Talk:Tropical Storm Marco (2008)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Tropical Storm Marco (2008). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Size?

If Marco was the second smallest tropical storm on record in the Atlantic Basin, then what was the smallest one?

Where does it say second smallest? The smallest known tropical cyclone ever was Cyclone Tracy. Marco is actually tied with Tracy according to the latest advisory. It says that the TS winds extend out up to 30 miles from the center. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw it there earlier; someone probrably deleted it. Regarding Tracy, that storm was twice as strong as Marco when it reached peak size, and because it occured in the southern hemisphere, in a smaller basin, i'm not surprised about it.

Now is it a record? TS-force winds extend only out to 15 miles from the center. Weatherlover819 (talk) 05:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't size measured by the radius of outermost closed isobar? Plasticup ^T/C 05:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, since it is, I don't know how to compare the two. Esp since Marco is producing TS winds up to 10miles from the center now, ~20 miles wide, 40 miles smaller than Tracy.Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be an edit war going on regarding the paragraph about Marco holding the record. Yes, Marco's figures make it smaller than Tracy, hence why I'm reluctant to remove it at the moment, but the cited source only backs up the Tracy figures. Is there a source that we can cite saying that Marco is indeed the new record holder? I don't recall reading it in the advisories or discussions, so I'm tempted to slap a citation or OR tag on it... - JVG (talk) 03:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

See Smallest record claim which is at the bottom of the page. Bidgee (talk) 04:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This advisory from when tropical storm-force winds were 30 miles mentions the possibility of it, but the wind field continued to shrink to 10 miles later. -- RattleMan 03:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the claim should be included for now until we decide on a solid/consistent way of measuring size. I thought that ROCI was the definitive measure, but that may not be correct. Writing about the wind field is fine though, as long as we make it clear how we are defining "size". For citing Tracy, we can use HURDAT. For Marco, the NHC storm archive. Plasticup ^T/C 04:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A claim which is clearly original research. Best thing to do is find a reliable source(s) that state it was infact the smallest TC recorded. Bidgee (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to wait for the TDR, which should resolve the matter, surely? Alternatively, if we can cite sources at that point that together add up to the claim, as opposed to the single source currently there - JVG (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

NHC forecaster Stewart said I HAVE WORKED SOME TINY TYPHOONS IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC BEFORE...BUT HORIZONTALLY-CHALLENGED MARCO COULD BE THE SMALLEST TROPICAL CYCLONE ON RECORD. That means we should include some discussion of its size. Plasticup ^T/C 04:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Clearly says could be not that it is the smallest. Bidgee (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, cos it was 30 miles at the time. It shrank after that to 10 miles (see Advisory 4) and if we cite these 2 along with the source for Tracy's size... It's a case of adding 1+1 to get 2. - JVG (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Using an Advisory as a ref and Tracy as a ref is still original research as it does not say that Marco was the smallest which would be just be based on a figure that could change once a report/briefing on Marco has been released. I don't see the issue if you add to this article only that Marco could be then it is the smallest Tropical Cyclone and once the report is released and states that Marco is in fact the smallest then the Tracy article can be updated but all we are doing is basing it on is original research. Bidgee (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That is why we use HURDAT. It's not original research to look at the records of every storm and see which is the smallest. Plasticup ^T/C 04:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Just say "could be the smallest" or is "one of the smallest" until the TCR comes out in a few months. Pretty damn simple. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 19:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Another example of the over-referencing bureaucratic mess of technicalities that Wikipedia has become. This is clearly the smallest tropical cyclone on record, I just don't see how this can even be debated. bob rulz (talk) 06:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Read below Bob - no-one is suggesting otherwise but if we are truly an encyclopedia we require proof from the correct source.--VS ^talk 06:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. It seems that the matter has now been resolved anyway. I know we're all reasonable people here, I just get frustrated with Wikipedia's policies. Hopefully I didn't sound like I was attacking anybody as that was not my intent. bob rulz (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Watches and Warnings

Since Marco became a 65 mph storm most recently, does it have a chance to be a hurricane when it comes in? It doesn't say it will become one in the latest track. Or does that need to be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.223.190 (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If you read the forecast discussion, it does say that there is a chance that it'll become a hurricane, that's why there are Hurricane Watches posted. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Intensity Question

Although the official NHC forecast calls for Marco to be a cat. 1 when it comes on in, does it have a chance to rapidly strengthen before it comes on in? Small hurricanes intensify faster than big hurricanes - and Marco is the smallest on record in the Atlantic Basin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.223.190 (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That is a sentence fragment worthy of Sarah Palin. Plasticup ^T/C 00:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, get real! That doesn't have anything to do with Marco! I mean it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.223.190 (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That's better, now that you have expanded. The NHC is giving the storm a 2% chance of reaching Category 2 strength before moving inland. Anything more than that is even less likely. Plasticup ^T/C 00:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha, nice Plasticup. I doubt it will rapidly intensity, although it is over very warm waters and conditions are favorable, I just don't see it happening. I'd say 85mph at the most, but almost certainly peaking as a minimal cat:1 Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Distances

10 miles might well be 16km, but the advisory says "MARCO IS AN EXTREMELY SMALL TROPICAL CYCLONE. TROPICAL STORM FORCE WINDS ONLY EXTEND OUTWARD UP TO 10 MILES...20 KM FROM THE CENTER." As such, is it appropriate to alter the km figures for accuracy when the figures in advisories are already rounded? It may well be adding inaccuracy. - JVG (talk) 02:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If the advisory says 20 km we say 20 km. The NHC measures everything in knots and nautical miles, so when we see 10 miles and 20 km, both figures are already rounded. We cannot just pick one unit and convert it to the other. Plasticup ^T/C 03:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Smallest record claim

There is nothing online stating that Marco made it to Hurricane status nor Tropical Cyclone status. Tropical Storm (Tropical Depression is the term used in Australia) is below Hurricane and Tropical Cyclone strength therefor has not broken the record. Also the only source used is about Tracy and not Marco which is misleading quote.

This makes it the smallest tropical cyclone on record in any basin; the previous record holder was Cyclone Tracy in 1974, which featured tropical storm force winds 30 mi (50 km) from the center.^[1]

If the above is posted again both here and on Tracy you will leave me with no choice but to inform the Admins. Bidgee (talk) 03:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A Tropical Storm is a type of Tropical Cyclone. Plasticup ^T/C 03:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Again (Also posted on Plasticup talk page) Tropical Storm (Tropical Depression is the term used in Australia) is below Hurricane and Tropical Cyclone strength but is used to describe a system that it more then just your average low pressure system but not yet a Hurricane/Tropical Cyclone (Since it's near Mexico it should have been a Hurricane if it reached the strength needed for it to be classed that). I've found no sources stating the fact (Only source used is Tracy which is misleading as it has nothing about Marco) and it's just original research by Wikipedia editors. Bidgee (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about southern hemisphere storms, but in the Atlantic Basin the term "tropical cyclone" does not say anything about the system's strength. Plasticup ^T/C 03:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're confused with that all low pressure systems are Cyclones and that ones in the tropics are Tropical Cyclones but doesn't have the true strength of the Australian type of Tropical Cyclones or the US' Hurricane. Bidgee (talk) 03:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have tried linking you to our featured article, Tropical cyclone, but let me quote the relevant section for you: "Depending on their location and strength, tropical cyclones are referred to by other names, such as hurricane, typhoon, tropical storm, cyclonic storm, tropical depression." Does that clear it up? Plasticup ^T/C 03:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You can't use Wiki's own articles to source something like above. Bidgee (talk) 03:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on, do some research. Googling "Tropical cyclone", these are amongst the first three hits. Tropical cyclones with maximum wind speed ranges between 60 and 110 km/h, they are tropical storms. Once the tropical cyclone reaches winds of at least 17 m/s (34 kt, 39 mph) they are typically called a "tropical storm". Satisfied? Plasticup ^T/C 03:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really satisfied until someone posts a source which states that it was the smallest cyclone as ATM I've only found one reliable source that states that "could be the smallest tropical cyclone on record". That source itself doesn't mean that it was the smallest. Bidgee (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

See the Size discussion above. We know that there's a sourcing problem at the second, which we want to clarify. However, the raw figures available at the second suggest Marco has taken Tracy's record. The terminology of Tropical Cyclone is not a problem given that Marco was a Tropical Storm; it certainly qualifies as being able to take Tracy's record. The official report may well give us a reliable source in the future, but that is several weeks away at best, I'd expect. - JVG (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Then such claim could wait until that report is released. Bidgee (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Combine Marco's measurements with every other tropical cyclone, and the answer is clear. Plasticup ^T/C 04:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No it's not. Figures can change which doesn't mean that all figures/measurements are always correct (Reason why final reports may have a Cyclone at a lower or high cat or size then it originally was thought and it has happened). I rather a media release or media report that states that it was the smallest tropical cyclone recorded. Bidgee (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Right now the figures support the claim that Marco is the smallest tropical cyclone on record. Plasticup ^T/C 04:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well National Hurricane Center must have some doubt for them to say "could be the smallest tropical cyclone on record". Bidgee (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

They said that in discussion number 3, before it shrank, as noted in discussion number 4. I'm sorry, I don't understand your argument. I have shown you data proving that Marco is the smallest tropical cyclone on record. Are you saying that HURDAT is wrong, or what? Plasticup ^T/C 04:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Plasticup; can you change the source on page to reflect the Hurdat figures as it'll be better than what's up at the moment. I added a dispute tag to the top of the article a short while ago to reflect the argument here. - JVG (talk) 04:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, added. Plasticup ^T/C 04:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) - JVG (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Jeff Masters says that it's got the record for the Atlantic, though records only date back 20 years. No mention of worldwide records. - JVG (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That is to be included... if anyone removes then there being idiotic. Itfc+canes=me (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Jess Masters isn't a reliable source. Why not just wait until there is an official source that mentions whether it is/isn't the smallest? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the bit of controversy. I did state that is was the smallest, without giving a source, so, it is original research....It shouldn't be included for the time being as stated several times in this discussion. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Julian..... 1) Its not Jess Masters.... 2) he is... 3) he provides a very reliable source for his source..... 19:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's still a blog. Thus, it's unreliable. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That's like saying "he's American, thus he must act exactly like Bush". Dr Jeff Masters knows his stuff and links to a NOAA source. If we can't quote the blog, then we can just quote the same source; it'll still give the same conclusion. - JVG (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Jeff Masters has a doctorate in meteorology and was a hurricane hunter. If thats not a realiable source, than how can all these AP stories that are full of mistakes be? -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 21:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Jeff Masters himself is not the concern. Most if not all blogs are inherently un-reliable. If he cites NOAA as a source, use NOAA. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPS would seem to permit it as being an "expert in the relevent field". - JVG (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• I have adjusted the sentence used slightly - please note the fact or otherwise of this being the smallest cyclone on record etc can be confirmed when an official report comes through. That will happen soon enough - but for now without that proof the content being substantiated as fact is not correct. Editors should IMO await the confirmation before broadcasting something that is not as yet substantiated.--VS ^talk 03:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like everyone is satisfied. With three sources, I think that the dispute has been resolved and am removing the {{Disputeabout}} tag. Plasticup ^T/C 15:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

However, there's the intensity problem. Tracy peaked at around cat. 4 strength, Marco never reached hurricane strength. What about tropical storms that peak at borderline-TS-TD strength, wouldn't they have very small TS-windfields also? Or, is it based on isobars? What about the fact that tropical cyclones have different intensity scales in different basins? Tracy was a record-setter in the way that it had such a small windfield at cat. 4 strength, while Marco is remarkable but not as much so because it never peaked above TS-strength. Also, if measuring by isobars, what if the tropical cyclone is situated within a generally low-pressure area, or surrounded by a generally high-pressure surface area, wouldn't that make the outermost closed isobar extend way beyond the outermost cloudbands or windfield of a midget storm? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That is precisely why size is measured by the radius of the outermost closed isobar, and not by the radius of TS-force winds. Plasticup ^T/C 06:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This will not be able to go into the article, because it is original research, but I fired off a question to NHC on Tuesday (7 October 2008) when I saw the mention of Marco's very small size in one of the NHC storm updates. I asked if Marco was the smallest storm on record, and cited the FAQ link on Tracy. I received a response from Chris Landsea on Friday, and he said that Tracy would likely remain listed as the smallest, because it was hurricane strength, while Marco was only a tropical storm. Horologium (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say but it seems a bit misleading to say it's the smallest tropical cyclone when the source clearly states smallest tropical storm nor does it say it has over taken Tracy's record. Bidgee (talk) 09:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems that no one seems welling to fix the claim. All I'll like to see is whats said in Cyclone Tracy to be said in the article (Which would need some work to make it fit in this article). Bidgee (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Just having a re-read of the report and it states this "Marco’s 10 n mi radial extent of tropical storm force winds makes it the smallest tropical storm in this admittedly short record.source" No where does it state smallest tropical cyclone nor tropical cyclone force winds. Just because it has Tropical Cyclone Report doesn't mean Marco was one (TC) since all significant Tropical storms, cyclones get a report as a TCR even if it never made it past TS. Bidgee (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge

For now I have added a merge proposal. The article has little impact and hardly any new information. I think this storm will go much better just in the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season. (Hurricaneguy (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

If Marco is in the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season, why can't we add other storms like Laura and Josephine there? They had little if any impact, and there is no merging discussion about those storms, so why add Marco to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.204.64 (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Very Weak Support: I think the article needs an update, but should be able to stand on its own with some work. However, if Marco is being merged in then, as the person above me cites, why not Arthur, Josephine or Laura too? Marco's a probable record breaker, which'd help its notability. As it is though, perhaps copy it to a sandbox and merge it back in for the time being. Still, if that happens then it might never get done... ADDENDUM: 3rd attempt to post this due to edit conflicts. Busy talk page to say the least. - JVG (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: There is more than enough out there to justify a full article. It needs to be expanded, not merged. Plasticup ^T/C 22:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Very strong Oppose: Same as Plasticup XD Itfc+canes=me (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I expanded it some. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 22:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason whatsoever to merge in my opinion. Like was said it just needs to be expanded a bit. Merging the topi would make the other look sloppy.Knowledgekid87 18:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, Arthur was the first tropical storm to form in May since 1981's Arlene, and it marked the first time a named storm formed in May for 2 concecutive years, and therefore, Arthur was notable, but I don't think Josephine and Laura should have a "main" article. It was one of only 3 storms named Marco, a low number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.204.64 (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Josephine's article is too big to merge. Laura did have impact in Great Britain and Ireland.Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm in Great Britain, was aware of its (light) impact when I typed it above. We've been through much worse than Laura. - JVG (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Why was the merge tag removed? (Hurricaneguy (talk) 03:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

IP did it. Is this discussion still relevant though, now that the article has been expanded? It can obviously work on its own. Plasticup ^T/C 03:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It still needs a lot of work. That Preparations and Impact section is very weak. -- HurricaneERIC - Class of '08: XVII Maius MMVIII 22:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hurricane

Any chance it became one? I mean Tracy was a cat4 at this size, anything is possible. They said there was no way of telling the intensity by satellite. I know it should have an eye, but some hurricanes at 75mph do not have an eye yet, and with a wind feild this small i dont even think there was room for an eye, lol. Also, why is it still on NRL? Do they think it will reform? Didnt it get obliterated as soon as it touched land? -Winter123 (talk) 09:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It might be possible, if you read Jeff Masters blog on it, he states that there was a 3 mi wide eye embedded in the storm. So, it might be upgraded in the post-season, but i doubt it.

Some storms tend to hang around for a while, even after dissipating. People just forget to take it off. I think Marco did pull back over water for a little while before hitting the Yucatan, not 100% sure though. Either way, it's completely dissipated now. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

IMO it's best to wait for the report as it will set it in stone if it did break the record. Talking about how long they can live and travel see Cyclone Steve which wasn't really a "strong" tropical cyclone. Bidgee (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Merging This Article

Before anyone removes the merging template please read this. I believe there is an inadequate amount of information for this article to stand on its own. If the article was improved the merge could be removed. Please reply with your opinions towards this. Thanks. (Hurricaneguy (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC))

This article will not be merged period. This storm has an adequate ammount of information to get an article; tropical storm Marco has a fine enough article to not be merged with the 2008 season itself. 76.235.166.14 (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Size record?

If Marco was confirmed to be only 10 miles wide by gale-force winds, shouldn't it be put on this image shown here, instead of Cyclone Tracy? 76.235.166.14 (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No, there is a big (pardon the semi-pun) misunderstanding with this. Tracy remains the smallest Tropical Cyclone on record while Marco hold the record for smallest tropical storm in the atlantic basin. You wouldn't even be able to see Marco on that map ;) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

But a tropical storm and tropical cyclone are just different names for the same storm, right? If you can, you could put 2 pictures in 1, with 1 showing Tip's size and another showing Marco's size in comparision to another state like, say Rhode Island to get an idea of how tiny it was. There is no difference between a tropical storm and tropical cyclone; they are just different names for the same storm. After all, like you said, the storm was so small you can't even see it on the map. 76.235.166.14 (talk) 01:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

By tropical cyclone I mean a Category 1 Hurricane equivalent storm. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Remember that a Category 1 tropical cyclone in Australia is the same as a moderate tropical storm in the Atlantic. I changed all the colors because of the confusion it caused. A severe tropical cyclone is a hurricane-equivalent tropical cyclone. There are, of course, differences between BoM's definition of a TC and NHC's, but if you compare the radii of maximum gale-force winds, you could say that Marco was the smallest tropical cyclone on record. (BoM doesn't have a definition for tropical storm and neither does JTWC in that part of the world, I believe). Potapych (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Problem is to base an system that wasn't in Australian waters on the Australian scale would be original research. The Australian scale (Used by the BoM ever since it began Tropical Cyclone tracking and forecasting) is in need of a few changes to being it inline with NHC but whether that happens in the next decade is any ones guess but the Australian scale should never be used outside Australian waters. I've been in a Category 2 TC which was rather interesting but damage caused was by record rainfalls weeks leading up to TC Helen meant that shallow rooted African Mahoganies (About 80% of them were the fallen trees 20% was the native gum trees) fell over once the wind hit 85km/h (Wind speed) but rating the system I would have scaled it as a Tropical storm even though it was Category 2 on the Australian scale. Bidgee (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting what I said. Marco is a tropical cyclone, and Tracy was never a tropical storm because such a thing does not exist below the equator and east of 90 degrees. A tropical cyclone must have at least gale-force winds (34 knots), and Marco's were much greater than that (50 knots). Marco's windfield was also smaller than the previous record holder (Tracy), and therefore it was the smallest tropical cyclone on record. Potapych (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

No, you have misinterpreting my comment. Marco was not a Tropical Cyclone since the Australian scale isn't a world wide scale unlike the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale which is a world wide scale (Australia will no doubt have a scale based on it in the future). Marco would have been a Hurricane if he had of strengthened but it didn't and stayed at Tropical storm status and using the term "Marco is a tropical cyclone" is wrong. Bidgee (talk) 03:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That is wrong. The OP states that tropical storms are tropical cyclones (even tropical depressions because they have closed circulations). If you look at the OPs for every basin you'll see that they all define the term tropical cyclone, and that it is not exclusively an Australian term. The SSHS isn't a worldwide scale - it is used only in the western hemisphere and for US interests. With Australia's scale, most cyclones classified as tropical storms in the Atlantic or the eastern Pacific would be classified as Category 1 or 2 tropical cyclones. Category 3 and up (again in Australia) are said to have hurricane-force winds, and that is what makes Tracy different from Marco.

This issue is NOT settled by the TCR or anything the NHC says because the WMO is organizing a committee of experts to determine if Marco is the smallest tropical cyclone on record. It may be a few more months before they publish anything. Potapych (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Potapych is right. I think Bidgee is confusing "tropical cyclone (Australian scale)" with "tropical cyclone (definition)". -Ramisses (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Source? Otherwise it's OR. Now please, don't stir up this conflict up again. We're going by what the TCR states, which is that it was an Atlantic record. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

NHC doesn't report world records. Only WMO does. Potapych (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If Marco became a hurricane, it wouldn't have changed in size whatsoever, it just would have gotten stronger. It isn't even typical for Atlantic storms to become this big. It doesn't matter whether or not it was a hurricane-strength storm or not, a tropical storm is a tropical cyclone, and a tropical cyclone is a tropical storm. In that case, Marco should be on this image because it was the smallest tropical cyclone on record; Tracy was just the smallest hurricane-strength storm on record. 76.235.166.14 (talk) 01:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm just stating what's going down in the record books. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Will Marco at least deserve a spot in the List of tropical cyclones because of it's size? 76.235.166.14 (talk) 08:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Atlantic hurricane research division. "Subject: E5) Which are the largest and smallest tropical cyclones on record?". NOAA. Retrieved 2008-10-07.