Talk:Hurricane Ike/Archive 1

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

Note

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)

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)

It's only a matter of time, and I don't see the harm. Plasticup T/C 20:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
So much for being to early...Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
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)

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)

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

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Requested move

Resolved
 – Moved by User:Hurricanehink here.   user:j    (aka justen)   14:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Proposal that Hurricane Ike (2008) be renamed and moved to Hurricane Ike.

Support:

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)
  4. 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)
  5. 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)
  6. 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)

Oppose:

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
The page was already moved, BTW. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

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)

True, but because there were other storms named Ike, it shouldn't be put down as just Hurricane Ike because the name hasn't been retired yet, and it wasn't the only storm named Ike, so it doesn't just refer to this storm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.160.31 (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There were other storms names Ike, but there were no other hurricanes named Ike. Plasticup T/C 01:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because there are no other Hurricanes named Ike doesn't mean it can't be confused with the typhoons of 1981 and 1984. If there was no such thing as the 1981 or 1984 storms, then it would make sense to leave it as Hurricane Ike, because there would be nothing else to refer to, but because there is, it should be left as Hurricane Ike (2008). Just because there aren't any other "hurricanes" named Ike doesn't mean it can't be confused with the 1981 and 1984 typhoons, so even though they do not directly relate to this storm, they can be disambiguated with it, so you should leave it as Hurricane Ike (2008), okay?

Just because it's the only tropical cyclone named Ike in 2008, doesn't mean it can't be confused with the typhoons of 1981 and 1984. There's nothing that will stop someone sufficiently driven from being confused; if necessary, they will demand a correction of 2008 in the title to 1984 and point out that Ike was a typhoon, not a hurricane. That said, I don't see any evidence that anyone is actually being confused between these three storms, nor that anything will change when the name is retired. This argument is pathetic; it's the only Hurricane Ike, and it's got a link to the disambiguation page at the top of the page. The confusion issue is moot.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It's like people don't see the link at the top of the page, taking people to the disambiguation page. It's not our fault if people confuse the typhoons for this hurricane, and we do our best to accommodate their error. Plasticup T/C 14:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Report for impact

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

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

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

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)

  • 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:
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)

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)

Here you go. Plasticup T/C 17:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
  • That could be a good idea, i'm open to it. RockManQ (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

So, what do you mean by largest? Largest isobaric pattern? Largest area of gale force winds? Largest cloud signature? The answer to all of these is different, and the only archives we have relate to gale force winds and pressure (ROCI). I looked it up, and here is where Ike ranks (22rd largest pressure distribution since 1984), pressure distribution (ROCI)-wise:

  1. Gilbert 09/12/1988 555nm
  2. Gabrielle 09/08/1989 540nm
  3. Juan 10/31/1985 500nm
  4. Florence 09/07/1988 470nm
  5. Gabrielle 09/18/2001 460nm
  6. Florence 09/11/2006 450nm
  7. Delta 11/27/2005 450nm
  8. Michelle 11/06/2001 440nm
  9. Katrina 08/27/2005 430nm
  10. Helene 09/18/2006 400nm
  11. Wilma 10/23/2005 400nm
  12. Otto 12/02/2004 400nm
  13. Nicole 10/11/2004 400nm
  14. Isidore 09/25/2002 400nm
  15. Olga 11/26/2001 400nm
  16. Erika 09/20/1997 400nm
  17. Opal 10/04/1995 400nm
  18. Edouard 08/09/1990 400nm
  19. Josephine 10/14/1984 395nm
  20. Noel 10/28/2007 380nm
  21. Rita 09/23/2005 375nm
  22. Ike 09/01/2008 375nm (yes, September 1, not 10) Thegreatdr (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Otto 2004 is 12? I would have never guessed. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)

Dayton, Ohio currently has over 105,000 people without power and the schools were closed up until the 17th. Source: www.1290whio.com 216.153.166.69 (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)chefantwon

I definitely think this should have it's own article. The wind was as bad as TS/Catagory 1 Hurricane force. Over 900,000 people were without power in the Dayton and Cincinnati metro areas after the storm. Burner0718 Jibba Jabba! 04:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)

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:

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)

yes, Ike was huge in size, scope, and also other factors come into play when describing it. thank you for your info, 77. also this points to the fact that Ike will be remembered as one of the more severe storms. Assuredly (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Can i try and do the Louisiana one? Itfc+canes=me (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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:

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

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

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)

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)

Current Class?

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

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)
Ok... afterwards... its GA Class Itfc+canes=me (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Huh? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Bear suit?

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

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)
I agree with TheGreatDr, but should be mentioned on KHOU-TV since "The Spirt of Texas" showed it. EvilWendyMan 21:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

Vandalism

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

Please familiarize yourself with the protection policy before suggesting this again. Plasticup T/C 22:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd go for the semi-lock again...It's starting to pick up...Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not bad. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Is the vandalism being reverted? Plasticup T/C 23:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)

Importance

Main page: Talk:Hurricane Ike/Importance

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 - about $2.5 billion for each storm). CrazyC83 (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

New figures out, damage estimates now range from $27 billion to $52 billion (in US alone) [8] Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Remnants of Ike

I would like to point out that the remnants of Ike slammed into Iceland today. I have found this news report about the aftermath. Link Tarmo Tanilsoo (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, although it seems that in reality it has been absorbed by another low (that probably happened around 0600-1200Z on September 15). I'm not sure how the TCR will treat it though. CrazyC83 (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
yet another reason why Ike is a phenomenal storm. thanks, Tarmo. CC, being that it TRAVELED across the Atlantic twice, what do you have to say now? keep in mind that 95 percent of homes were damaged in South Caicos Island and 80 percent in Grand Turk Island. and no, you have little concept of reality as it applies to hurricane science! I would like to know why you continuously downplay scientific analysis. yes, absorption vs. a solo storm has its place, but you jump out as it were "in the street" without looking both ways. Assuredly (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Most Atlantic storms recurve, and many reach Europe as extra-tropical storms. This isn't unusual. Plasticup T/C 22:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
pc, this is distortion though. most Atlantic storms are not in the same categories as Ike. Assuredly (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I know. Only a few hundred. Plasticup T/C 22:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
wrong. very mediocre scientists would not be able to understand that a Cat 4 hurricane can be as important as a Cat 5. but then you aren't even a scientist, right? Assuredly (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I thought that you were talking about hurricane categories. And please, comment on content, not on the contributor. Plasticup T/C 23:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture of Ike over Gulf of Mexico

We have an ISS picture and a picture of Ike at peak intensity over the Atlantic, as well as a radar picture of Ike at landfall, and even one right before landfall in Cuba, but I think to give the complete story we need a picture of Ike over the Gulf of Mexico to show its shear size, which was the key reason it caused so much damage to the U.S. It was one of the largest hurricanes on record and I think that that's important to show. bob rulz (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you think this picture is cool? -Ramisses (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
This is in the Gulf: http://www.sciam.com/media/inline/blog/Image/avn-l.jpg Itfc+canes=me (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The first one is cool but doesn't give any sort of perspective. As for the second one, I think a visible picture would be much better. bob rulz (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
For Infobox, I think an image over Gulf of Mexico is better than one at peak intensity. For example, Typhoon Fitow's image is just before landfall at Izu Peninsula. My impression of Ike is a large cyclone, not a small one.--HERB (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I actually prefer the image of Ike at its peak intensity. The other one at first glance is nothing more than an elongated blob of clouds, and it's equally as hard to determine where it is. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The picture over GoM is awful. You can't even tell that it is a hurricane. The one at peak intensity is beautiful, and represents a very important part of the storm's history. Plasticup T/C 22:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed completely. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Good call. If someone made a case of an Ike picture in the Gulf of Mexico, it would have needed to be either when it emerged from Cuba initially (and looked good on the visible), or just before landfall. In between, it couldn't keep a visible or IR eye. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
All right. Speaking GOM, I think [9] is better than this one.--HERB (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
It is the same one without the bowtie distortions.Potapych (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
That picture of Ike has been uploaded so many times already. The GOM version of Ike is obviously a distorted version of this[10].Potapych (talk) 02:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Image from the US Navy

Should be PD. I found it here, but we'll need the original source before we can upload it. Everything else on the page it fully copyrighted. Plasticup T/C 16:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Death toll and Media Blackout in Galveston?

The article currently says "Sixty deaths have been reported in the US — thirty-three in Texas". As I understand it ordinary people in the nearby area are discussing that people they know who are emergency workers in Galveston have seen substantially larger numbers of bodies. Also there is a media blackout covering the West End, see:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/15/hurricane-ike-media/ (report of interview on local radio)

http://www.galvnews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=f7ca46e6d82f0709 (Galveston County Daily News, the local newspaper)

and many other sources - try a search engine. --PeterR (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The AP is reporting 55 deaths. What are the local sources saying? As for the media blackout, is that sort of thing unusual after a natural disaster? Thinkprogress doesn't strike me as a particularly reliable site, and the link you provided to galvnews.com doesn't work, so I won't comment on that specifically. More information would be welcome. Plasticup T/C 22:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
That's really weird about the Galveston Daily News article being blocked - it was there half an hour ago and Google's cache is still here. The ThinkProgress site showed a video of the interview, which was from local news Channel 13, and I understand the journalist concerned is a real local news journalist, not an underground conspiracy site person.--PeterR (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The same kinds of reports occurred after Andrew. Don't believe everything people say. It's possible they could be saying it just for attention. bob rulz (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The lack of media coverage of the Ike aftermath has been rather pronounced compared to past such events. It seemed there was a big news story as one would expect with hurricane Ike, and then it was just dropped overnight as the hurricane even came ashore. Very odd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.137.128.232 (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
The storm surge was only half as big as some predicted, so I don't think the story was as big as some thought it would be. Plasticup T/C 22:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • 19-Sep-2008: The blocking of Bolivar seems to have been a Coast Guard air-space issue: avoid news helicopters during USCG rescues. The ThinkProgress webpage seems correct: Wayne Dolcefino ("dol-chay-fee-no") is (after 25+ years) the head investigative reporter for KTRK-TV (Houston abc13.com), definitely for conspiracy or cover-up issues. The implication of "Federal cover-up" that Bush suppressed devastating scenes (during the Republican-controlled presidency) seems to be instead the "Federal" U.S. Coast Guard helping with rescue efforts, so there's no definite viewpoint. The article about media blackout in Galveston, from the Galveston Daily News, is back online, noting that the author is the head of that newsgroup. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Calculating the damage total

I don't think the damage total in the article is correct. Would we be able to compile a damage total here? Ideally, find a damage source for each of the locations that is recent, and if we have more than one, then we'll discuss which one is more accurate. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


  • Haiti
The numbers are sure to be all over the place. Those are also the numbers I have seen. CrazyC83 (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Those numbers from Risk Management Assessment Inc. come out of a computer model, not actual surveys. Plasticup T/C 19:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Added the damages for Ohio, $550 million in property losses. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Effects of Hurricane Ike in inland North America link. In the Canada Section.

What the???

Now since when was Canada part of North America? I would recommend someone does a redirect to North America from Canada.

Discuss —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itfc+canes=me (talk • contribs)

Canada has always been a part of North America. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I can't do redirects.... HELP Itfc+canes=me (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Um... Canada is part of North America. So is Mexico. See North America. Plasticup T/C 15:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Last I checked, Canada, the continental US states (excluding Hawaii), and Mexico were subdivisions of North America. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

External Link to HurricaneWiki.org

As I am the second editor today to remove the external link to http://www.hurricanewiki.org/, I offer an explanation and invite responses from the editor who posted it or anyone else who feels strongly that the link should be included. (I would have posted on the editor's talk page, but I thought I'd see what the editors here think.) The link does not appear to be spam (the site contains no ads — yet), but I don't believe it belongs in this article.

According to the style guidelines regarding external links, the link doesn't clearly meet the fundamental requirement to "likely to continue being a functional link," as the site's "about" page is blank. The main page does indicate that it is a project of the "Hurricane Information Center," but that site seems to be a social network operated by a sole individual.

Although the link isn't "restricted" by the guidelines, it does seem to qualify under "Links normally to be avoided," as it is an "open wiki" and it is "only indirectly related" to Hurricane Ike. --Danorton (talk) 03:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

We should not be linking to forums, blogs, or anything of that nature. If it were government sponsored or something then we might, but this is just some guy's website. I suspect that Bldarter knows this, which is why he dressed it up as "Information on government resources, shelters, news, and aid agencies" Plasticup T/C 04:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that plasticup likes to insult people gratuitously. It is the wiki associated with this site http://www.hurricanes08.org/ . A little digging on the site would show that it is not a one man show. Neither site is mine. I didn't start them and I don't own them and I don't host them and I don't have admin privileges on either. I just worked on http://www.hurricanewiki.org extensively. It will be around. It started as a wiki for hurricane gustav, changed to focus mostly on ike and will stay around as a resource for all future hurricane disasters. It is the brainchild of the same people that created http://katrinahelp.info/

They have stayed in touch through http://worldwidehelp.blogspot.com/ and http://groups.google.com/group/WorldWideHelp . The original spark for the group was working on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donations_for_victims_of_the_2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake&redirect=no which was deleted as not being wikipedia enough. Fair enough. During katrina and later other disaster wikis were created. My own site is http://relieforganizations.wordpress.com/ which I created when I had some free time last spring if you still question my motives. You can look back to 2005 in my wikipedia edit history to see what my interests were then and that they haven't changed.

And "Information on government resources, shelters, news, and aid agencies" is exactly what the wiki is, not hyped up at all - understated if anything. Bldarter (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

For all its good intentions it is essentially a message board, which is the epitome of "external links to avoid". I didn't mean to offend, but I am perhaps guilty of not assuming good faith. It is obvious that you did not mean to deceive or misinform readers, and my initial comments were unnecessarily abrasive. I won't flood you with excuses, but please accept my apology. Plasticup T/C 21:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Apology accepted. Looking at the history of the spamming and vandalism that was happening on this article around the time I added the link, I can now see how you would be suspicious. http://www.hurricanes08.org/ is a social networking site. I can see how it could be seen as a message board, but the link I added was to http://www.hurricanewiki.org which doesn't have any resemblance to a message board. It is a directory of sorts with some articles and some of the links have commentary and annotation. I will return later to try to explain it more, but right now I have to go to a meeting at my daughter's school :)

Bldarter (talk) 23:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't forget the small places

I know windows blown out in downtown Houston are sexy, but don't forget the small places. Bridge City, Texas was (almost) completely inundated by the storm surge, but there was no mention (that I could find) in the Ike articles until I added it.

I've also been directly hit by the storm, and just got power back, so don't ask me why I didn't do it earlier. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Class warfare

Uh.... why's there no aftermath..... that could be coz it ain't been released as reliable sources yet. I suggest we keep it at current class. Itfc+canes=me (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Surely there's some reliable information regarding aftermath. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't find any. Itfc+canes=me (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
You make a good point on keeping it at "Current". The Aftermath is still rapidly evolving. Plasticup T/C 15:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Have any shelters been opened? Has the Coast Guard gone searching for people? Have people sent assistance, food, and supplies? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing current about this article anymore, except for maybe aftermath, which lasts years after a hurricane's landfall. It includes most, if not all, of the knowable information regarding this system which can be known until the storm report comes out. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but we're not supposed to be choosing a class based upon future information on a topic, are we? If so, none of these articles on wikipedia on science can really be beyond start. I'm taking this to the project page. (Off the soapbox.) Thegreatdr (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone found Aftermath I found enviromental aftermath.... thats it.? Itfc+canes=me (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Let me see if I understand you correctly. A Category 4 hurricane demolishes Turks and Caicos, hits all of Cuba, and destroys Galveston Island, and you are asking whether there was only environmental aftermath? Plasticup T/C 15:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

400+ missing in the U.S. counted as fatalities?

Hi, I understand why Davidwr edited the infobox but I have to be honest -- I have some discomfort at seeing '400 missing' under the same heading as fatalities.

Missing = unknown, couldn't positively identify as fatalities. Might I suggest either moving the missing to some other part or removing entirely, and adding in to the fatality count as each case (or report) becomes confirmed from reliable sources? 64.209.16.204 (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well it does specify that they are missing, not confirmed dead. I think that the way it is presented there is no ambiguity. In all likelihood, most of those missing will soon be assumed dead by all the official agencies. Plasticup T/C 20:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm okay with moving the missing count out of the death table, but I can't think of any other place that would be better and clearer. People look for statistics to jump out at them, which is what tables are for. Feel free to experiment. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm good with how it is currently presented. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Its very sad and shows what a place the US is when almost the same death toll happens in a "civilized" country like the US as does in Haiti, one of the poorest and most densely populated countries in the world. The hurricane was stronger there! Please follow evac orders all the time Americans! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.136.111 (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The US population is also a lot bigger, which accounts for much of the discrepancy. I also resent the implication that US is more civilized that other nations. Many of us would disagree with that assessment. Plasticup T/C 01:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Environmental toll??

Some of the language in this section isn't very accurate. What makes the environmental impact massive? I think it should be rewritten to reflect the source quoted without to misleading and ambiguous language. Mlcastillo (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it needs a complete rewrite. Would you like to do it? Plasticup T/C 23:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I put it there... it uses similar wording to the articles I used as sources... I also included relief efforts in the After Math ITFC+CANES=ME T31K 11:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Remove if completely for now. The write-up is astonishingly lousy. It ruins Wikipedia's serious reputation. Also, half a million GALLONS isn't very much, merely 1 days production from ONE major field only... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.188.64.83 (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Be bold then, re-write it yourself you do don't think it's adequate. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Wiping out 15 edits to restore 123 edits caught in an anti-vandal edit

This anti-vandalism edit of 00:02 9 October 2008 wiped out 123 edits taking us back to September 28. I restored to 71.145.155.102 at 22:46, 8 October 2008, wiping out 18 edits. We need to pick up the non-vandal edits from the 15 I deleted and delete the vandalism caught in the anti-vandalism edit without throwing out anything else or using outdated historical information. I'll work on it some this weekend but please jump in and fix what you can. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Done, although some of the changes I redid are a bit dubious. - Josh (talk | contribs) 20:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Integrated Kinetic Energy

Someone needs to prove to me that this is an official measure developed by degreed scientists or I will remove it. We can't just invent our own intensity scales, sorry. And if it is an official measure (I have my doubts), it needs its own page describing what it is and how it's used. -- HurricaneERIC - Class of '08: XVII Maius MMVIII 22:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you capable of doing a web search? The first hit on Google is the article from the April 2007 issue of the American Meterological Society, and the third is Dr. Jeff Masters' applying it to Hurricane Ike. And no one has to prove anything to you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
"Tropical Cyclone Destructive Potential By Integrated Kinetic Energy", "Integrated Kinetic Energy: A new metric for tropical cyclone destructive potential", "Tropical Cyclone Inner-Core Kinetic Energy Evolution", etc. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Prosfilaes for handling that in a kind and courteous manner. I was looking for something along the lines of what Julian Colton provided rather than a snide remark (thank you Julian). There is a difference between expressing a pointed concern and treating someone like an idiot. One of the things that red flagged it to me was that someone brought it up on the Wikia in a discussion on possible replacements to SSHS...in which all previous ideas had been the figments of creative imaginations. I've found from experience that unless you get right to the point, your concerns often get brushed aside. My intent was to see that this was addressed immediately, not treat someone like they were 4. The sarcasm was a little much and I apologize. The fact that the acronym was "IKE" certainly didn't help. I'm glad to hear the scientific community has taken this up, as it's implications could be huge. -- HurricaneERIC - Class of '08: XVII Maius MMVIII 06:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
It didn't look like a snide remark to me, but then again, I wasn't its target. Looks like both parties could have worded their comments more carefully to avoid the situation. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Second highest IKE?

If Ike had the second highest IKE of any hurricane in the Atlantic, what Atlantic hurricane has first place? It says Katrina and Wilma had an IKE of 5.1, just 5 under Ike. What Atlantic hurricane had the Highest IKE? Or did Ike have the highest IKE? 76.236.179.230 (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Hey, why not post your pictures of Hurricane Ike (if you have any) on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.229.39.161 (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Deaths?

Ike struck more than a month ago; can we assume the 202 people missing have died?76.236.179.230 (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No, we can't assume anything. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Then where have the 202 missing people went? 76.236.179.230 (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

They may have left the area, but not reported that they are alive. For example, if you look at Hurricane Katrina, 705 people are still reported as missing, but not considered to have been killed. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
They'll be found come election time. Itfc+canes=me Talk Contributions 11:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect category

Can someone explain why this article is included in this category: Category:George W. Bush administration controversies?? The only mention of President Bush is this text: On September 10, U.S. President George W. Bush made an emergency declaration for Texas in advance of Hurricane Ike, making more federal help available for preparations and evacuations - the text as it is now per reference 48. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably a wikipedia problem... Itfc+canes=me Talk Contributions 11:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

How's this picture

I wonder if this is good. If I just had the fair use thing issued it would be great maybe put it in the infobox. The luigi kart assasions 8:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Where did you find it? Satellite images are usually products of the US government and are therefore in the public domain. Usually. Plasticup T/C 03:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I found it in nasa's site I just forgot how to do the fair use thing so I just put I don't know where it was, I check where I found it at by tommorow because it's 8:45 pm now and I live in california. The luigi kart assasions 8:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The one in the infobox is better. NASA offers high resolution versions of all their images which are superior in quality to the low resolution ones. You'll note that they draw borders on all their pictures which are the same width at all resolutions. So for low resolutions, the borders will appear strongly on the thumbnail, while at high resolutions, they're barely noticeable. Potapych (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

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) 15:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Um.... but the deaths were all direct in the caribbean. Itfc+canes=me (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
This is for US deaths - the Caribbean note is already listed. CrazyC83 (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
Today's stories confirm it was storm-related. CrazyC83 (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
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)


Confirmed damage totals

Following the trend of keeping track of fatalities and damages.

  • Total Confirmed damages- >$13,136,800,000 ($13.137 billion)

When new damage totals are put out, put them here. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


Storm history split

The storm history section is long, is there a possibility of splitting it to a separate article? --IrfanFaiz 11:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about that. I guess I'll work the the MH article soon. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Lengthening page

I'm not sure about it, but I think this talk page is getting pretty long. Are we going to split this page into different archives? There are 62 different sections to this very page; it's almost as long if not longer than the main article itself. Are we going to have to split this page up? It's the longest page I've seen here. I think this talk page should be split up. The talk page with this storm is more than twice the size of Hurricane Katrina's talk page believe it or not. Does anyone agree with me on this? 76.235.217.70 (talk) 03:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. You didn't have to give examples, you could have just said that the talk page is getting excessively long and that it needs to be archived :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

But this part only has 4 different sections; can't you put half of the number of sections overall on both pages? The archive still has over 50 different sections; could you put 31 sections on each to even it out? 76.235.217.70 (talk) 13:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The archive is what it is. If a new archive is needed it will probably be shorter Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Time for semi-protect?

There's been a spate of vandalism in the last 24 hours. If this goes on a few more days, semi-protect for a day or three might be in order. On the other hand, one of the 2 good edits in the last day was from an IP. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection It's been brought up recently. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Wind damage related to Ike

One thing that should be included in this article is the unprecendented wind damage caused in Kentucky (and some surrounding states). When Ike merged with the cold front, the winds on Sunday morning (September 14) were the highest ever recorded (non-thunderstorm). One wind gust was reported at 81 mph at Kentucky Dam. Several other official reports in western Kentucky were in the 65-75 mph range. A lot of wind damage was caused by this, including damage to homes, businesses, and other structures. Again, these were non-thunderstorm winds and were directly caused by Ike (or the remnants of). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd8547 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That's well covered in the Farther inland portion of the impact section. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Missing

202?! Jesus, that's a high number for so long after the storm. How reliable is this figure and should we presume the worst? What's the word on all these people? -- HurricaneERIC - Class of '08: XVII Maius MMVIII 22:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

we dont presume the worst until we have a source saying soJason Rees (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. There is still a fairly large count of people "missing" since World War II. Until a body is found or they show up alive, they will remain "missing". It's usually a custom during disasters and wars to consider them missing; mostly with respect to their families. 99.163.105.9 (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

TCR

[11]. $18 billion in damage. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's $25.67-$26.67 billion overall. $18 billion in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas. Another $4.41 billion in Ohio, up to $4 billion in Cuba, $200 million in the Bahamas, and $60 million in the Turks and Caicos. Cyclonebiskit 16:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd go for the midpoint of each country. That would be $22.4B in the US directly affected, $3.5B in Cuba and $200M in the Bahamas and Turks and Caicos (they are combined). Total damage is $26.1B, although Hispaniola, the eastern Gulf Coast and Canada are not listed. Additional subarticles will be necessary to get this up the scale. CrazyC83 (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Death toll at this point is 195: Haiti - 74, Dominican Republic - 2, Cuba - 7, Coastal US - 20 (64), Inland US - 0 (28). The inland totals need to be sorted out farther; they are listed as a mix of direct and indirect but are not included in the 103 total. CrazyC83 (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

After revision, the damage is now: US from the tropical system $19.3B; US inland $4.7B (US total $24B, moves Ike up to 3rd costliest); Cuba $4B; Bahamas and Turks and Caicos $200M; total known $28.2B - still with figures missing from other areas. CrazyC83 (talk) 05:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

A recent report conducted by Texas A & M University increases Hurricane Ike's damage to $29 billion in Texas alone. (Rusty218 (talk) 04:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

Landfall

I didn't want to edit the actual Hurricane Ike page in case the NOAA is incorrect or I misread, but Hurricane Ike made landfall in Galveston, TX at 2:10am (http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2008/al09/al092008.update.09130730.shtml). It says Baytown on the main page as final touchdown, but(and since I'm a Galvestonian I have a little insight) there is no way a hurricane can miss Galveston and hit Baytown because the length of Galveston pretty much covers the entrance to the Port. 208.110.212.3 (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Dana Townley

Best Track

I think NHC has some errors in the HURDAT database for this one. Some of the points are closer together around Cuba. The TCR track is the one reflected on the map here and it appears much smoother. Should I upload the HURDAT version over it anyway? Potapych (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hurricane Ike Size

Hurricane Ike is considered to be the largest hurricane measured in the Atlantic Basin. In the "Largest Hurricane by Gale Diameter," it lists Ike last. Ike should be placed at the top because it was 600 nm across at its widest while in the Gulf of Mexico the day before it made landfall in Galveston, Texas.

External Links

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,421302,00.html http://www.click2houston.com/weather/17455610/detail.html http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/hurricane-ike-47091501 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/us/13ike.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1 (Rusty218 (talk) 05:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

Them links are not good enough to prove that Ike is the largest atlantic hurricane its got to be the TCR from the NHC that confirms it, and from a breif scan of it i couldnt see anything about ike being the largest.Jason Rees (talk) 08:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I coordinated with NHC and NCDC early this year about this. NCDC was calling it the largest hurricane on record, but there were larger storms whether you consider rainfall pattern, gale radius, or isobaric pattern. Isobarically, Hanna (of the same season) was bigger than Ike! NCDC rescinded its comment/reference soon afterwards. This has come up within the tropical cyclone mailing list quite recently, so I've again removed it from the article. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Iceland source

[12] mentions the hit and the contributions Ike made to the storm. Is this source reliable enough? Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 11:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks reliable to me. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Same hereJason Rees (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
[13] here's another one. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Here's some other interesting stuff, but it's not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Top importance?

What went into the IRC chat that determined Ike was of top importance? I was checking to make sure it was of high importance, per wikipedia traffic to the page, and was surprised it had been elevated to top, especially since last September's debate about its not being top importance frustrated someone on wikipedia not only to drop out of the project and use a sock puppet account, but also to call me at work. Thegreatdr (talk) 11:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I downgraded it to high importance, since Sandy has come and surpassed it as 2nd costliest US hurricane. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Meteorological History

Is it possible to split the MH of Hurricane Ike? I know there was some discussion about it before but there was no action taken. I can't make it myself but an experienced editor can make it. Also, will the article be notable enough? Darren23 (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) is currently working on this. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Darren23 (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Main issues that remain

This is a big article which is well-referenced. That's the good news. However, the reference section needs to be cleaned up, with similar format amongst all references. The external links section is getting long. Personally, I don't see why there are three links to the Houston Chronicle within this section...one should suffice. Also, the lead seems way too short for the length of this article, and is missing one or two paragraphs. So much of the body talks about the impact of the storm in Texas and Midwest, as well as in regards to oil prices, yet none of this information is summarized within the lead. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Portlight

It seems like there's basically a press release for portlight strategies in here. Although it should be fine to mention that they helped out and give some details, this shouldn't be a flyer for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.27.121 (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


I would be supportive of reducing the Portlight mentions to a few sentences as it seems more appropriate. I'll give it a few weeks and then I'll take the effort to trim it back a bit if no one beats me to it. If you disagree, discuss here. Ken (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

One more victim

See here. ~AH1 (discuss!) 20:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


She was always identified as a victim, but not by name. It doesn't change the number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.109.110.63 (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Predicting the future

"The next hurricane to make landfall in the United States was Hurricane Irene on Aug. 27, 2011."

The person who made this edit may have high confidence in the track forecast for Irene, but isn't it inappropriate to write history before it has even happened?" Matt2h (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Il be bold and remove it per WP:CRYSTAL. YE Pacific Hurricane 19:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


Now second costliest

Per NHC - http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/nws-nhc-6.pdf , Ike is now second costliest.

Unadjusted that is correct. If adjusted for inflation, Ike would be third (Andrew would be about $45B in 2008 dollars). The total of $37.6B includes the Caribbean countries where numbers are available (there are no numbers for Jamaica, Haiti, the Dominican Republic or Canada). CrazyC83 (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Understood. I just had to post here because someone changed it back a couple of times. I wanted to put the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.11.224 (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Now it looks like Hurricane Harvey (probably) and Hurricane Irma (depending on what happens over the next few days) could be more costly than Ike. We'll have to wait for the final damage figures on those storms. --Teratornis (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Superlatives need updating

The superlatives about this hurricane being the Nth worst in US history need to be recalculated after Sandy. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Costliest hurricanes

Costliest U.S. Atlantic hurricanes, 1900–2017
Direct economic losses, normalized to societal conditions in 2018[1]
Rank Hurricane Season Cost
1  4  "Miami" 1926 $235.9 billion
2  4  "Galveston" 1900 $138.6 billion
3  3  Katrina 2005 $116.9 billion
4  4  "Galveston" 1915 $109.8 billion
5  5  Andrew 1992 $106.0 billion
6  ET  Sandy 2012  $73.5 billion
7  3  "Cuba–Florida" 1944  $73.5 billion
8  4  Harvey 2017  $62.2 billion
9  3  "New England" 1938  $57.8 billion
10  4  "Okeechobee" 1928  $54.4 billion
Main article: List of costliest Atlantic hurricanes
Costliest U.S. Atlantic hurricanes[2][3][nb 1]
Rank Hurricane Season Damage
1  3  Katrina 2005 $125 billion
 4  Harvey 2017
3  4  Ian 2022 $113 billion
4  4  Maria 2017 $90 billion
5  4  Ida 2021 $75 billion
6  ET  Sandy 2012 $65 billion
7  4  Irma 2017 $52.1 billion
8  2  Ike 2008 $30 billion
9  5  Andrew 1992 $27 billion
10  5  Michael 2018 $25 billion

In the opening paragraph, when it says Ike is the 3rd costliest hurricane, and the most costliest in Texas, it must mean without inflation adjustment. Otherwise it conflicts with the chart on the right. - Sidelight12 Talk 06:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrrCXlgk1TM
    Triggered by \byoutube\.com/watch\?v=IrrCXlgk1TM on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hurricane Ike. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Hurricane Ike. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Hurricane Ike. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Ike. 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) 23:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Hurricane Ike. 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) 13:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Hurricane Ike. 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) 02:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Weinkle, Jessica; et al. (2018). "Normalized hurricane damage in the continental United States 1900–2017". Nature Sustainability. 1: 808–813. doi:10.1038/s41893-018-0165-2.
  2. ^ Costliest U.S. tropical cyclones tables update (PDF) (Report). United States National Hurricane Center. January 12, 2018. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 27, 2018. Retrieved January 12, 2018.
  3. ^ "Assessing the U.S. Climate in 2018". National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI). 2019-02-06. Retrieved 2019-02-09.


Cite error: There are <ref group=nb> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=nb}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Ike/Archive_1&oldid=1142519266"