Talk:1969 Atlantic hurricane season

1969 Atlantic hurricane season has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: February 13, 2016. (Reviewed version).

A fact from 1969 Atlantic hurricane season appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 December 2008, and was viewed approximately 455 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Hurricane Holly was the first Atlantic hurricane by this name, having replaced Hattie after the 1961 season?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/December.

Wikipedia

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic High‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Atlantic hurricane work group (assessed as High-importance).

Untitled[edit]

"One of only three hurricanes to have done so [hit as a Category 5]in the US." Labor Day, 1935; Camille and Who?

-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast

Andrew was the third one. It was upgraded upon re-analysis to be a Category 5 hurricane in the 1992 hurricane season. Hurricanehink 22:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

18 hurricanes in a season-broken record[edit]

Shouldn't there be a mention of the fact that the 2005 season broke the record set by this season for the number of hurricanes in a season? Paul^C/_T+ 15:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the records section. Hurricanehink 16:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Button Bar Fixing[edit]

Whoever made this made Martha a Cat4 Hurricane.HurricaneCraze32 23:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No they didn't. Hurricanehink 00:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I read-including the review says Martha was Cat1.HurricaneCraze32 20:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The button bar says it was a Cat. 1. Hurricanehink 21:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like we've had this discussion before...the only thing you need to read is the best track - http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/easyhurdat_5104.html#1969_18. It's a cat1, just like the button bar says. — jdorje (talk) 05:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's talking about the button bar, which I see nothing wrong with. Hurricanehink 11:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was Cat4-i changed it to Cat1.HurricaneCraze32 21:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well you could have told us you changed it before you posted. That is why we all were so confused. Hurricanehink 21:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inga[edit]

The info on Inga contrasts with this page... which is correct? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Longest_lived_Atlantic_tropical_cyclones —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.245.13 (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anna[edit]

In case you wanted to know, I was the one who put up the picture of Tropical Storm Anna. If you want it taken off go ahead. Jake52

No, good find! Hurricanehink (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong La Niña?[edit]

The following statement was in this article, added by Storm05: "...the likely reason for the increased activity was a strong La Niña which also affected the 1969 Pacific hurricane and Pacific typhoon seasons."

According to SOI data from the Australia Bureau of Meteorology and ONI data from the Climate Prediction Center, conditions in 1969 were neutral, at best, rather than indicative of a strong La Niña. Therefore, I removed the aforementioned remark.Senorpepr 05:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Depression Seven[edit]

Seven? 1-2-3-4-5-6-7? That means seven tropical depressions formed before the first storm did. That's hard for me to believe. I can't find the list of the other ones. Could someone tell me where the other six came from? -- §Hurricane E RIC § archive 20:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The MWR does indeed confirm this, though I really don't think that the depression should be numbered as such. I think it should just be referred as Tropical Depression, as some other seasons have done. Indeed, the newspaper report simply calls it a tropical depression, and further remarks that it was the first severe tropical weather system of the season. Does anyone know when depressions first started being called Tropical Depression X? The preliminary report for Hurricane Cora in 1978 calls it Tropical Depression 3, which is the earliest I can find. If no one is opposed, I think that depressions prior to that, unless specifically numbered, should be referred just as Tropical Depression. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

opposed, why? because seven tds formed during the season and simply refering it as "tropical depression" would confuse the reader regarding which td formed and which struck land, etc. Also do not rely soley on newspaper reports since they seldom mention the NHCs referring the TDs as Tropical Depression X and so on untill recently. Storm05 14:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a good rationale. Calling it simply Tropical Depression is more accurate, as naming it with a number is incorrect otherwise. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling it simply Tropical Depression is confusing epescally if theres one or more tds in one season and it makes it difficult for the reader to determine of which td struck land or which did not, etc. and it appears you did not read my rataionalle all the way through. Storm05 14:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did read your rationale all of the way through, and I still don't buy it. I think it is more confusing giving the depressions names when they shouldn't. For all you know, depressions back then could be the equivalent of a modern invest, given how many there were. The biggest point is that, pending some unlikely evidence otherwise, the depressions did not have official titles, and so a generic title is much more informative, correct, and useful than giving them numbers. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The spreadsheet I have of potential additions to HURDAT (ooooh...aaaah) shows tropical depression numbers from 1970 onward. The system in question does not appear to have been designated TD #7 in real time. The comments in the spreadsheet merely state "Surface obs show 1006-1008 mb and no tropical storm winds."

This gets to the heart of a debate that was initiated by the discussion regarding the Unnamed hurricane in the Central Pacific in September 1975. It was labelled as Hurricane 12 instead of Unnamed Hurricane. I argued that it was never known as a hurricane in real-time, let alone #12, and should have no designation outside the title Unnamed Hurricane for wikipedia/encyclopedia purposes. I guess the critics agreed, because it is still labeled that way. I would argue for removing the numbering of depressions before 1970, since it does not appear they were numbered in real-time. Along the same vane, I also argue for removing names like "Tropical Storm 8" and title them something like "Unnamed Tropical Storm - July 8-12, 1969". Thegreatdr 16:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All around, I agree. Since it seems that depressions were numbered starting in 1970, I am in favor of removing all depression names (TD 7) prior to then. Additionally, you touch on a good point about Hurricane 12 in 1975. I wouldn't mind seeing those sorts of names gone for the named storm era. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears tropical depression numbers were assigned operationally back to at least 1968 in the Atlantic Basin, but their numbering is the cause of significant consternation, as TDs were frequently renumbered after the fact. Newspaper articles don't appear to reference TD numbers on any kind of consistent basis until the mid 1980s. Thegreatdr (talk) 05:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of the 22 nondeveloping tropical depressions in 1969[edit]

This is from the reanalysis spreadsheet. Enjoy. I have nothing more specific than this information.

April 18-22.......Western Atlantic.................Barely identifiable on surface maps
April 27-May 1....Western Atlantic.................Weak 1011 mb low
May 3-8...........Western Atlantic.................Broad low which may have been partially frontal
May 27-30.........West Central/North Atlantic......Low moving northeast ahead of cold front
May 28-June 1.....Western Atlantic
May 28-June 3.....Western Caribbean
June 6-10.........Northwest Caribbean..............1006-1008 mb low
June 11-16........NW Caribbean/Gulf of Mexico......Surface analyses only show a surface trough
June 16-19........NW Atlantic......................Deepening low moving northeast ahead of cold front
July 24-28........Western Tropical Atlantic........1011 mb low
August 6-8........Western Caribbean
August 7-9........Gulf of Mexico...................1006 mb low
August 23-27......Western Tropical Atlantic........1008 mb low
August 24-29......Eastern Tropical Atlantic
Aug. 29-Sept. 2...Western Atlantic/Gulf of Mexico..Barely identified on surface maps
Sept. 5-11........Eastern Tropical Atlantic
Sept. 10-13.......Western Tropical Atlantic
Sept. 16-20.......Gulf of Mexico
Sept. 18-21.......Gulf of Mexico...................1007 mb low
Sept. 25-28.......Gulf of Mexico...................1006 mb low
Oct. 3-7..........SW Caribbean.....................1006 mb low
Oct. 8-12.........Central Tropical Atlantic

Thegreatdr 16:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them would probably be just Invests under current standards. They probably had a much more liberal definition of "tropical depression" then as they had far less data to work with. CrazyC83 04:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe like the JMA's Minor Tropical Depression.--Neka 2008! 02:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ACE[edit]

Why is there no table for the Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) of each storms in 1969 but there is for almost all other seasons? --12george1 (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]