# Talk:1987 Atlantic hurricane season

Hey, I just found out something interesting. The records are wrong. Hurricane Arlene of 1987 took twelve and a half days to become a hurricane. That track isn't broken with degenerations like Hurricane Dennis' was and Hurricane Lisa of 2004 took only 11 days to become a hurricane. 
P.S: Cyrius, I told you I'd help you out.(It probably put me down as an anonymous user because I was somehow logged out when I did. I was sure I was logged in, but apparently not) Now I'm going to go work on some of the earlier hurricane articles, the forties, the thirties...but I'll be back.
-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast  12 January, 2005

Tropical Storm One
Hurricane Arlene
Tropical Storm Bret
Tropical Storm Cindy
Tropical Storm Dennis
Hurricane Floyd
Another year down. Hurricanehink 15:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

My article is missing a picture.Someone help.HurricaneCraze32 00:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Your article? You should try and google it for your article. Hurricanehink 01:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Doesnt have a pic.I have tried every search engine possible.HurricaneCraze32 18:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Im baffled - why was this named 14 - there wasnt near that many depressions.

Yes there were. Check the NHC archives. Not every tropical depression reached tropical storm status, so they didn't appear in the Best Track Archives. If you're still not convinced, look here for verification. The first page should help. Hurricanehink 01:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
TD14 should not be mentioned unless the other ~6 depressions are also mentioned. Jdorje 02:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The reason 14 was mentioned was due to its effects. The other 6 depressions have no mention on the NHC reports, nor in the Monthly Weather Review. Hurricanehink 02:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, but the mention should be either all-or-none.  At least another section should be added to mention them all (once sentence each should do it). Jdorje 02:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
But there's no mention of the depressions anywhere. They were tracked operationally, and have little trace of existence aside from the fact the depression was classified TD 14. Given its effects, I think the depression should stay, but I'm not sue how another section can be made. Hurricanehink 16:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
You're saying there's no information at all on the other depressions?  Not even in the post-season reports?  That seems odd.  Though I know it will be the case as you go further back in time, I would have thought the 80s would have pretty good records. Jdorje 16:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Yea, there's nothing. The only idea I have would be to look through the satellite image archive, but that would be complete guess work and would be unofficial information, so that wouldn't work. Would just the one TD work, given there is no other information? Hurricanehink 17:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I guess so.  I do think some explanation is required, though: maybe just another sub-section that says there were more depressions but no information on them is available. Jdorje 17:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Hink,i am gonna replace it back with mine.Is that okay?HurricaneCraze32 20:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Could you put your's here, so we can decide from there? Hurricanehink 00:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
No Problem:
Tropical System 14 formed on October 30 in the Carribean Sea. On October 31st, 14 was given Tropical Depression status. That night, 14 tracked across the Carribean. It ran into a low with wind shear. The low in conjunction with the western end of an elliptical 200 milibars went high to the east, created a shearing pattern. By November 1st,only a swirl of clouds was left due to the shear.
Suddenly, on the night of November 2nd, 14's remnants, near Cuba, restrengthened into T.D 14. A strong area of thunderstorms moved into the Key West area. The Naval Air Station at Boca Chica, Florida reported winds of 40 knots going east. A report says it was strong as 40 to 60 knots was found at the Keys. 14 made landfall with 31 MPH winds. Later on November 3rd, a NOAA Aircraft suffered severe turbulence in a North/South feeder band. Degrees fell from 24 to 19 in 4 minutes.  A wind of 80 kts (92 MPH), was recorded and the mbar was dropped to 998. It started dissipating on November 3rd over Florida. First sattillite pictures on November 4th only found a swirl in the air near Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. 14 was absorbed by another front on November 5th in the area of the Carolina Capes. 6 were killed in Jamaica because of 14.HurricaneCraze32 11:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What about the seasonal section do you not like? Would it be possible to add what's not there to the seasonal section? In addition, yours, while more detailed, is a little confusing. I don't think yours should replace it, but you can add some of that if you want. Hurricanehink 12:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I dont mind it at all,mine is more detailed-whats confusing?HurricaneCraze32 20:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Yours is a little too technical. Remember, people of all ages read this, and not everyone knows everything about hurricanes. For example, the cause of the shear is a little too detailed. It seems you used the NHC report in some locations, then summarized at other parts. In addition, you rarely use spaces. There were 12 places in your summary where spaces should have been used. You writing is adequate, but there are too many sentences. Your first 2 sentences are contradictory. You say the storm was formed (which is an error, it should just be formed) on October 30, and was classified a tropical depression on the 31st. Doesn't a storm form when it is classified a tropical depression? You say it crossed the Yucatan, when in fact it didn't; it remained east of it and crossed Cuba. According to the NHC report, it never dissipated, negating the fact that TD 14 reformed. You say it started dissipating on the 3rd, but you don't say where, and then on the 4th there is only a swirl in the air. You could have said the storm continued to weaken throughout the 3rd, and by the 4th the depression, completely void of convection, was declared dissipated. Again, according to the report, the TD dissipated on the 4th. The storm that absorbed it merged with another front on the 5th, so that is incorrect. The main reason why the depression is there is because it killed 6 in Jamaica, yet you completely missed that! The writing overall is poor, and I feel mine is better written. If you think there was some peice of information I left out, you can add it in, but most of what I wrote was in yours. Hurricanehink 20:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
So i missed some spaces, "By November 1st,only a swirl of clouds was left due to the shear."-I didn't say it dissipated.Fixed most of the errors.HurricaneCraze32 22:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Still missed four of them. I don't see why you are so adament at adding that to the seasonal article. What is missing from the current section that you have in yours? In addition, the wording is still confusing. Tropical Wave 14? How can you prove that? Hurricanehink 23:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
"Elliptical 200 milibars"-Whats confusing about that?Fixed more space errors and added words.Anything else.Now it is system instead of wave.HurricaneCraze32 23:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
And you still don't answer my question. What is missing from the seasonal summary that you have in yours? In response to your question, ellipitcal 200 millibars makes little to no sense for those not into hurricanes. In addition, that is taken almost directly from the NHC report, only simplified slightly by some word replacements. Also, what is Tropical System 14? Tropical Depression 14 had no identity prior to being classified by the NHC, and was simply a tropical wave then, not Tropical Wave 14. There's another problem you didn't fix. You have too many small sentences. You could talk like this. You could use short sentences like this. Other users could see how small the sentences are. Or, you could talk like this, using longer sentences so other readers don't have to pause every five words. You mention TD 14's remnants and how it restrengthened into a TD, but it never dissipated. One more time, why do you want your summary there so badly? If you do so fiercely want it, what about yours is not in mine. Hurricanehink 23:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what "elliptical 200 millibars" means.  There's nothing wrong with the article as it is now.  But if there's something you want to add, go ahead and add it.  If we decide it doesn't belong we can easily remove it. (And on a related note, I removed a useless paragraph from the intro.  The intro should be reserved for important information about the season; adding a whole paragraph about an unnamed unnotable storm is just wrong.) — jdorje (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well dont look at me for that. Juan andres did that.OK if you're allowing me to choose anything.What is your opinion?(any of youhave MSN IM-so its easier to talk)HurricaneCraze32 20:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, you can't choose anything. Only if there is something you have in yours that isn't in the main article, then you can add that. Just let us know what you're going to put in. Hurricanehink 20:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
If you want to talk on IRC: #wikipedia or #wikiproject on irc.freenode.org. However, we can easily talk here...except that you haven't said anything.  I still don't know what this argument is about. — jdorje (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
What are those-sorry.I was eating.And my sis just beat me up.HurricaneCraze32 20:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Whistles* Um anyone gonna help me-it isnt working.I figured it out.HurricaneCraze32 20:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
You should just continue the conversation here. Tell me. What is missing from the seasonal article that is in yours? Hurricanehink 00:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Why would they issue a tropical storm warning if they thought the storm was a depression at the time?  Is this sloppy writing or were they just anticipating strengthening? — jdorje (talk) 08:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

They anticipated strengthening, but they didn't realize it actually happened. Hurricanehink 12:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I looked at some seasons and apparently depression 14 is the most used.Did i find the right info.
Depressions:
1987 Atlantic hurricane season
2002 Atlantic hurricane season
1995 Atlantic hurricane season
2003 Atlantic hurricane season
Tropical Storms:
1953 Atlantic hurricane season
1936 Atlantic hurricane season
Hurricanes:
1916 Atlantic hurricane season
1887 Atlantic hurricane season

Those are the 4.HurricaneCraze32 21:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, but that means it is the most used for TD's that didn't reach TS status. TD2 in 2003, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1994, and 1992 all had TD2's that didn't become Tropical Storms. Hurricanehink 21:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Yours has a smaller range-1992 to 2003,11 years,mine:1987 to 2003,16 years.I am still looking up for more.14 seems to need a disambiguation page.j/k.1953 has a unnamed T.S14-wonder if we should count it? HurricaneCraze32 21:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The thing is 14 exists only when there's at least 14 tropical cyclones. If you are including tropical storms and hurricanes, look at the first one. There's 155 of them! Sorry, but I still don't see the point of this topic. Hurricanehink 22:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Because of the bizarre and changing numbering of subtropical depressions there are some years where there was no "tropical depression one" only a "subtropical depression one".  And there was one year where there were (arguably) two "tropical depression two" storms! I agree holdheartedly that this discussion has no point. — jdorje (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


### Leftover depression Info
Does anyone have any?HurricaneCraze32 21:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it, and why do you care much about this storm? Hurricanehink 22:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I have a little information.  Here are the tracks, by request.  This isn't from a reference-able source, but should help you all along.

11160  5/24/1987 M= 9  1 SNBR= 178            XING=0   TD1
11170  5/24*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*212 685  25    0*215 690  25    0*
11180  5/25*220 695  25    0*226 695  25    0*233 693  30    0*240 690  30    0*
11190  5/26*246 688  30    0*253 690  30    0*260 694  30    0*257 694  30    0*
11200  5/27*265 688  30    0*268 696  30    0*261 699  30    0*258 696  30    0*
11210  5/28*254 697  30    0*253 701  30    0*253 708  30    0*253 717  30    0*
11220  5/29*254 725  30    0*255 733  30    0*256 741  30    0*257 750  30    0*
11230  5/30*258 757  30    0*258 765  30    0*259 773  30    0*258 785  30    0*
11240  5/31*253 794  30    0*247 802  30    0*246 806  25    0*245 810  20    0*
11250  6/ 1*244 817  15    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*
11260 TD
11270  8/13/1987 M= 3  2 SNBR= 179            XING=0   TD4
11280  8/13*125 470  20    0*132 492  25    0*140 510  30    0*148 525  30    0*
11290  8/14*155 540  30    0*162 555  30    0*170 570  30    0*172 585  25    0*
11300  8/15*180 605  20    0*185 622  20    0*190 640  15    0*  0   0   0    0*
11310 TD
11320  8/30/1987 M= 4  3 SNBR= 180            XING=0   TD6
11330  8/30*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*140 320  25    0*142 332  25    0*
11340  8/31*145 346  30    0*148 358  30    0*150 370  30    0*152 382  30    0*
11350  9/ 1*155 398  30    0*159 409  30    0*160 420  30    0*162 432  30    0*
11360  9/ 2*167 444  30    0*169 458  25    0*170 470  25    0*172 482  20    0*
11370 TD
11380  9/ 6/1987 M= 3  4 SNBR= 181            XING=0   TD8
11390  9/ 6*128 633  25    0*129 650  30    0*130 670  30    0*131 690  30    0*
11400  9/ 7*132 708  30    0*133 725  30    0*134 742  30    0*136 763  30    0*
11410  9/ 8*138 782  30    0*139 801  30    0*140 820  30    0*140 839   0    0*
11420 TD
11430  9/ 7/1987 M= 2  5 SNBR= 182            XING=0   TD9
11440  9/ 7*286 780  25    0*298 785  30    0*310 787  30    0*323 786  30    0*
11450  9/ 8*335 785  30    0*348 785   0    0*360 785   0    0*  0   0   0    0*
11460 TD
11470  9/13/1987 M= 5  6 SNBR= 183            XING=0   TD11
11480  9/13*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*140 540  25    0*147 548  25    0*
11490  9/14*150 555  30    0*155 561  30    0*160 570  30    0*165 578  30    0*
11500  9/15*170 585  30    0*175 592  30    0*180 600  30    0*185 608  25    0*
11510  9/16*190 618  25    0*195 627  25    0*200 635  25    0*205 639  20    0*
11520  9/17*210 640  20    0*215 640  20    0*220 640  15    0*  0   0   0    0*

11540 10/31/1987 M= 5  7 SNBR= 184            XING=0   TD14
11550 10/31*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*165 775  30    0*
11560 11/ 1*175 785  30    0*184 793  30    0*195 799  30    0*201 803  30    0*
11570 11/ 2*203 805  25    0*207 808  25    0*211 811  25    0*214 814  25    0*
11580 11/ 3*223 818  25    0*232 822  25    0*240 829  25    0*249 836  25    0*
11590 11/ 4*257 839  25    0*267 835  25    0*275 830  20    0*285 820  20    0*
11600 TD

Thegreatdr (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Found some at the HPC.
URL:http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/tropical/rain/td9of1987.html
HurricaneCraze32 22:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Finish Info Boxes
Weatherman90 02:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Emily (1987) is the fastest-moving tropical cyclone on record, per the citation.  Other storms rival that speed in their extratropical stage, like Arlene and the Long Island Express hurricane (1938), but then again, they're no longer tropical cyclones.  I removed the multi-line reference in Arlene.  Interestingly, Emily already had a statement saying it was the fastest, so no changes were needed there.  This removed the disagreement seen between Arlene and Emily regarding their quick movements.  Thegreatdr 15:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Great job on this article, it is very well done and fulfills all of the criteria. However, I would suggest creating a chart at the top of the storm summaries for the season and possibly expanding the lead by a paragraph. Terrific job nevertheless. Hello32020 (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm surprised this article passed GA.  It doesn't make much sense to cover tropical depressions both within the main article AND in an other storms section.  This needs to be resolved.  If it isn't by mid-month, I'll seek a reassessment.  Thegreatdr (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Much better.  Thanks Mitch.  Thegreatdr (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)