fully yet in addition to the large size of the storm. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina was a classic example - at landfall, the pressure was 920 yet the winds were only Cat 3. CrazyC83 (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loop Current

The Loop Current again is very unlikely to play a role; Buoy 42003 is gone but the Gulf SST at 42001 is only 85-degrees-F. Gustav didn't increase as it crossed the current and I'm surprised Ike got up to a 2. Simesa (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are surprised that the hurricane is increasing over 30 degree water with no upper-level shear and totally unrestricted outflow? There are factors other than the loop current at play here. Plasticup ^T/C 02:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but Camille, Katrina and Rita had exploded by this point. Right now 42001 is registering sustained winds of only 41 knots. Let's see what daylight reveals. Simesa (talk) 10:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's because Ike is an extremely large storm, roughly 550 miles in diameter, it takes a lot of energy to fuel that kind of storm, and even more to allow it to intensify. Camille was much smaller than Ike and even Katrina was 110 miles smaller than Ike, just to compare. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hurricane Ike in Gulf of Mexico.png

The license on this image is not right. I don't know how to properly license it, but we should. The original image (which comes via Google Earth) is probably from NASA and therefore public domain. An original would be better, especially if we could remove the radar and "forecast" bits. Plasticup ^T/C 05:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Largest Atlantic Hurricane?

I read in the article on Hurricane Gilbert from 1988, that it was the largest known atlantic hurricane, with a maximum diameter of 500 miles. Ike is again 550 miles wide, 50 miles wider than Gilbert. The NHC didn't mention this in their reports. Can anyone else back this up? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Atlantic best track... the answer is complicated. Hurricane Olga (2001) had TS force winds 750 nm across... no wait that can't possibly be right. That data set doesn't look reliable and the coding is unnecessarily complicated. We should wait for the TCR on this one. Plasticup ^T/C 15:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that TS-force winds extended 750 nm from Olga if there was a tight pressure gradient between a high nearby, but I agree that we should wait for the TCRs. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We would also have to define what we mean by "biggest". Largest diameter? Largest area? The data set says that Olga was 700+ miles long but only 100 miles wide. Does that beat a 500x500 storm? Plasticup ^T/C 16:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Public advisories on Olga do show that it had TS winds extending out 690 miles from the center, but mainly to the north. So it wasn't a symmetrical, well formed storm, it was disorganized. In terms of square miles, Ike is a definite biggest. Olga produced TS winds over an area (roughly) 70,000 mi² while ike is producing TS winds over an area (roughly) 330,000 mi² Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calculating the death toll

Since different sources are going to report different numbers for different reasons, I think that we should keep track of it here before writing it on the mainspace to verify accuracy as we did during Gustav. This way direct and indirect deaths are kept separate (the Caribbean estimate of 82 is the most accurate number due to the lack of descriptions).

Direct deaths

Indirect deaths

CrazyC83 (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um.... but the deaths were all direct in the caribbean. Itfc+canes=me (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is for US deaths - the Caribbean note is already listed. CrazyC83 (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The death of the Texas youth should not be listed, as of yet. The source that you have provided is still using catch-words such as "apparently," in regard to why the boy's parents were cutting the tree. While we can - perhaps - reasonably assume that the storm was the reason why, we should not include the young man's death until something is written along the lines of "...as his parents cut down a tree in preparation for..." Yes, it's a technicality, but I feel that it is accurate. --Winger84 (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Today's stories confirm it was storm-related. CrazyC83 (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death toll in the US is up to 47, but the article doesn't specify the causes of the fatalities. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stranded freighter

Drifting in the Gulf. 22 on board weathered the worst of the storm. A previous rescue was aborted because of the weather, but another is underway. Plasticup ^T/C 22:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that requires mentioning.Itfc+canes=me (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damage estimates (Do not use in article)

These (like for Gustav) are extremely rough and inaccurate damage estimates from insurance companies. They estimate damage will be anywhere from $8 to $18 billion ($16 to $36 billion in property losses) and one even is estimating roughly $25 billion in losses ($50 billion in property losses). [6] Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest flood threat

Up to 8 inches of rain is possible up there from Ike, on top of another 8 inches from a frontal boundary in the area. Since Ike is partially but not fully responsible, if something bad happens up there, should be considered as Ike-related or separate? CrazyC83 (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, it's also connected to Tropical Storm Lowell...so, best bet, as usual, is wait for the TCR to be certain. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, this is a difficult situation on how to treat it. Generally speaking, if it is a distinct identity (a tropical cyclone, extratropical system, tropical wave or remnant low), it is treated as part of the storm in terms of responsibility. After that, it is a judgement call on what is the "primary" system. Of course you are right about the TCR as what happens operationally is not necessarily what happens in post-analysis. CrazyC83 (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is harder than usual too, most of the time it's just two systems, a front and a tropical cyclone. This time there were two tropical cyclones and a front. Lowell enhanced the frontal system, giving it more moisture, and now it's beginning to tap moisture from Ike, It's going to be really hard to figure out which played what role in the rainfall. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not just a flood threat, but it appears the winds inland are the big story - reports in many places (including Louisville and Cincinnati) of hurricane-force wind gusts, and widespread wind damage in the Ohio Valley. I am a bit hesitant to throw too much about it into the article since it is unclear if Ike is fully responsbile. CrazyC83 (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both portions of the rain events are at least partially attributable to tropical cyclones. The first portion appeared to be both distantly connected to Lowell and Ike, in a PRE sense. It doesn't appear Lowell's mid-level remnant ever made it out of Mexico, so it's not directly related to Lowell in any case. The rainfall that occurred after 09/13 12z I'm planning on including into the Ike rainfall graphic (basically from Illinois southwestward), most of which was directly attributable to the extratropical cyclone formerly known as Ike and the warm advection pattern out ahead of it. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you are right. From what I can see based on the weather maps, the system responsible for the winds and damage in the Midwest IS indeed Ike (as a weakening tropical storm and as an extratropical low), so I think it should be included here. Since I have heard something like 700,000 are without power, the new system (Ike or no Ike) almost warrants an article on its own...this is a case of something with no real precedent. Maybe a poll on here should be done? CrazyC83 (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want. A separate article on Floods in the Plains would be able to cover the previous wetness to the west of the Ike rain area. In any case, it could be added into the Floods in the United States: 2001-present article. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong size info ?

"The diameter of Ike's tropical storm and hurricane force winds were 550 and 240 miles, respectively." - Got a source for this? If it's all the news articles, well, they are wrong, having just taken the highest radius and doubled it. Looking at the NHC forecast advisories would give the correct values. — jdorje (talk) 01:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the total diameter, the NHC stated that tropical storm force winds extended out 275 miles (that's only half the actual size of the storm, double it to get the full width) and hurricane fore extended out 120 miles from the center. [7] Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the NHC says in that public advisory that the TS winds extended out to a maximum of 275 miles. That doesn't mean they extended 275 miles in every direction, so doubling it is flat-out incorrect. If you look at the forecast advisory, it shows the maximum radius of winds in each quadrant; for instance 240 nm (275 mi) to the northeast but only 150 nm (175 mi) to the southwest. Summing opposite quadrants would give an approximate diameter, in this case 390 nm (450 mi) diameter for TS winds at that point in time. — jdorje (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

64 KT.......110NE  90SE  55SW  75NW.
50 KT.......160NE 160SE  80SW 100NW.
34 KT.......240NE 200SE 150SW 170NW.
12 FT SEAS..425NE 425SE 270SW 150NW.
WINDS AND SEAS VARY GREATLY IN EACH QUADRANT.  RADII IN NAUTICAL
MILES ARE THE LARGEST RADII EXPECTED ANYWHERE IN THAT QUADRANT.

Oh, I missed that part, my bad. Sorry for the misinformation. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit protection?

Can we get that removed? I count only a half-dozen instances of IP vandalism, all of which were reverted within seconds, and several positive contributions. Plasticup ^T/C 04:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fell a-lot more happier with the semi edit protection..... I suggest we wait until the TCR is out before we un-lock it Itfc+canes=me (talk) 08:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reduced it to two days... think that's better? · AndonicO ^Engage. 12:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndonicO (talk • contribs) [reply]

There isn't a vandalism problem, and we had several good IP editors. Edit-protection isn't needed at all. And Itfc+canes=me, I think you misunderstand the purpose of edit protection. Plasticup ^T/C 15:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-article created for Texas effects

14-Sep-2008: To roll out the details of impact in Texas, I have created a typical hurricane sub-article, linked as follows:

Main article: Effects of Hurricane Ike in Texas (per town)

In that sub-article, there are separate subheaders for some major Texas towns affected, plus "Offshore ships and oil rigs" for the Gulf. I realize that the "Hurricane Ike" article was intended as an overview only, and people kept trimming impact details to avoid the article growing to become 60% about Texas damage, so the sub-article can reduce that problem. I didn't include an infobox yet, in the style of the Katrina article set, but reading news webpages leads me to note massive damage in Louisiana, so plan for article "Effects of Hurricane Ike in Louisiana" as well. When I read that Giant Ike was twice the size of Katrina, I knew to expect numerous impact reports. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can i try and do the Louisiana one? Itfc+canes=me (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually, once more is found, sub-article(s) for Caribbean impact may be warranted as well. CrazyC83 (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Until i can find lots of Lousiana info.... The Meteorological History of Hurricane Ike's sandbox is located at User:Itfc+canes=me/sandbox/Meteorological History of Hurricane Ike Itfc+canes=me (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I don't think that Ike had a very interesting meteorological history... Plasticup ^T/C 17:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional subarticles

Right now the article is about 54 kb (with Texas already split onto a large article that is sure to grow more) so additional subarticles will be warranted. Some that should eventually be created:

Effects of Hurricane Ike in the Caribbean (can be further split for the Turks and Caicos and Bahamas, Hispaniola and Cuba if enough information is found)
Effects of Hurricane Ike in Louisiana (Itfc+canes=me mentioned about starting it)
Effects of Hurricane Ike in Texas (published and underway)
Effects of Hurricane Ike in inland North America (to cover the major flood and wind event from Arkansas and Tennessee northward to Canada, it is under development)

Those are the regional articles I can think of. CrazyC83 (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That 54KB included non-readable formatting. The actual amount of readable prose is more like 30KB. This article does not need to be split up. Plasticup ^T/C 00:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Let it grow some before hacking its limbs. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Header

The header above the page should be updated to a tropical depression,as that is what it currently is. --Fireaxe888 (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's now extratropical (the HPC header said "Remnants of Ike", which means either it is ET or a remnant low). CrazyC83 (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current Class?

Is ike current class anymore? Itfc+canes=me (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is current until the storm dissipates, even as an extratropical remnant, and until there is stability on storm statistics (Death, damage, and perhaps importantly aftermath). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... afterwards... its GA Class Itfc+canes=me (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to put 'My opinion'.... I'll rate it B+ when its no longer current class Itfc+canes=me (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, you can only assess as high as B-class without discussion or review. However, I seriously doubt the article is B-class right now, but rather Start. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just reminded my self of something.... Julian... are there any criteria for B+ Class? If not.... i will bring it to the Wikiproject Itfc+canes=me (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are. WPTC has their own B-Class criteria, and for anything higher than that, we have WP:GA? and WP:FA?. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone

See the bottom of the WPTC talk page for my idea for it... Itfc+canes=me (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement?

I am tired of having to say this too many times; you should not put down just Hurricane Ike! The name has not been retired by the World Meteoroligical Organization, so it should be put down as Hurricane Ike (2008). If the name Ike isn't retired after this year, it will be used again in 2014. It is likely the name Ike will be retired after this year, but until it is, if it will be, leave it as Hurricane Ike (2008). The name Ike might not be retired after this year, so just wait until you hear about what the WMO says about it! Don't assume the name will be retired just because of it's damage and deaths now; the name might not be retired after this year; Hurricane Emily in 2005 caused catastrophic damage in Mexico, but it's name wasn't retired, although it should have been, so don't assume that with Ike!

Until 2014 there is no other Ike, so what would we put on the disambiguation page? There is absolutely no danger of 2008's Ike being mistaken for another Ike because there is no other Ike. Plasticup ^T/C 18:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what you are trying to say, but there were two typhoons named Ike in the Pacific before this storm in 1981 and 1984, so it isn't the only storm of this name.

There was no other Andrea, Ingrid or Melissa until last season, and all of them disambiguate to (2007) as none of them were destructive at all. However, given the circumstances, at least for now it should be left alone until further discussion takes place. However, when Laura is used to replace Lili later this season (barring an extremely quiet second half), it will not be the first Laura as there was a storm with that name in 1971. CrazyC83 (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This naming has nothing to do with potential retirement (though it likely will be due to its impact on Cuba, if not the United States.) I thought this project let names lie ungrouped with a year until they were used a second time.

Oops. Never mind. Just saw that Ike had been used before. In this case, we should group the year with the storm until it is desginated as being retired in the spring, if it will be. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article set like Template:Katrina

14-Sep-2008: Creating an infobox to coordinate an article set for Hurricane Ike would also help roll-out details of other sections, to limit the size of the "Hurricane Ike" article as just an overview. For Katrina, the article set is Template:Katrina, but perhaps create "Template:TC_Ike_article_set" or similar (because "Ike" in USA is often Eisenhower). I'm not sure how many subarticles to create yet, but: Ike was the first hurricane in 106 years that overtopped the Galveston Seawall (there's no way such large masses of debris piled up on Seawall Blvd by wave action alone), plus including widespread flooding, power outages up to 4 weeks (while 60,000 in Louisiana still had no power from Gustav), etc. I think there will be enough to create several subarticles, due to the millions of people affected, long term. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No way. This isn't NEARLY as big as Katrina. There is far less information to include. Plasticup ^T/C 00:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right now the article isn't even big enough to warrant the existing fork into Effects of Hurricane Ike in Texas. It's only 46 KB, including references and everything. If it reaches 80 KB, then we can start talking about splits. Plasticup ^T/C 00:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Locked?

Although the Hurricane Ike article is locked, theere doesn't appear to be any vandalism going on with this article. Also, some things need to be changed. The complete "best track" of Ike is not finished, and the costliest U.S. hurricanes list should be here, considering the fact that Ike was the third costliest storm in U.S. history. Additionally, the image name of Ike says it was at peak strength nearing the Bahamas when, in fact, Ike achieved peak strength in the open Atlantic, not here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.160.31 (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's best it stays locked. Some people are just waiting to go after this article, especially since it's such a big news story Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No they're not. The article should not be protected. There were 6 instances of vandalism the day it was locked and they were all immediately reverted. Hardly the "Heavy IP vandalism" cited in the protection log. Furthermore there were several good IP contributors that have now been blocked. It should be removed immediately. Plasticup ^T/C 00:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that unlocking the article would greatly improve updates as news of the effects of the hurricane are reported. Deatonjr (talk) 01:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the semi-protection. I left the move protection in place (atricle shouldn't need moved anyway. The article was not fully protected. Please stay alert for vandalism now. Rmhermen (talk) 02:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I promise that this article is on 5-6 well-watched watchlists. :) Plasticup ^T/C 03:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impact > United States

The damage bill attribution should be Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and could also do with a reference. 121.223.193.217 (talk) 00:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damage and Results from Ike.

Just off the top of my head, from watching news reports on Houston television today, the following communities have been heavily damaged and affected by the storm: Houston, Galveston, Texas City, Clear Lake and surroundings. The Kemah boardwalk is heavily damaged and completely underwater. The Bolivar Peninsula has been devastated. The television reporters have described the community of Gilchrist as "completely destroyed". Crystal Beach as well has suffered "catastrophic damage". I haven't looked up any website sources as of yet, but there will be plenty published in tomorrow's news, methinks. Deatonjr (talk) 01:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bear suit?

Should the "man in the bear suit" be mentioned? TheListUpdater (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, he doesn't fit into the history of this storm, despite his funniness and unwillingness to evacuate. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Ike Suggests Need to Modify Saffir-Simpson Scale Hurricane Measurement Metrics

Moderators should consider this issue... http://www.daviddalka.com/createvalue/2008/09/14/hurricane-ike-suggests-need-to-modify-saffir-simpson-scale-hurricane-measurement-metrics/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.33.80 (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While it is interesting, the whole point of a scale such as the SS scale is to be simple. We could place a line concerning this topic, which showed up on blogs as well, into the article as an item relating to the aftermath (perhaps.) Thegreatdr (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_Ike

Someone who knows this stuff should update 2008_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Hurricane_Ike. It still discusses predicted surges etc. --Rajah (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I updated it.... Itfc+canes=me (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I suggest a semi-protect, vandalism could continue. (Hurricaneguy (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with the protection policy before suggesting this again. Plasticup ^T/C 22:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go for the semi-lock again...It's starting to pick up...Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not bad. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the vandalism being reverted? Plasticup ^T/C 23:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell there's only been a few vandals in the past 50 revisions, all of which were promptly reverted. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Case in point, semi-protection would have prevented two IP editors from making these valuable contributions. Plasticup ^T/C 05:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damage assessment in Grand Turk

This portion of the article should be as large as the US portion. Here is a good source (PDF). Plasticup ^T/C 22:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Importance

No way does this qualify for "Top" importance. That is reserved for extremely notable storms that everyone will remember for years. Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Mitch: these are worthy of Top importance. This storm isn't even close to that level. High importance is already pushing it. Plasticup ^T/C 01:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of those, I would say only Katrina and possibly Mitch deserve Top-importance. However, as for Ike, I agree with High-importance due to its deaths and damage in multiple countries. This is one of the big-name storms (retirement is a given and this will be remembered on a regional basis for a long time), but will not be considered one of the legends. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not begrudging you, CC, but you are correct Mitch was a doozy. you neglected to mention Hugo and Andrew. here are a few more points for you users to research: one, cyclones and typhoons have an international effect. they are not only American storms. two, as in movie grosses, you have to figure in today's dollars when evaluating hurricanes from decades ago, etc. three, this page is riddled with holes. you guys just don't get it. I can pull apart most of the "facts" that you present. they are not true. not even close... go back and read about the topics you are attempting to address. four, let's not have the bureaucratic nonsense that is prevalent on most wikis. just because you can create task forces does NOT mean they even do anything at all!! alright, let us see whether you actually address these issues and there are only three of you guys who think in this very narrow and incorrect fashion. Assuredly (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think that the most intense storm in the Atlanic basin is of Top importance to the Tropical Cyclones project? Plasticup ^T/C 01:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one really remembers Wilma other than those who were affected by it (and meteorologists) same goes for Rita. They were sort of blocked out by Katrina. I'd say it's the most notable storm ever due to the everlasting coverage of it. Ike will probably fall below Top importance, but remain in high due to it's damages. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that the damage is really $27 billion. People keep quoting these estimates by risk-reinsurance companies, not knowing that those are the levels of 95% exceedance probability. When the dust settles the real damages will likely be around $10 billion. Plasticup ^T/C 01:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were quite close with gustav, the estimated damage was $10-20 billion and the final damage actually was $15 billion. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to wait for the TCR on Gustav as well. Plasticup ^T/C 02:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here, this is a tiny summary of the case. it is without dispute that recent articles get more attention by dint of the fact they are new. also, no one will object to the fact that Katrina was the worst hurricane. or that Andrew was the second worst (unless damages from Ike top it). I don't know why you guys can't be more logical. you don't need a high number of casualties to have a huge national or international disaster. you only need billions and billions of dollars of damage.

Third World countries are going to have higher casualties. look at the 9.0 earthquake in Thailand. now, to illustrate my point: if the same scenario were to happen and there were almost no casualties, damages would be what is next looked at when categorizing the event. well, also the fact that it was an 8.9 or 9.0, whatever it happened to be. now... I am stating the obvious, the damage is between 15 and 35 billion dollars, let's wait it out and see what it turns out to be. lastly there is a BIAS on here with "self-appointed" experts. you guys are not knowledgable enough. perhaps I am, but I have other things to concern myself with. that leads to my last point, stop assuming that people who spend less than one to two hours a day on Wikipedia (and I daresay that some of you spend seven hours a day) are not correct. the End Assuredly (talk) 08:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Amount of damage" is not the criteria that makes a storm "High" importance versus "Top" importance. Long-term international prominence or other extreme significance to the project is what makes an article "Top" importance. Explain how this storm will be over long-term international prominence. Plasticup ^T/C 14:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not quite sure why I am allowing so few of you to rile me. look, there are only three, I repeat three of you. you THREE do NOT speak for everyone else. I think I see why many people are tired of spending a little time on Wikipedia. additionally your arguments are very faulty. yes, I can point out the holes in them, but enough of this for one day. Assuredly (talk) 08:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We may only be three, but you are one. And you aren't making a good case. Plasticup ^T/C 14:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make it four. This hurricane had a big impcat on the Turks & Caicos, plus added to Haiti's misery before it hit the US. It's possibly the 3rd most expensive Atlantic hurricane ever... It may not stay at top importance due to the apparent low death toll, that remains to be seen, but the amount of damage warrants it being so at the moment. This is the most powerful 'cane so far this season, it's certainly the one at the front of everyones minds, the one people will be looking up for news and information. It warrants Top Importance for the time being. We can always downgrade it at a later date if deemed appropriate. - JVG (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not Top-importance. The impact was severe, even extreme in some cases, but it wasn't as catastrophic as, say, Katrina. Wait for the TCR to come out and go from there. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I hate to spend much time anywhere where people who say "your arguments are very faulty but I'm not going to waste the time discussing them" win. Even ignore that it tends to piss me off, rationally speaking, if you won't point out the holes, they can't be fixed, and many perceived holes historically have been wrong or much smaller than believed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To whom are you writing? Plasticup ^T/C 23:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damage figures

I found a total for both Gustav and Ike from Cuba: over $5 billion. It does not differentiate between the two storms though, so a rough estimate would be 50-50 (at least for now). CrazyC83 (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]