Talk:List of Atlantic–Pacific crossover hurricanes

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

Just a bit of a helping hand[edit]

My first thing is that this might exist better as a catagory rather than a list but thats just my opinion. If this is to be kept I was suggest that instead of having month that you actually have the dates the storms were active.Seddon69 (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sorry I didn't notice this before. :) Juliancolton (talk) 16:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To do[edit]

  1. Add missing ones. There's at least one Atlantic-Pacific crossovers that is not included.
    1. The two missing ones are Hurricane 4 of 1876 and Hurricane 4 of 1911, counting only ones that originated in the Atlantic. I'm going to add them. Done.
  2. Is it really necessary to have Pacific-Atlantic crossovers here in a list of Atlantic-Pacific crossover hurricanes? To me, the title implies that all systems here went from the Atlantic to the Pacific. If we insist on having ones that came from the Pacific, all missing ones should be included; see the appropriate section in List of Pacific hurricanes.
  3. The statement that the info comes from the Atlantic best track is not quite true. Based on reading the appropriate portions and on string searches for "Douglas", "Miriam", "Cosme", "Orlene", and "Olivia", I conclude that those storms are not in the Atlantic best track. This hence shows why the info cannot be only from the Atlantic best track.
  4. A track map of the crossover systems, once a scope is agreed on, would probably be the best picture.
  5. It would probably be good to split the pressure and winds tables into one column per basin.
  6. Something is wrong with the columns in the windspeed table.

Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, keep it up. I think Pacific should be included, despite the title (and I think the title makes sense, since most came from the Atlantic). Yea, splitting pressure and winds would be fine. Should we have an impact table, once we have all of the storms? I could help with that. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added the two missing Pacific ones. (Simone-Inga was left to the last prose section, as were two depressions: Tropical Storm 1 in 1965 and Hurricane 4 in 1902. I didn't include them in the tables because Debby, Gert, and Anita [which were named in the Atlantic but depressions in the Pacific]) aren't. And yes, an impact section of some sort (not necessarily a table) would work well. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Debby, Gert, and Anita apparently crossed as tropical cyclones (which seems to be supported by the best track), so they would be more applicable to this list than Alma and Cosme, which did not. Potapych (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Ernesto[edit]

Should we add Hurricane Ernesto (2012) as a crossover cyclone in the section "Other storms"? As it regenerated into Tropical Storm Hector, I don't see why not. 71.236.137.84 (talk) 03:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems logical to me. Marbles1136 (talk) 04:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Atlantic–Pacific crossover hurricanes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

Somewhat late (actually very considering it was over 7 months ago lol), but can someone please update the tracking map to include Otto? --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 21:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not only add Otto, but re-do it since there are many storms that were left out from this map (Hermine, Anita, etc). @Cyclonebiskit: @Supportstorm: if not asking too much, could you guys make a new one to have only the systems that are cited in the article? ABC paulista (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bumping since its been a month and nothing has been done. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second list[edit]

@Rosalina2427: The second list is about systems that crossed from one ocean to another but aren't considered crossovers because they never redeveloped, so why Tropical Storm Larry shouldn't be in the list if it meets such criteria? None of the storms in the second list are officially crossovers. ABC paulista (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't make it across as a tropical cyclone nor lead to the formation of one, so I agree with its exclusion. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyclonebiskit: Well, the section does let open the inclusion of such cases when "tropical cyclones develop and enter another basin briefly or at a weak intensity, but aren't recognized as an Atlantic-Pacific crossover", which is Larry's case. ABC paulista (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Larry, it wasn't a tropical cyclone in the Eastern Pacific. It was a remnant low by that time, which is explicitly stated in the tropical cyclone report. Allowing the inclusion non-developing remnants opens an extremely large door with tropical waves from systems that dissipate in the open Atlantic/Caribbean. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyclonebiskit: I slighly disagree. Yes, Larry made it to EPAC as a remnant low, but that's what "entering another basin at a weak intensity" means: Systems that crossed from one ocean to another but never redeveloped as a fully tropical system, staying as remnant lows, post-tropical, open waves/throughs, etc. About the "opening the door", while I do agree that it can be an issue, I can't recall many cases of such, so I don't think it would be a problem. ABC paulista (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hermine?[edit]

I don't see why Hermine is considered an official crossover, even though the TCR lists 011E/Hermine as being one storm. The storm weakened below TD strength before crossing over to the Atlantic. Shouldn't it be listed in the "other storms" section versus the main section? No other system has this distinction to my knowledge.Undescribed (talk) 01:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undescribed, if they are officially listed as the same storm, so it's an official crossover. It wouldn't be considered a crossover if they were considered to be distinct systems, and that's what the "other storms" section comprises of: Systems from one basin that formed from the remnants form the other, but are considered to be distinct entities from each other. ABC paulista (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ABC paulista: But unlike Cesar-Douglas and Joan-Miriam, 011E/Hermine did not survive the crossover technically. I mean, even though the remnant circulation survived, it was not classifiable during that period of time. So I guess what I'm wondering is why it gets mentioned in the main space, even though it wasn't consistently a tropical cyclone throughout the crossover. Undescribed (talk) 02:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Undescribed: It was classified during the crossover as a low, per both 11E's TCR and Hermine's one. And they have a continuous track in their BT data, unlike the cases within the "other storms" section, where there are gaps in BT between the first's demise and the second's formation. Also, according to Hermine's TCR, 11E's LLC survived the crossover and reestrenghened into Hermine, and that's clearly a big deal in the matter since it was Alma's LLC dissipation that made it be considered as a separate entity from Arthur in 2008, Bret's LLC dissipation that made it to be considered as a separate entity from Greg in 1993 post-season, and the LLC's survival aspect was mentioned several times during Bonnie's discussions regarding the crossover. ABC paulista (talk) 03:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ABC paulista: That's interesting that it is still considered a crossover system. I was under the impression that since the policy change in 2000 about crossover storms, the storm would only be renamed if it wasn't a "true" crossover ie. remnant low or dissipation of the LLC. So lets say that 011E had received an EPAC name. If this was the case and it became a remnant low but then reformed in the Atlantic just as it did, would the name change or stay the same? I just think that we should be consistent with exactly what constitutes a crossover. I don't think that in the HURDAT database there has ever been a EPAC/ATL system like Hermine that became a remnant low but the LLC didn't dissipate during crossover. So does this make Hermine unique in that sense? Undescribed (talk) 03:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Undescribed, the policy change only tackled the issue of system renaming during crossover, not about their status as crossover at all. Also, I'm not sure how would they deal with a similar case should it happen, if it was named on the first basin, we can only speculate at this point. About consistency, per WP:OR we are only allowed to be as consistent as the RSMC and TCWC are, and the regeneration and crossover criteria aren't that consistent, but I think that the way it was implemented here (systems that are considered to be one and the same are to bel inclued on the main table, while systems that are considered to be distinct entities are to be included on the "other storms" section) is the most accurate one. ABC paulista (talk) 04:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ABC paulista, as you mentioned, the crossover criteria isn't consistent. Like you said we can only speculate, but I'd be willing to bet that if 011E had strengthened to a TS in the EPAC and received a name, and then degenerated into a remnant low while maintaining the LLC, it would receive a new name in the Atlantic. If this had occurred, I would also be willing to bet that it would not be considered the same system, and would not be listed in the main table. But since it only became a TD, there is more gray area involved. But I think that the same rule should apply. Undescribed (talk) 04:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undescribed, but then again, that's just unprovable speculation and we can't work with WP:FRINGE logic to deal with our info, otherwise we would fall into WP:OR territory, and that's a no-no. Also regarding original research, it's not our job to "correct" their inconsistencies (trying to do so led to some problems for us in the past, like the whole Amanda's and Cristobal's articles merging in the past), our job here is to collect verifiable info and facts, and then bring them to the readers on a viewer-friendly manner. We can only follow what the agencies state, not go further from what the sources state, and if there are inconsistencies from their part regarding the subject, so be it. We can just accept and work with it the way it is. We aren't allowed to go steps beyond they go, and currently the fact is that 11E and Hermine share the same BT points (thus being the same system, AFAIK distinct systems aren't allowed to share the same BT data), the same LLC, and existed on multiple basins and for that to be possible a crossover must have happened (unless the system "teleported" from one basin to another). ABC paulista (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ABC paulista The TCR for 011E and the TCR for Hermine share only one point, and during that one point, the TCR has it listed as a "low". There is no official Saffir-simpson classification for a low. Even if it was a potential tropical cyclone and had advisories issues for it during that time or advisories issued while post-tropical as it was still threatening land (policy change after Sandy), the fact that the two storms only share one point as a "low" doesn't make it a crossover. It would be different if both TCR's for the two systems shared one point as a "depression". But when you get right down to it, a low is not classifiable, however you look at it. Henceforth, two distinct storms. This is not coming from me but from the NHC themselves. Undescribed (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Undescribed, the fact that "low" classification doesn't exist in the Saffir-simpson scale doesn't matter, what matters is what is present in the Best Track, and classifications outside the scale like "Low", "Disturbance", "Extratropical" are accepted and included on it, and since they share the same point, on the same place at the same time makes them the same entity (two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time). Degeneration and regeneration are accepted concepts, and such classifications outside the SSHWS are used on such cases, otherwise how would you explain the existance and status of systems like Mitch in 1998, Ivan in 2004, Harvey and Lee in 2017, Genevieve in 2014 and many others? ABC paulista (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ABC paulista First of all, degeneration and regeneration are only relevant when occurring in one basin. This is a well known fact. The NHC supports this also. Cristobal and Amanda are listed in the same wiki article since they are related to one another, but just like 011E/Hermine, they are not the same system. I don't see Amanda/Cristobal listed in the main table, so 011E/Hermine shouldn't be listed there either.Undescribed (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undescribed, there's nothing written about this supposed rule about degeneration and regeneration only being relevant when occurring in one basin, that's mere speculation and not a fact, and the only difference that NHC alludes to in the matter is that crossover requires the LLC's survival, while in-basin regenration is accepted as long as the MLC is distinguishable for all its existance, that's all. In fact, there's at least another documented case, outside NHC's AoR admitelly, where a system degenerated in one basin and regenerated in another one: Georgette in 1986, which formed in EPAC, degenerated while in CPAC and reformed when it already was in the WPAC, and its still considered to be the same system throughout all its existance. Also, Amanda's and Cristobal's case is different: They are together in the same article because they damaged the same region, and their effects as so intertwinned together that the info presentation works better with them being lumped together than being separated, but the article goes out of its way multiple times to make clear that they are considered to be distinct systems, citing distinct formation and disspation dates, and distinct peak intensities. Amanda's LLC dissipated while crossing over, unlike 11E, and there's a 24h-gap between Amanda's last BT point and Cristobal's first one, again unlike 11E/Hermine. ABC paulista (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ABC paulista @Drdpw Are we still using this discussion for Eleven-Hermine? Mitch199811 (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess.
In favor of Eleven-E\Hermine being the same system, Zoom Earth does not show 2 different tracks, but rather lists them as one. At the beginning of the track on September 4th, it shows the system as a depression with the name "Hermine"
Here's my proof: https://zoom.earth/storms/hermine-2010/#map=satellite-hd 206.248.230.180 (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hattie-Simone-Inga (1961)[edit]

Simone maybe formed from Hattie's remments, Inga maybe formed from Simone's remments. Thingofme (talk) 04:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thingofme: Simone was reanalyzed to have not been a tropical cyclone so there is no longer a crossover event related to those three systems. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even before the reanalysis, there were many uncertanties regarding the veracity of possible crossover. At least it was never an official one per NHC. ABC paulista (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Julia (2022)[edit]

I noticed that Hurricane Julia is on both the official list of crossover storms and on the "Other storms" category. I know that Julia maintained its strength as a tropical storm in the Pacific basin when it crossed over from the Atlantic basin, yet it clearly contradicts the "Other storms" category - which stipulates that the tropical cyclones "formed in one basin, dissipated, and re-developed in the other" and "are not considered an Atlantic-Pacific crossover hurricane by the NHC." Should Julia be removed from the "Other storms" category? Thanks! Tfess up?or down? 21:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Julia was included on the "Other storms" section not because of herself, but mostly because of Karl, which formed from a distubance that originated from Julia's remnants, thus the relationship between them qualifies for this section. ABC paulista (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So Julia satisfies the "formed in one basin, dissipated, and re-developed in the other" but doesn't satisfy the "are not considered an Atlantic-Pacific crossover hurricane by the NHC." I'm still somewhat confused. Thanks! Tfess up?or down? 22:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Julia itself is a fully-fledged Atlantic-Pacific crossvoer, the same way that Bonnie and Otto are, but Karl originated from Julia's remnants that crossed over Central America, similar to how Alma spawned Arthur in 2008, or how Bret contributed to Dora's formation in 2017.
So Julia is a Atlantic-Pacific crossover, and Karl is a case of "formed in one basin, dissipated, and re-developed in the other" and "are not considered an Atlantic-Pacific crossover hurricane by the NHC." Like I said, Julia's inclusion on the "Other storms" section isn't about herself, but about how Karl originated from Julia. ABC paulista (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
trout Self-trout Ohh, my bad! I should have understood your comment much earlier. Sorry for taking up some of your time. Tfess up?or down? 03:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical storm amanda[edit]

Hey, the text are great but you forgot tropical storm amanda, in 2020, the storm crossed from pacific to atlantic and became tropical storm Cristobal. Please add that later. 2804:214:884A:8FFD:C839:DA7:9F90:3926 (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done – Amanda 2020 is a case of "formed in one basin, dissipated, and its remnants re-developed in the other" and thus not considered an Atlantic-Pacific crossover by the NHC. That is why it is listed in the "Other storms" section. Drdpw (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Amanda's low-level circulation disspated over land and Cristobal formed from its remnants, so they were distinct systems. ABC paulista (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Atlantic–Pacific_crossover_hurricanes&oldid=1216796348"