Talk:Hurricane Donna

Personal story

The following was inserted into the article by DFRafter887, but was removed because it doesn't fit encyclopedia style. I felt it might be of enough interest to repost it here on the talk page. -- Cyrius|✎ 12:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was 14 years old when I went through Hurricane Donna on the island of Grassey Key in the Florida Keys. My family's home was on the Gulf front of the island. My aunt, with whom I lived, invited some of her friends to join us in the shelter of our home, which my aunt thought to be impervious to hurricanes. The home was constructed of concrete blocks and poured concrete and sat well above sea level, the porch being on concrete pillars. We had large a salt water swimming pool which was in the shape of an "L", a part of which was screened in on the porch.

At that time, Milton Santini had his porpoise training school across the bay and had nowhere for the porpoise to weather the storm. My aunt invited him to put some of his porpoise in our salt water pool for the storm. He did and I really can't quite remember how many there were in there. There were at least 3, one of which was "Mitzi" who was the original Flipper. The porpoise made it through the storm, but needless to say, after the hurricane passed, the pool was a total mess, as porpoise are mammals.

I got sidetracked remembering the porpoise. I'll get back to the story.

I remember the purple lightening during Hurricane Donna and how the wind howled. My aunt must have had a premonition because she made some of the men who were in the house get a mattress and put it over our plate glass doors in the living room by the porch. No sooner than they did this, both glass doors broke. We would have all been badly injured had the matresses not been in place. After the doors broke, everyone went up to the upstairs with the wind and seaweed flying past our heads. It was very frightening! The waves were washing through the house as we went up the stairs to the second floor. One of the guests lost his presence of mind and went around breaking the windows in the upstairs. His reasoning was to let the pressure out. My best friend and I huddled in the shower, praying that we would be alright.

We all made it through Hurricane Donna, but with a hefty respect for the weather. My home was seriously damaged, and I remember my aunt having to obtain an SBA loan in order to make the repairs. After than time we went through Hurricane Betsy and Inez, but neither was as severe as Hurricane Donna.

We had two windmills at our home. One watered the lawn, and the other pumped salt water into our swimming pool. After Hurricane Donna both windmills were broken, but one windmill still stands, but is not operable. This I saw upon a visit that I made to the Keys and to my former home. After my aunt died, the home was sold, and I now live in Northwest Arkansas.

Something to think about is when did hurricane seeding go into effect? There was discussion [and still is] that the government had seeded Hurricane Donna, trying to lessen it, but created a monster of a storm. I find it rather strange that when hurricanes are named on the television or radio now, Hurricane Donna is not mentioned as the severe hurricane that she was. Was it because the government has downplayed the "seeding" of Hurricane Donna? Think about it.

Thanks for letting me write here. If you have any comments, my e-mail address is <removed to prevent spam harvesting>.

Well...considering that there have been several hurricanes (Andrew, Georges, Camille, Hugo, Mitch, and now Charley and Ivan, and a few others as well), it's not surprising that it isn't viewed as one of the worst hurricanes, although yes it is bad. Btw, I don't think Donna was seeded. bob rulz 00:24, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

It wasn't, and predated the seeding attempts by a year. See Project Stormfury. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:12, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Every inch of the east coast"

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)

Not that this storm wasn't incredible, though...the NC3/NY3 is amazing, and surely deserves mention. Jdorje 04:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Todo

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)

Most intense landfalling table

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

Visual comparison of Hurricane Floyd with Hurricane Andrew

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)

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)

Reanalysis

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)

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)

Todo2

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)

The whitespace is from a forced {{clear}}. – Chacor 14:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Donna Satellite Image Incorrect

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)

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)

NHC emailed. – Chacor 08:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

NHC responded. It's not Donna, but not Alicia either, apparently. The email response includes a quote from Dr. Pasch from 1998:

"A geostationary satellite photograph, purportedly of Hurricane Donna (1960), is actually one of Hurricane Anita (1977) with altered map graphics."

– Chacor 14:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

I'm surprised they responded so quickly. Alright, that works. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

More Information About The Destruction Hurricane Donna Made Would Be Nice Including The Total Destruction Of Texas Tower #4 Early Radar Station That Hurricane Donna Ran Directly Over Top Of And Killed Everyone On Board. What Also Would Be Nice Is Where The Texas Tower #4 Location Related To The Track Of Hurricane Donna.

The Locations Of The Towers Were At:

No. 2 - Georges Shoal, in 56-foot deep water,110 miles east of Cape Cod 41°44′N, 67°47′W

No. 3 - Nantucket Shoal, in 80-foot water, 100 miles south-east of Rhode Island 40°45′N, 69°19′W

No. 4 - Unnamed Shoal, in 185-foot water, 84 miles south-east of New York City 39°48′N, 72°40′W

KingSparta 21:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of satellite imagery, a question...

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)

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)

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)

Format issue

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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Donna/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

A number of refs, additional detail, convert templates, date wikilink removal, and rewriting was required to bring this article up to speed. It should be ready for GA now. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Added preparations and aftermath sections. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • Because the retirement section is so short, consider combining it with the Aftermath section and renaming the section "Aftermath and retirement".
   • The lead should be expanded a bit. Please expand the second paragraph to include more information on the impact and damages of the storm.
   • In the Aftermath section, you say "Oxygen depletion due to those perishing in the hurricane caused additional mortality." I'm not really sure what you mean here...could you reword?

 Done I think the issues from number 1 are now addressed. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks good here - nice job. Dana boomer (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Current ref 20 (Tabb) deadlinks.
   • A few areas need references:

   • The second and fourth paragraphs of the Meteorological history section.
   • The intro paragraph in the Impacts section. This is especially important given that you say the storm killed 364 people, but the following sections only account for 164.
   • The last sentence in the Elsewhere in the East Coast section.
   • The retirement section.

   • The source for the Costliest U.S. Atlantic hurricanes chart should be turned into a formatted reference, rather than simply an external link
   • Please be consistent in how you cite your references. A couple of them currently use cite templates (which I prefer, although it's up to you), while most of them don't. Also, please make sure that the web references are formatted author (if available), title, publisher, access date.
   • Many of your web refs need publisher information.

 Done I think I've done all I can here. Not all of the refs have obvious publisher information, because some of them are just websites, and weren't published in refereed journals. Placed all the refs in the same format (ref). I followed the more typical book format for the ref that won't accept the full web address, due to the brackets. I understand cite web is required for FA, but it isn't for GA, so I'd rather not go through all the extra time and effort to do it, since there are bots/editors out there that will do so anyhow after this passes GA. This happens frequently with the articles I write which pass through the GA process. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If you read what I said above, I didn't ask that you convert everything into the cite web template. I simply asked that you be consistent with either using it or not, as the first look I took through the article showed me that templates were used in a couple of times, but not in most instances. I have no problem with you not using the templates (I personally prefer them when writing articles, because I feel it makes them easier, but I have no problem with other people not using them).

The second half of the third paragraph of the Meteorological history section still needs a ref, as does the last little bit of the intro paragraph to the impact section.

As for the publishers for web references - the publisher for a ref is the company that posted it online or caused it to be printed, while the author is the one that actually wrote the piece. Sometimes they're one and the same, most often not. So, for example, for author for Ref 1 is Gordon Dunn, while the publisher is the Weather Bureau Office. For Ref 2, there is no author listed, but the publisher is the National Hurricane Center. Does this makes sense? Generally, refs are formatted author (if available), title, publisher, access date. Also, refs should not have their titles in all capital letters, even if they are that way in the original source. Dana boomer (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

4. 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):

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

There are quite a few little things that need to be done with references, as well as a few minor issues with prose and MOS, so I am putting the article on hold for seven days to give you time to address these. Drop me a note here on the review page or on my talk page if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Replying to your question on my talk page...Basically, I'm 99% sure the problem is the brackets in the link. They have to be there to make the link work, but WP in all its smartness is thinking that we want the bracketed area to be the full link, and so is cutting off most of the link. The upside...we know what's wrong; the downside...I have no idea how to go about fixing it. It's obviously an issue in formatting somewhere... Is there any other way you can link to this article? Or perhaps just drop the link altogether and cite the article as you would a print source? Dana boomer (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've dealt with all the necessary fixes at this time. Let me know if this is enough, in your eyes, for GA. One of the items you mentioned is (as I understand it) specifically for FA, not GA, passage. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I've replied to your responses above. The article is not quite at GA status, although it is close. I'll probably start working on the issues I outlined above this morning if I get some time, and if I get them finished, I'll just go ahead and pass the article. Dana boomer (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to work on them as well, but not until tomorrow at the earliest. Today is a very busy day, both at work and home. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What about cases where the author and publisher are the same? Thegreatdr (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's an individual person (ex: Joe Smith is both the author and the publisher), then put that name in both fields, because it's possible for an individual person to be both the author and the publisher. If it's a company (ex: National Hurricane Center), just put the name in the publisher field. This is because the Center itself didn't write the piece - it's a company, a non-thinking entity, and therefore cannot write the stuff itself. Basically, some random staff member wrote the stuff, and even though you don't have that person's name, you can't say that they didn't write it. Does this make sense? Dana boomer (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It has the inflation adjusted estimate in the infobox (which is in billions), but should that number be used in the prose? Or the original 1960's number?Potapych (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've properly formatted the refs, and removed the information on deaths split between direct and indirect (as this is what I was most worried about not having a source). The other section I mention that doesn't have a source (in the MH section), isn't really controversial, so doesn't need a source now, but it is something to keep on your list of things to do to further improve the article. One other thing would be to make sure that your dollar conversions match up. You have damages in 2008 dollars in the infobox, in 2006 dollars at one point in the impacts section, and in 2005 dollars in one of the charts. Pick a year and standardize them all.

Besides these things, the article looks good, and so I am passing it to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

2013 review/todo

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)

• Convert preps to UTC time (or give indications such as "X hours before landfall"
• Add more preps than just watches/warnings
• Expand Caribbean section
• Expand Florida
• Add impact in Mid-Atlantic
• More aftermath (disaster declarations?)

That's what's generally needed. Feel free to add to the list, or help by improving the article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hurricane Donna/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Preps? Aftermath? The SH and impact look good, though. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 18:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 02:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Radar image of Donna from September 6, 1960

Page 371 (or 111 depending on your vantage point) of this NHRP report. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Category downgrade

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)

Actually @Pierre cb: 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)

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