Talk:Hurricane Donna

message: Article says "it is the only storm to produce hurricane-force winds on every inch of the east coast".  However this is surely not true.  From the best track (s:Atlantic hurricane best track):
 HRBFL4 NC3 NY3DFL2 CT2 RI2 MA1 NH1 ME1
meaning it brought cat4 winds to SW Florida, Cat3 winds to NC and NY, cat2 winds to NE florida, CT, RI, and cat1 winds to MA NH and ME.  Note there is no mention of SC, GA, or VA at all, nor of southeast florida (CFL). Jdorje 04:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that this storm wasn't incredible, though...the NC3/NY3 is amazing, and surely deserves mention. Jdorje 04:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Every inch of the east coast" 

message: More impact...maybe the personal story quoted above can be of use here (would that be an appropriate thing to add to wikisource?). Jdorje 21:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo

message: Usefulness of the table? Andrew was much more intense at landfall than Katrina was. The table ranks most intense hurricanes that also happened to make landfall, but not based on landfall intensity. We should be very clear when ranking landfalling hurricanes, and only use intensity at landfall. Otherwise it's apples and oranges, isn't it? DavidH 06:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Andrew (922 mbar) was less intense at landfall than Katrina (920) was.  The table is indeed ranked by landfall intensity. — jdorje (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know -- the data I understand, the title invites misunderstanding. An average reader sees "U.S. landfalling" and I think assumes it means the data is at the time of U.S. landfall. I'd like to see a table with that criteria for this article. DavidH 21:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The data is at the time of U.S. landfall.  Or perhaps I'm not understanding what you're saying...can you make up a list as you think it should be shown? — jdorje (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, is that right? Katrina made U.S. landfall as a Cat 3, but it had lower pressure than Andrew as a Cat 5 at its U.S. landfall? Maybe I'm not understanding something. Since only Labor Day, Andrew, and Camille are recorded as making U.S. landfall as Cat 5's, I was sure they'd beat all. But if that's the data, then that's the data. Just wanted to be sure we're not showing Katrina's lowest pressure from another point in its life. Sorry that I haven't had time to re-read the final reports to confirm this, I'll of course leave it alone until I can do that. Thanks for the reply. -- DavidH 16:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (BTW, my edit summary on my last comment should have said "Gulf", not "Yucatan." I had Wilma on the brain.) DavidH 16:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is correct.  The reason is that Katrina was an extraordinarily large storm with a large eye and broad pressure gradient, while andrew was a very small storm with a small eye and tight pressure gradient. — jdorje (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Andrew was small, which helped my house come through it undamaged. I understand that the Labor Day hurricane was very small too, possibly smaller than Andrew, with an incredibly tight gradient that made it so fierce at the center. Thanks for the clarification. -- DavidH 23:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most intense landfalling table 

message: This hurricane was part of the Atlantic hurricane reanalysis project, so all figures will need double-checking with this. Titoxd(?!?) 23:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All 'canes are part of that project ;) At this time, this hasn't been officially accepted into HURDAT so where the HURDAT gives a figure that figure must be used. With the rather more detailed info in that report, any extra information is ok.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reanalysis 

message: More info in the impact, a preparations section, aftermath section and figure out how to get rid of that whitespace in the storm history section. Storm05 14:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whitespace is from a forced . – Chacor 14:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo2

message: The satellite image that is currently being shown on the main article page is incorrect. This is actually a composited image of Hurricane Alicia (before landfall in Galveston) superimposed over a McIDAS topography grid of Southern Florida. This image was created for a presentation during the 1984 National Hurricane Conference and was intended to represent a "What if" scenario, for a small intense hurricane striking the Florida Keys. Somehow, this image was incorrectly published in the revised edition of the book "Florida Hurricanes & Tropical Storms" as being "Donna".
Besides the fact that I personally attended the 1984 Hurricane Conference and saw this image during the actual presentation, there are a number of other reasons why this cannot be a satellite photo of Donna:
:*In 1960, weather satellite imagery was completely brand new, the very first image being sent only five months before Donna's landfall. The quality of those original TIROS I images was nowhere near that of the image that's currently on the Donna article and they didn't have topography outlines back then (unless someone drew them in by hand). 
:*Donna was a significantly larger hurricane than what is shown in that image based on radar presentations from Miami and Key West. 
:*Donna's center crossed the Keys near Marathon, due north of the position of the storm shown in the photo (the composite image shows the storm over the Florida Straits, mid-way between Cuba and the Keys)... extrapolating a northwest motion from where the photo shows the center would have Donna crossing the Keys somewhere between Big Pine and Key West. 
:*Most importantly, there was no IR weather imagery in 1960, only visible light. Given that Donna crossed the Keys in the middle of the night (near 0300 UTC), there is no way, in 1960, that there would have been any imagery at that time of the night.
Here is a link to a side-by-side comparisonimage that I put together to show an actual Alicia AVHRR image from a couple of hours after the purported 'Donna' image, compared to the image currently on the main article page.
Unless anyone has a different perspective, I will change the image to good resolution radar photo that actually does show Hurricane Donna.
--Michael Laca 08:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't mind, I'll email the NHC for clarification? If they say they indeed made a mistake then yeah, change it. – Chacor 08:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NHC emailed. – Chacor 08:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem at all, I'm sure they'll have no problem verifying, though it probably wasn't the NHC that made the mistake, its more likely to have been the authors of the book "Florida Hurricanes & Tropical Storms" who incorrectly used the image. --Michael Laca 09:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Believe me it is Alicia, Richard probably didn't look at the image too closely. He is a good friend of mine, we actually chased Hurricane Elena together back in 1985 with Jim Leonard. I'll e-mail him to clarify. Alicia and Anita did look very similar, so I can see how he might be easily be confused. --Michael Laca 03:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just an update, Richard Pasch responded to my e-mail today: "Mike, Yes, I think you are right -- it does look more like Alicia than Anita. Too late to issue a correction to my review of the book "Florida Hurricanes and Tropical Storms" where I commented on this picture. Far more importantly, the image is definitely NOT one of Hurricane Donna."--Michael Laca 21:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm surprised they responded so quickly. Alright, that works. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurricane Donna Satellite Image Incorrect 

message: Was Donna the first hurricane photographed from space? If she is not, then the title goes to Hurricane Anna of 1961. Whoever it is deserves a mention of that in their respective article. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 01:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Donna was even photographed from space. The previous image in the article that claimed to be a sat. image of Elena was actually Alicia, according to a previous member of the project that had some knowledge in the hurricane field. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good question.  The first tropical cyclone photographed from space was a tropical depression which impacted Texas in October 1954, with a picture taken from a Navy rocket.  The first TIROS ceased operation the day before the first tropical cyclone of the 1960 season formed.  In looking over the annual articles, it appears satellite imagery was used operationally during the 1961 Atlantic hurricane season, as there was no mention of its use in 1960.  Thegreatdr (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speaking of satellite imagery, a question... 

message: I'm close to submitting this article for GA, but am running into a format issue in this page.  Any suggestions?  Thegreatdr (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format issue 

message: Given that 1960 AHS is on GTC right now, this article needs to be improved to maintain its current GA status. Mostly, that would mean that it would pass the current GA standards. This is not meant to slight the existing version of the article - it was good for 2008! We just gotta add some more.
*Longer lede
*Rewrite met. history
:*I rewrote the met. history, and I believe it should be in good shape. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  14:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  2013 review/todo 

message: Substituted at 18:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Donna. 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/20110610175630/http://museum.gov.ns.ca/mnh/nature/nsbirds/bns0184.htm to http://museum.gov.ns.ca/mnh/nature/nsbirds/bns0184.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061230142456/http://web.naplesnews.com/05/05/donna-history.html to http://web.naplesnews.com/05/05/donna-history.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Page 371 (or 111 depending on your vantage point) of this NHRP report. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radar image of Donna from September 6, 1960 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Donna. 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/20151004223517/http://www.pivot.net/~cotterly/donna.htm to http://www.pivot.net/~cotterly/donna.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi:
Why Donna has been downgraded to category 4 when these references HURDAT and Canadian Hurricane Center clearly state that the hurricane reached during a short time the category 5 (too short a time to be indicated on the track in the article)? This has been done by an IP (2601:18a:8280:47c3:510c:4b28:73b:4349) and user Woody Floyd whitout references and you believed it!
Pierre cb (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually  HURDAT was updated to show that Donna's winds  125kts rather than the 140 kts which makes it a Category 4 tropical cyclone on the SSHWS. Further proof and reasoning is available from page 328 of this document.Jason Rees (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

text: I was notified that I had translated this article, but I certainly wasn't!Milosmid (talk) 05:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category downgrade