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.
Alma is not the first tropical cyclone, let alone the first TS, to strike Central America from the Pacific side
At the very least,
storm 10 of 1949 did so. Paul in 1982 did so as a TD in southern Mexico, depending on where you think Central America lies. There are others that have as well. The mistake surprises me. Some of the issue might lie in the fact that Atlantic Storm 10 of 1949 (which apparently killed 40000 people and appears to be the most deadly tropical cyclone impact in the history of the western hemisphere) is not listed in the eastern Pacific database. I've e-mailed Eric Blake about it, since he's also involved in the reanalysis of the eastern Pacific version of HURDAT.
Thegreatdr (
talk)
21:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)reply
The article never said that Alma was the first tropical cyclone to strike Central America from the Pacific side; it only said first TS, which was based on the NHC discussion. However, given the example you provided, I'm fine with having that removed. Let us know what you find out. Also, a user mentioned on my talk page that Simone in 1968 made landfall in Central America as a tropical storm, so clearly the NHC didn't do their research. ♬♩
Hurricanehink (
talk)
22:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)reply
I mentioned Hattie/Simone/Inga (1961) to Eric as well. My guess is that they don't consider southern Mexico as central America.
Thegreatdr (
talk)
22:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)reply
What about Aridan? That made landfall as a hurricane,right. what about Barbara?
Based on the description, they would be best classified as indirect deaths. Alma's rain appeared to be responsible but it did not happen as a direct result of the storm.
CrazyC83 (
talk)
03:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Not a chance. Alma was a minor storm, a death toll of 9 and damage of $33 mill wont get a storm retired, esp one that hit honduras/nicaragua.
Cyclonebiskit (
talk)
15:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)reply
It's supported by the best track, as the last points of Irene's track are the first of Olivia's. Plus,
NOAA confirms Irene-Olivia. I think it's fairly obvious was the continuation of an Atlantic cyclone, for the sole reason if it existing over land during its first few points. --♬♩
Hurricanehink (
talk)
22:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Perhaps the passage could reworded as "the farthest east a native eastern pacific tropical cyclone has formed." That is, unless the October 1949 system (in the Atlantic HURDAT) beat it. =)
Thegreatdr (
talk)
01:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Retirement record
It says in the article that "Alma is the third tropical storm in the Eastern Pacific to be retired after Hazel of 1965 and Knut of 1987". I don't think those two storms count as retired names; they were removed from the list for unknown reasons. Alma is the 1st tropical storm in the East Pac. to be retired, not removed for unknown reasons. Does anyone else agree about this? Was Alma the 1st one?
76.235.197.175 (
talk)
22:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)reply
The source (which is an official WMO document) says they were retired and it gives the years. There is no source yet that says Alma was retired. The reference that was given twice links to the lists of names at the NHC website. I do agree the whole thing should be removed, or at least commented out. It seems like people are making up records, or putting a lot of their assumptions in the article, which would be
WP:OR.
Potapych (
talk)
12:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)reply
The reference that shows Gustav, Ike, and Paloma doesn't show Alma on the Pacific list; it just says Amanda, Boris, Cristina, ect, but it doesn't really say anything about the names being retired, so I'm questioning that. Then again, I might be wrong; Alma probrably was retired, and so were the others in the Atlantic.
76.235.197.175 (
talk)
16:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)reply
What? Alma only did 33 million dollars in damage, and that isn't bad at all, even by Nicaragua's standards. East Pac. retirements occur once in a while, and we will never know what names will be retired. Kenna of 2002 caused only 101 million in damage, and that wasn't bad back then or by Mexico's standards. Nontheless, it was retired so it was the 1st tropical storm to be retired in the Eastern Pacific basin, and that should be mentioned.
76.235.197.175 (
talk)
23:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)reply
I withdrew the GA nomination, as the article is still fairly current. There is still more information coming in, a lot, and the article will be changed in the near future. ♬♩
Hurricanehink (
talk)
01:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)reply
It's just a human-applied naming phenomena, which is totally arbitrary. If there was another similar storm that did the exact same thing, but wasn't retired (or wasn't named), that storm should be no less notable. What's important in its retirement is where it caused the damage and how much it did. Like I said, we wouldn't make the distinction of
Hurricane Ivan being the longest-lasting Atlantic name to get retired. We just say the other important records. ♬♩
Hurricanehink (
talk)
13:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)reply
<--Question. Even though it was never a tropical storm and wasn't upgraded as such, what if the May 2004 tropical wave was a tropical cyclone? It killed 2,000 as such in the Dominican Republic (see the Hurricane Ernesto (2006) talk page). Or what if T.D. 11 in 1999 had attained tropical storm intensity? That depression killed nearly 400. The fact is, tropical storm names are subject to human error. We may have little to no idea whether a storm in the deep tropics organized and strengthened enough for a name, and even if we did, it's still a crapshoot. The reason I don't think Alma's longevity should be noted is that, just saying, a more devastating storm may have hit Mexico or Central America and would have been retired, but because of bad organization or little data, it never had a name, meaning there's no name to retire. It may have never happened, but it's still possible.
Hurricane Angel Saki (
talk)
03:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)reply
What's so important about retirement, though? What's more important is what the storm did. Angel Saki is right, in that there are many other more significant tropical cyclones that weren't retired. Are storms in the NIO or SWIO any less important because there isn't a neat list of retired storms in those basins? Of course not. We don't have to list information that's trivial (like Alma being the short-lived retired EPAC storm), as that is making the info more important than it actually is. After all, the NOAA didn't put any unusual emphasis on it being the shortest-lived retired Pacific storm, so we shouldn't either. ♬♩
Hurricanehink (
talk)
16:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)reply
It's not that important about retirement, TD 16 caused more death than Fay, Paul alone killed more than Hazel and was not retired. I think it's getting a little bit off topic so how about putting comments in the project page.
HurricaneSpinTalkMy contributions17:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)reply
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Tropical Storm Alma. 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: 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.