Talk:Tropical Storm Hermine (1998)/Archive01

Todo

Fix typos and grammar problems. For rainfall information, unless the peak total is stated, I think it would be better just saying light rainfall, rather than saying 1-3 inches (25.4-76.2 mm) of rain. Additionally, not every single damage total needs to be listed. Something like $5,000 in damage from flooding along one river is trivial. What's important is the total amount across the state. My biggest qualm about the article is its sources. Some of the NCDC sources do not mention that it was related to Hermine. In fact, none of the Florida NCDC event reports say they are related to Hermine, and neither does Georgia's. While it is possible the events are related to Hermine, it is also possible it could be from localized thunderstorms or rainfall from the upper-level low in the Gulf of Mexico, and assuming it was from Hermine is Original Research; if it does not explicitely say it is from Hermine, it should be removed from the article. There is only one news source in the article. Have you tried looking through the newspaper archive to see if Hermine caused flooding in Florida or Georgia? It is a start class for now. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The events reports had to be related to Hermine because the reports stated above occured on September 19-22 and matches on what is shown on the rainfall graphic and thus rules out the localized thunderstorms and the low which were probably long gone by then. Storm05 16:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That is original research. You can't rule out localized thunderstorms, solely based on the rainfall graphic. You need something or someone that matches Hermine with the event reports, other than your guesswork. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes i can rule out localized thunderstorms because;

• 1.- the satellite image shows hermine and it shows its rainbands of the storm is spreading eastward over Florida on September 19.

• 2.- if you look at the map closely you can see it states rainfall from Hermine along its 17-22 path. and in this image you can see detached rain bands swiling around the storm and this again rules out localized thunderstorms.

• 3.- Finally, ask User:thegreatdr not me.

Storm05 11:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That is original research! You had to do some research on your own to prove that, which is against Wiki-policy. And furthermore, there is a possibility the rainbands weren't from Hermine. It was never a well-organized tropical storm in its duration. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Those rainbands has to be from Hermine, theres no other way to explain it. Ask thegreatdr or use one those radar loop things to see that the rainbands are clearly related to hermine. Storm05 13:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That is original research! You don't understand. While it is certainly possible, if not probable the rainbands were from Hermine, you need a source that explicitly says that. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hink, I smell a rat in this article. If the source does not say the rain was from Hermine we cannot say it. Incidentally, why is the inflated damage given to a ridiculous level of precision?--Nilfanion (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Then ask User:thegreatdr, he works at NOAA and he probably knows more about this than we do. Storm05 11:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. If it has been published in a reliable source that explicitly says that the rain was from Hermine, then okay. Otherwise, you're not in a position to interpret anything. See the warning with every edit? "Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source." It's not current attributable because it's come out of your computer, and has not yet been published by a RS that we know of. – Chacor 11:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I can see that and the only source that falls in that category is the HPC rainfall graphic and if you still not for convicned ask User:thegreatdr. Storm05 12:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You are STILL missing the point. It doesn't matter what he says - if it's not been explicitly documented, we cannot accept it. – Chacor 13:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

And furthermore, you need a link that attributes the Florida damage and flooding from Hermine. It is possible the river flooding was caused by Earl or Frances, after all. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Earl and Frances were long gone by then and the rainbands are from hermine as the tcr states that the windshear had blown much of cloud cover east of the center of the storm over Florida and futher more explicitity can be anything which includes rainfall graphs, dates, etc. Storm05 13:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

<-- You're missing my point. None of the event reports say it was from Hermine. Some of the river ones could be from outside sources, and some of the rainfall might be from Hermine. While it could be from Hermine, it might not, and the event reports do not say it. You cannot be the one that says the event reports were directly from Hermine. That is original research, and I don't see why you aren't getting it. The TCR even says, "a large and well-defined monsoon-type flow prevailed over Central America" prior to the formation of Hermine. For all we know, that could've been the source for the Florida event reports. You do not know, and you are not in a position to make a claim that isn't backed up. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Then ask User:thegreatdr then. Storm05 15:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? Please read my comments again, hopefully with an open mind. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Because he works at NOAA who puts out these NCDC and he wrote the rainfall graphic that includes the rainfall from Hermine., he will know if the flooding is from Hermine or not and if so makes changes to ether the rainfall graphic or NCDC report and he the only offical person to determine that. Storm05 11:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not the issue. I'm ackowledging the possibilility the Florida event reports are from Hermine. The issue is that none of the event reports actually say it is from Hermine, and you doing so is original research. No offense to him, but I don't think David Roth saying it is would not be enough. Do you even know what original research is? Hurricanehink (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't respond sooner...I guess that's been the theme lately with me. =) Anyhow, I've been in a sticky situation with being both a contributor to this project and a NOAA employee, which puts me in a rare position to make online edits to websites within NOAA and within Wikipedia, using one to justify the other. Is it original research if it is from a NOAA website dedicated to the task of constructing TC-related rainfall? Hink is right to a point...as is Storm05. Trying to determine tropical cyclone rainfall maxima is difficult and sometimes subjective, since there is usually a complicating issue such as a nearby upper cyclone or frontal zones. Historically, TPC sometimes includes these effects, and sometimes does not, depending on the author of the TCR. Some people don't think you should include rainfall from spiral bands within these graphics including only core rainfall, others that you should include frontal effects a thousand miles from the cyclone when the tropical connection appears to be from a distant tropical cyclone (see Lili of 1996 and the rainfall in New England). Authors should be keenly aware of biases in sources, NOAA or not. I can tell you mine. You all can figure out the biases within the TCRs on your own. Wikipedia does not make it easy, as it makes an effort to avoid weasel words. Thegreatdr 17:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, and sorry for the position you've been put in. While I think it's certainly possible, if not probable that the flooding in Florida was caused by Edith, this is an encyclopedia which requires verification. Indeed, the situation is a bit sticky, and I'd rather be on the safe side. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)