# Talk:Hurricane Catarina

For older discussions before this article was split, see Talk:South Atlantic tropical cyclone.

Can the wording used be consistent?  It is called a cyclone and a hurricane in the intro.  It should be called either one or the other.  And I'm currently leaning away from "hurricane" Hopquick 06:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC).
I changed the wording to this: "it was the first positively identified hurricane strength system in the basin"  Please feel free to change it back or change it to whatever you wish, but the way it was worded... "first...hurricane" implies that Catarina was a "hurricane" which it technically...probably isn't. Hopquick

AFAICT this is an "unnamed" cyclone and, according to our naming practices, should be called either 2004 Catarina Cyclone or Catarina Cyclone of 2004. Jdorje 03:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The name "Catarina" was assigned by the Brazillian Weather Office. That sounds pretty official to me. They may not be registered with the WMO or willing to admit that a hurricane kicked their ass but most of them are college educated meteorologists. That's official enough for Wikipedia. The WMO mentions it here:[1] on the ninth page, fourth paragraph. The only reason they don't recognize the name as "official" is that the Brazilian Meteorological Department is not a WMO-registered RSMC like NHC is. All RSMCs have registered naming naming lists cleared by the WMO. Tropical cyclones are about as rare in Brazil as snow in the Sahara, therefore, it was never worth the hassle of registering to be an RSMC. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
The Brazilians originated it and the name has come to common use by researchers around the world. When discussing the storm, most meterologists and agencies use the name Catarina; in the US, UK, and elsewhere. A lot of information is available in the external links I added to the page, including that the Brazilian government now recognizes Catarina was a hurricane/cyclone. Evolauxia 21:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
The suggested name for Brazil's first recorded cyclone is "Aldonca"
to mean a chronological first, the same alphabetical name system applied in North Atlantic and East Pacific hurricanes. I believe Brazil must be hit by tropical cyclones in the distant past, unless this is for sure the first time for Brazil or we're in serious trouble if this proven global climate change is upon us. Back in the late 1970s, below average winter "cold spells" struck the North American continent and covered pretty much the Eastern half of the U.S. It brought the first (and only) measured snowfall in Miami, Florida on Jan. 25, 1977 and the 45 straight days of heavy snow in Buffalo, N.Y. in Jan.-Feb. 1977 never occurred again.  Was this a sign of a new "ice age"? Nope... we won't be complaining now on global warming or the controversy of a new "hot age" to come. I guess Brazil has (finally) a hurricane problem to get used to or there's no recorded history of such in Brazil before 1880. --Mike D 26 02:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
All this is great but it'd be nice if there were a source that actually convinced me the name "Cyclone Catarina" has any validity.  The citation given is to a brazilian meteorological journal and simply calls it "the cyclone Catarina", also referring to it as a "hurricane" (i.e. "the cyclone Catarina was a hurricane").  Also that's just an extract from a lecture by a single group, not representative of scientific consensus.  Further, though the article states that SATCs are in the southern hemsiphere and therefore "typically" considered cyclones and not hurricanes, there's no citation on this given and it contradicts the previous citation which calls it a hurricane.  Finally, the "aldonca" name appears to come from someone's homemade web page from hong kong, and is certainly not a "reliable" source; the WMO citation eric gives is broken now.  In conclusion: though someone's done some good web searching to find this information, the citations are bad and the text is full of assumptions hidden in weasel words throughout the naming section.  In the absence of an actual name I'd much rather treat this as an unnamed storm. — jdorje (talk) 07:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

How about McTaggart-Cowan, Ron (November 2006). "Analysis of Hurricane Catarina (2004)". Monthly Weather Review. 134 (11). Boston: American Meteorological Society: 3029–3053. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 09:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

In the past this article said the top wind speed was 85 mph.  A moment ago it said 95 mph.  I changed this to 100 mph based on this data, which gives the top speed as 85 knots.  It's worth noting that the way rounding is done, 80 knots is 90 mph and 85 knots is 100 mph, so since all organizations use knots in multiples of 5, I believe no tropical cyclone has ever officially had winds of 95 mph. Jdorje 19:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Not sure about the wind speed. There is no official center down there, nobody knows the official wind speed. 100 sounds like a good bet, based on the source. Hurricanehink 22:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
@Hurricanehink: Over a decade later, I think this should be discussed in the article. The NHC only gives a best-track maximum wind speed of 75 knots, for example. With there being no RSMC, though, this probably is going to be debatable for a long time.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Personally I thought it had been settled by the WMO investigation.Jason Rees (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The lowest pressure in the infobox is listed as unknown.  However there's probably an estimate of it somewhere, if we could just find it (in fact that's probably the case for all storms in the satellite age...most southern hemisphere storms have their pressure listed as unknown right now, though). Jdorje 21:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Good question, and I personally have no idea where to find it. Hurricanehink 22:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I have rarely seen pressure estimated for the Southern Hemisphere. The NHC (and the CPHC) are essentially the only ones that release official pressure estimates, and cyclone data for the Southern Hemisphere is much less comprehensive than the Northern Hemisphere.
On a side note, why did Japan stop sending Hurricane Hunters into typhoons? They have the strongest, most frequent, and sometimes deadliest tropical cyclones in the world...bob rulz 08:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
This picture shows an estimate of 981mb. --Ajm81 17:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

See http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagem:Furac%C3%A3onoBrasil.jpg . -- Jdorje 05:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Here are some images from the Navy site. -- RattleMan 06:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
What I see on the satellite pictures, you see a bonafide tropical cyclone resembled a hurricane or typhoon that a normal low pressure storm. There's an "eye" surrounded by clockwise rotated clouds and when cyclone Catarina had landed in Brazil, the winds were over 75 m.p.h. with coastal storm surge. Why is the Brazilian meteorologists confused about this after they admit it was a tropical cyclone? I wonder myself if the West coast U.S. had hurricanes or extratropical storms in the past? I've heard of the 1858 San Diego hurricane and the history of tropical storm landings had "gusts above hurricane force" struck Southern Cal. Usually, when the tropical storms originated from Baja or East Pacific enter the Southwest U.S. (Arizona and inland Cal.), they make rainfall exceeding the state's annual averages and destructive flooding in a short time. Tropical depressions had entered Northern Cal. in the past and on those very wet El Nino years, the west coast has extratropical cyclonic lows without the characteristics of any to speak of. (No eye observed, but counterclockwise rotation). The risk factor for Brazil and California for tropical cyclones are 1 out of 150 year events, perhaps these countries or regions were around less than 400 years, unlike the older meteorological histories of Europe that spoke of several hurricane-like storms approached the British Isles, France, Scandinavia and Iberia like 1 out of 10-15 years. The Gulf Stream current is very warm water and flows into Northwest Europe, thus gave off a mild and rainy climate in subarctic latitudes (50-55N parallel) except in mid-winter. To my analysis, the Brazilians should be lucky it's not a regular occurence or may not be the first time, perhaps to happen once in the nation's 400 year history. --Mike D 26 03:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I was browsing WMO docs and ran across this list of reports.  At random I opened up the report for RA IV Hurricane Committe.  It seems Brazil sent a representative to this WMO hurricane committee meeting in Miami in 2004, and she gave a presentation on the cyclone.  Not much information there, but it does indicate the Brazilian government isn't denying the "incident".  Looking at the 2005 report, there is no brazilian member present this time but the list of tropical cyclone meteorological offices does include a brazilian weather center. — jdorje (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Quite a bit is there in the Brazilian conference page as well. My guess is that if Brazil or someone else doesn't pick up the slack, some existing tropical agency will cover the South Atlantic, or perhaps some sort of inter-agency/international collaboration. Evolauxia 07:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

David H. Levinson, ED.. 2005: STATE OF THE CLIMATE IN 2004. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 86 (6), pp. S1–S86

Abstract
Tropical cyclone activity was above average in the North Atlantic, west North Pacific, and South Indian Ocean basins in 2004. The hurricane season was extremely active in the North Atlantic basin, with a total of 15 named storms, nine hurricanes, and six major hurricanes in 2004. Nine of these tropical cyclones struck the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts of the United States, with three of these landfalling as major hurricanes. The first documented hurricane developed in the South Atlantic Ocean (cyclone “Catarina”), which made landfall along the southern coast of Brazil in late March. The west North Pacific typhoon season was also very active, with 10 tropical systems making landfall in Japan, breaking the previous record of 6 during a single season. In the South Indian Ocean, Tropical Cyclone Gafilo devastated Madagascar, making landfall as a category 5 supercyclone.

p. S30
“FENOMENO CATARINA:” THE SOUTH ATLANTIC’S FIRST HURRICANE?—M. RUSTICUCCI35 AND M. A. FORTUNE17

The rapid development on 27 March 2004 of a strong cyclone with hurricane-force winds in the South Atlantic Ocean, and its westward propagation and landfall along the southern coast of Brazil, astonished the meteorological community (Gusso 2004).  As such an unusual event, there was widespread disagreement whether the cyclone was tropical, extratropical, or a “hybrid” system.  NOAA’s National Hurricane Center (NHC) classified Catarina as a “category 1” hurricane, while specialists in both Brazil’s national meteorological service [Instituto Nacional de Meteorologia (INMET)] and the Weather Forecasting and Climate Studies Center [Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Especials (INPE) Centro de Previsão de Tempo e Estudio Climáticos (CPTEC)] classified it as a “fenomeno” (phenomenon in Portugese).  Initial observations suggested that it appeared to be a hybrid of a tropical and an extratropical cyclone (Silva-Dias et al. 2004).  The maximum recorded wind speed and surface pressure during landfall were 147 km h−1 (~79.4 kt) and 993 hPa at Siderópolis, Brazil, respectively, at 0300 (LST) on 28 March.
Atmospheric conditions associated with Catarina at times differed from those of a tropical cyclone, because it developed both barotropic and baroclinic characteristics during its life cycle (Mattos and Satyamurty 2004).  Initially, it was observed as a low pressure disturbance that developed along a cold front over the South Atlantic Ocean, but in 2 days it acquired the typical characteristics of a tropical cyclone, with rain- and cloud bands cyclonically converging into a well-defined eye.  Catarina mostly resembled both Mediterranean lows (Reale and Atlas 2001), and hurricane-like vortices that develop between Australia and Tasmania.  These are considered “hybrid systems” that originate as extratropical, cold core vortices, but develop a warm core due to latent heating in the convectively active center.  Cyclone Catarina developed a clearly visible “eye” and an associated wall cloud of very intense convection where the strongest winds were observed (Fig. 4.11).  In the eye region, initializations of two models [NCEP’s Aviation (AVN) model and the Regional Atmospheric Modeling System (RAMS)] exhibited a warm core, surrounded by the extensive cold core air mass (Bonatti et al. 2004; Menezes and Silva-Dias 2004).
As the cyclone intensified over the South Atlantic Ocean, Brazilian authorities were notified and measures were taken to minimize the possible loss of human life.  Sampaio-Calearo et al. (2004) considered the results “very satisfactory,” considering the minimal loss of life and the lack of local experience in forecasting an event such as this one.  However, damages on the southern coast of Santa Catarina state and the northern coast of Rio Grande do Sul state were extensive, and reached approximately 330 million U.S. dollars.

This is a grab from BAMS and is copyrighted material from the American Meteorological Society, it is publically available though and a scientific journal so meant to be open, so in a talk page it's okay but don't paste this stuff. Evolauxia 08:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The article and supplement appeared in the June 2005 BAMS, 86 (6), as part of the State of the Climate series published by NOAA and dozens of climatologists from around the world.  Again, all BAMS articles are now open-access.  Evolauxia 10:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

References cited in above article:
Bonatti, J. P., V. B. Rao , and P. L. Silva-Dias, 2004: Estudo observacional da propagação para leste do fenômeno Catarina e sua simulação com modelo global de alta resolução. Proc., XIII Congresso Brasileiro de Meteorologia, Fortaleza, Ceara, Brazil, Brazilian Society of Meteorology, CD-ROM. [Available from Sociedade Brasileira de Meteorología, Rua México, 41, Sala 1304, Centro 20031-144, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.]
Gusso, A., 2004: Aspectos Físicos Preliminares do Ciclone Extra-Tropical Anômalo Catarina na Perspectiva do Sistema de Satélites NOAA. Proc. XIII Congresso Brasileiro De Meteorologia, Fortaleza, Ceara, Brazil, Brazilian Society of Meteorology, CD-ROM. [Available from Sociedade Brasileira de Meteorología, Rua México, 41, Sala 1304, Centro 20031-144, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.]
Mattos L. F., and P. Satyamurty, 2004: Catarina 2004: um Sistema Meteorológico raro no Litoral Brasileiro. Proc. XIII Congresso Brasileiro De Meteorologia, Fortaleza, Ceara, Brazil, Brazilian Society of Meteorology, CD-ROM. [Available from Sociedade Brasileira de Meteorología, Rua México, 41, Sala 1304, Centro 20031-144, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.]
Reale, O., and R. Atlas, 2001: Tropical cyclone-like vortices in the extratropics: Observational evidence and synoptic analysis. Wea. Forecasting, 16, 7–34.
Menezes, W., and P. L. Silva-Dias, 2004: Um estudo do impacto das opções físicas do modelo RAMS na simulação numérica do ciclone Catarina. Proc. XIII Congresso Brasileiro de Meteorologia, Fortaleza, Ceara, Brasil, Brazilian Society of Meteorology, CD-ROM. [Available from Sociedade Brasileira de Meteorología, Rua México, 41, Sala 1304, Centro 20031-144, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.]
Sampaio-Calearo, D., and Coauthors, 2004: Monitoramento do Catarina no Centro Operacional da Epagri/ Climerh. Proc. XIII Congresso Brasileiro De Meteorologia, Fortaleza, Ceara, Brazil, Brazilian Society of Meteorology, CD-ROM. [Available from Sociedade Brasileira de Meteorología, Rua México, 41, Sala 1304, Centro 20031-144, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.]
Silva-Dias, P. L., M. A. Silva-Dias, M. Seluchi, and F. O. Assis-Diniz, 2004: Ciclone Catarina: Análise Preliminar da Estrutura, Dinâmica e Previsibilidade. Proc. XIII Congresso Brasileiro De Meteorologia, Fortaleza, Ceara, Brazil, Brazilian Society of Meteorology,
CD-ROM. [Available from Sociedade Brasileira de Meteorología, Rua México, 41, Sala 1304, Centro 20031-144, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.]
Evolauxia 08:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


### Other sources
Chin, Gilbert. The First of Many?. Science; 8/26/2005, Vol. 309 Issue 5739, p1302-1302, 1/5p, 1c

CLIMATE SCIENCE: The First of Many?
The first hurricane ever documented in the South Atlantic, Catarina, struck the southern coast of Brazil on 28 March 2004. This unprecedented event led some Brazilian meteorologists to deny that it was a hurricane at all; further analysis, however, has shown that it was.
In a detailed study of the storm, Pezza and Simmonds describe its evolution from genesis on 20 March 2004 as an extra-tropical cyclone, through its strengthening to a category I hurricane before it drifted over land. This hurricane developed because of an unusual combination of high sea surface temperatures, low vertical wind shear, and strong mid-to-high latitude blocking (which interferes with normal east-west atmospheric flow). These conditions are functions of large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns in the region and could be related to climate change. If so, more hurricanes may occur in the South Atlantic in the future. -- HJS
Geophys. Res. Lett. 10.1029/2005GL023390 (2005).
Halverson, Jeff. A South Atlantic Rogue. Weatherwise; Jul/Aug2004, Vol. 57 Issue 4, p62-63, 2p, 1 map, 1bw
Hecht, Jeff. The strange tale of the hurricane that wasn't. New Scientist; 4/24/2004, Vol. 182 Issue 2444, p16-16, 1/6p
Pearce, Fred. New Scientist; 9/24/2005, Vol. 187 Issue 2518, p10-10, 1/2p, 1c
Wilkinson, Bert. Caribbean experts sound warning about climate change. New York Amsterdam News; 4/8/2004, Vol. 95 Issue 15, p14-35, 2p
Evolauxia 09:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

What should the importance be on this one? It wasn't particularly damaging, and deaths weren't too high. However, given Catarina's unusual circumstances, I think it is mid. Agreed? I know I could have just done this myself, but this was a storm I thought should give some though. It was fairly important, at least. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think mid would work here. If it had been more damaging, it'd be high. --Coredesat 03:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
OK. Hurricanehink (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The South Atlantic isn't a typical breeding ground for tropical cyclones, or up to most meteorologists' knowledge. I'm sure the arguments on whether to call it a tropical or subtropical storm system, or either caused by climatic shift from global warming or not. Before 1960, there was no professional meteorologist survey of the South Atlantic, partly to the once believed myth of "No tropical cyclones ever formed there". There are strong anticyclonic storms coming out of the Antarctic (45 or 50S parallel) in open swaths of the South Atlantic, but for a hurricane-like entity to strike Eastern coast of South America is indeed rare. But, how unusual was it or was there cyclones in the South Atlantic before recorded weather history in the 1880s? Brazilian meteorologists didn't always had the best weather technology until recently, and any serious tropical cyclone development would ever get recorded in the pages or blogs in the Brazilian weather offices. So far, the South Atlantic is mainly not a place to find tropical cyclones, except some disturbances and patterns are known to happen in the Southern hemisphere summer. Just like the occassional tropical storm made landfall in California and the extratropical systems had strike Northwest Europe, there is natural explanations for why these cyclones reach them in certain circumstances. The surprising Tropical Storm Vince in 2005 was over the Iberian peninsula, while I recall dissipated or mid-latitude Pacific "Hurricanes" was seen away from the U.S. Northwest coast has reasonable theories why this was possible. I've heard a few strong or longer-lasting typhoons reached northward to Siberia, Russia in close distance to Japan. The overall improvement in studies of oceanic currents, sea temperatures and variable wind shears may give out an answer for rare South Atlantic cyclones (or this counted as one). I would like to know, maybe there's more to explore in meteorology. --Mike D 26 02:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

While they certainly don't focus on the South Atlantic, the US's JTWC (Joint Typhoon Warning Center) does monitor tropical activity in the South Atlantic and has done so (with admittedly little enthusiasm) for decades. They might miss short-lived tropical storms because they aren't paying close attention, but no full-blown hurricane would have been missed in at least the last twenty years or so. —Cuiviénen 00:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

By whom? I'm not at all knowledgeable about this subject, but I can spot an unreferenced assertion! Loganberry (Talk) 01:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Here, for example. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I wasn't doubting it. I just think a reference should be given in the article, that's all. I'm not making the edit myself because I don't know the subject well - for example, the page you give refers to the "TCDG", and though I can guess what that stands for I don't know its importance, reputation etc. I just think that saying "it has also been called Aldonça" without a reference in the article is rather unsatisfactory, that's all. Loganberry (Talk) 15:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Would a link to that suffice as a reference stating it was called Aldonca? Hurricanehink (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Aldonca should not be its main name...but at this point, there is no harm in the reference if you're going to include that name.  I'm familiar with who coined that name, and it was originally not supposed to make it to the outside world as its name, just within the main tropical cyclone discussion group.  Once the press called it Catarina, it became Catarina.  When a storm lacks a name, and no RSMC has named it, the name the press coins usually becomes its name.  Essentially, similar to the Atlantic naming convention prior to 1950.  Thegreatdr 19:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what an RSMC is, so can't comment on that bit, but from what you say ("originally not supposed to make it to the outside world") that the group in question was not a public one, but that it was quoted in another, public, arena. I do think it's worth mentioning the name Aldonça, but if it is going to be referred to then the article has to say where the name originally came from. So in answer to Hurricanehink's question, I think I'd say that yes it would suffice. Loganberry (Talk) 19:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
An RSMC is just a Regionally Specialized Meteorological Center, which means they are the authority in that area for that purpose.  In this case, an RSMC for tropical cyclones.  Six are defined across the world; NHC, JMA, IMD in India,  Nadi in Fiji, and La Reunion...the sixth escapes me right now...it may be CPHC in the central north Pacific. Thegreatdr 20:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Cyclone Catarina has a good introductory sentence. The map in the picture is good, but the aticle needs more images. I found two sentences in the article not depth enough. "A compact storm, it continued westward while steadily intensifying, reaching hurricane strength on the 26th Thre are three images in the picture all put in the right place." It sounds word and not concise. "And: It also killed at least three and injured at least 75."The refrences, the ones I saw were reliable, but some more information from source 2 could be incorpoated. Footnotes are reliable statistics, and unless I'm wrong I did not find any of them to back up important statements. And if I'm wrong, please correct me. The article itself is well written and covers most of the aspects of the topic. Even for an extremly rare Cyclone, I did not spot many words that really needed to be highlighted. Only the season names and words from the Impact section were necessary And  words such as influences and effective are good words for a geography Article. The lead needs a big expansion and needs to be citated inline. The first statement shows the importance of the Cyclone and should be backed up. Some of the writing sounds simple and narrow and I explained some that already. Good luck and my decisions will me made ASAP.
Criteria review

1. It is well written? Pass
2. Factually accurate and verifiable? Pass
3. Broad in its coverage? OK Half of the article deals with the naming of the cyclone
4. Neutral point of view ? Pass (a little bit of wording could be changed)
5. Stable? Pass 
6. Images? Pass (three is enough for an article of that size)
I'm failing the article because the lead is too short and WP:LEAD proposes the introductiry to be at least 2-5 paragraphs. Other than that, a second attempt WILL probably pass, but the lead is not enough and more sections could be added.

There's a spot of vandalism under "Rare formation" that mentions "homo sex," but I can't seem to find the edit in the history.  Can someone lend me a hand? - Cubs Fan (talk) 04:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Here it is. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cyclone Catarina/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hi!  I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
There are a lot of external links and publications for an article of this length.  Can some of them be removed?  If they are used as references, they can probably be removed.  Also, the first of the "Formal publications", by Pezza, has a deadlinking title.
In the infobox you have 2004 and 2008 dollars, in the Impact section you have 2004 and 2007 dollars.  Could you make this transition consistent, please?
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
A few areas need references:
Meteorological history: all of first paragraph, last bit of second
Naming: last bit of third paragraph, all of fourth
I don't think that the Phil Smith reference (current ref #7) is really all that reliable, since it is self-published by someone who does not appear to be a hurricane expert.  Do you have any other source that you could use to back up this information?
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: 

I have a couple of issues, mainly with external links and referencing, and so I am putting the article on hold to allow you time to address these.  Drop me a note if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it up. It's very confusing with all these random sources. The Phil Smith ref should be good, I've read through it and all of the info is from reliable sources, mainly e-mails from meteorologists. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Allright, everything looks good, so I'm passing the article to GA status.  I'm still a little iffy on the Smith source, so if you ever find something better, please switch it out! Dana boomer (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, if I do find one I will. :D 10th GA! Woo! Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I have changed this information to show that SSTs were below average (second data ref for March 24), as the "above average" temperatures may have been an assumption. ~AH1(TCU) 03:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

"$350 million (2004 USD)"? The Portuguese Wiki-Page speaks about "250 milhões R$" (250 million R$), that would be about 120 million USD 2004 and today about 140 USD. Or I am completly wrong? --WikiMax (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, for what its worth, the Monthly Weather Review cites a figure of $425 million (2005 USD). So that it needs fixing anyways. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

These can come in handy later:

http://severe.worldweather.org/iwtc/document/Topic_2a_Pedro_Silva_Dias.pdf
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-86-6-Levinson
Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Cyclone Catarina has been adopted by Wikipedia for many years, because of its location (Southern Hemisphere) and being considered as typical. However, in Brazil, Furacão Catarina (Hurricane Catarina) is much popular than Ciclone Catarina (Cyclone Catarina). Hurricane Catarina is also more popular in English even if the decision of Wikipedia affects its popularity a lot.
Although the term cyclone is described as typical in the Catarina article, it only refers to the summary written by Gary Padgett, which cannot represent most of reports and meteorologists at all. The document by the Brazilian Navy in 2011 indicates not only the name list but the scale. The scale is completely the same to the one that North Atlantic Ocean uses:

Depressão Tropical - média (intervalo de um minuto) do vento máximo à superfície é igual ou inferior a 62 km/h, 38 mph, 33 nós ou Força 6 a 7 na Escala Beaufort.
Tempestade Tropical - média (intervalo de um minuto) do vento máximo à superfície na faixa de 63 a 117 km/h, 39 a 73mph, 34 a 63 nós ou Força 8 a 11 na Escala Beaufort.
Furacão - média (intervalo de um minuto) do vento máximo à superfície é igual ou superior a 118 km/h, 74 mph, 64 nós ou superior a Força 12 na Escala Beaufort.
As the document is currently the de facto standard of the tropical cyclone scale and naming of the South Atlantic Ocean west of 20°W, also with the popularity, my suggestion is to use hurricane completely to all hurricane-force tropical cyclones in the South Atlantic Ocean, including Catarina and future systems, until the World Meteorological Organisation appoints an agency to monitor that basin and changes the scale. -- Meow 05:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Very clear cut situation here to me. Went ahead and moved the article to Hurricane Catarina accordingly. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Hurricane Catarina. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101207184650/http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutnames.shtml to http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutnames.shtml
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.drdisk.com.hk/aldonca.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070616130344/http://gemini.dpi.inpe.br/col/cptec.inpe.br/adm_conf/2005/09.29.06.38/doc/353-364.pdf to http://gemini.dpi.inpe.br/col/cptec.inpe.br/adm_conf/2005/09.29.06.38/doc/353-364.pdf
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 22:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Hurricane Catarina. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303214919/https://courseware.e-education.psu.edu/public/meteo/upperlevel_lows.html to https://courseware.e-education.psu.edu/public/meteo/upperlevel_lows.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071128111934/http://gemini.dpi.inpe.br/col/cptec.inpe.br/adm_conf/2005/10.31.23.31/doc/1901-1908.pdf to http://gemini.dpi.inpe.br/col/cptec.inpe.br/adm_conf/2005/10.31.23.31/doc/1901-1908.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303214919/https://courseware.e-education.psu.edu/public/meteo/upperlevel_lows.html to https://courseware.e-education.psu.edu/public/meteo/upperlevel_lows.html
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 01:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

What in the world is this sentence doing in the Impact section? My guess is that it is an artifact of an attempt to compare disaster effects, but either it was not finished or material was deleted making it non-sensical. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 03:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Is Hurricane Catarina a Category 1 or Category 2? IBTrACS listed it as a 85 mph Category 1. The 100mph information was apparently on australiasevereweather.com, but I have trouble finding such information. Which one should we use? INeedSupport  :3 22:21, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@INeedSupport: thank you for pointing that out. IBTrACS is a better source than australiasevereweather, so we should go with the official source, and call it a 85 mph Cat 1. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  00:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
@Hurricanehink agreed. It seems like the 100 mph info was observational, but the IBTrACS was a re-analysis. INeedSupport  :3 18:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
There was no official operational intensity, since there was no official agency at the time providing wind estimates (other than Dvorak technique). Since Catarina now appears in IBTRACS, it has an official intensity, even if there isn't an official RSMC for the basin (although the Brazilian Navy is close). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  17:52, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
@Hurricanehink and INeedSupport: I’ve gone ahead and changed the intensity per this discussion and IBTRACS. Additionally the pressure is higher as well, since IBTRACS has 981 and not 972, which I assume also came from the 100 mph estimate from above that’s no longer valid. Just have to update the tracks now. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:40, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks Mario! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  19:21, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
@Hurricanehink: please see this paper on Catarina for a source on the 85 knot analysis. Courtesy pings for MarioProtIV and INeedSupport as well. I would use a research paper's analysis for this than blindly follow IBTRACS.  JavaHurricane 18:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
I also note that Titoxd had previously linked this paper above, on this very page. It astounds me that no one bothered to go through that earlier discussion, or made any other attempt at finding papers analysing Catarina's intensity, before making the changes in the article. Surely we could do better than that?  JavaHurricane 18:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
We could definitely do better than that, if Catarina were a featured article, or if the SATL had an official warning agency that we could rely on. "Official" is tricky when it comes to areas that don't usually get tropical cyclones. This article could definitely use some expansion, and more research papers, if it were to ever be a featured article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  22:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
@JavaHurricane I have looked at that research article before when considering the strength of Catarina, but the publish year of 2006 makes me hesitant to confirm that Catarina had 100 mph sustained winds. The authors only calculated winds based on satellite data, and figure 1's legend only goes up to 50 knots. It would be nice for professors to have a look at the hurricane again to see what the actual strength of Catarina is. INeedSupport  :3 22:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
One thing I forgot to mention is that the first version of IBTrACS was in 2008. I don't know when IBTrACS' best track of Catarina was created. INeedSupport  :3 22:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
@INeedSupport: the publishing year is not an issue, since the analysis is still regularly cited for intensity by other researchers writing on Catarina and other South Atlantic tropical cyclones - a cursory search brings up papers from 2022 and 2023 citing the paper. McTaggart-Cowan et al's work has clearly not been superseded so far, and therefore I see no reason to not use their analysis (which, as KN points out below, is currently the scientific consensus).  JavaHurricane 04:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Yea again, as for getting the information "right", I suggest people contributed toward the article. This would be great if Catarina were featured one day, since it's such an unusual and significant tropical cyclone, and has had an article since November 2005. The best way would be to incorporate various studies and research papers on the storm, both in Portuguese and English ideally. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  00:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Just did a quick search on Google Scholar for English-language journals:
This 2010 paper reanalyses the intensity based off GFDL models, surface wind and pressure data, and local civil defense authority ground surveys, and concludes the evidence solidly supports Category 2 intensity at landfall.
The 2006 paper is still being used justify a peak intensity of 44 m/s (or 85 knots) and 972 hPa as recently as 2021, 2023, and 2024.
This 2013 paper cites IBTrACS (dated to 2010) for the track, but cites the 2006 paper for the peak intensity.
I haven't seen any recent papers specifically looking at Catarina's peak intensity after that 2010 paper.
From this cursory search it looks like the current scientific consensus is that the peak intensity was Category 2 at landfall (which occurred at a non-synoptic time of 05:15 UTC - this may be why it doesn't show up on IBTrACS, though just my speculation). Absent any details of the IBTrACS reanalysis, I'd be in favour of reinstating 85 kt/972 hPa to the infobox. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 01:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, I hadn't done enough research, I'm fine with reinstating the 85 knots. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  01:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. I've gone ahead and restored the 85/972, and added citations to the 2006 paper.  JavaHurricane 05:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
I'm fine with re-instating the Category 2 intensity. INeedSupport  :3 14:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)