Meteorologists retire three hurricane names
The World Meteorological Organization has agreed to retire three names from the Atlantic Hurricane name sequences. This is done periodically out of respect for the people affected by a particularly damaging and deadly storm.
This time the WMO has consigned the 2008 storms Gustav, Ike and Paloma to the history books. Here is their reasoning:
- Gustav became a hurricane on Aug. 26, making landfall in Haiti as a Category 1 hurricane. Gustav then struck western Cuba as a Category 4 hurricane, making its final landfall near Cocodrie, La., on Sept. 1 as a Category 2 hurricane. Hurricane force winds, storm surge and heavy rain produced more than $4 billion damage in Louisiana. Gustav killed 112 people, including 77 in Haiti.
- Ike (left) became a hurricane on Sept. 3 and rapidly intensified to a Category 4 hurricane northeast of the Leeward Islands. The storm struck the Turks and Caicos Islands and Great Inagua Island in the Southeastern Bahamas on Sept. 7, and the northeast coast of Cuba later that day. Ike made its final landfall at Galveston Island, Texas on Sept. 13 as a Category 2 hurricane. Ike killed more than 80 people across the Caribbean and Bahamas, and another 20 in Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas. Total estimated U.S. property damage from Ike is estimated at $19.3 billion.
- Paloma reached hurricane intensity on Nov. 7 and became the second strongest November Atlantic hurricane on record the next day, reaching Category 4. According to the Cuban government, more than 1,400 homes were destroyed on that island with $300 million U.S. dollars in damage.
Normally, the National Hurricane Center maintains six lists of names, in alphabetical order, that are repeated every six years. When names are retired, they are replaced with new ones. Gustav, Ike and Paloma will be replaced in 2014 with Gonzalo, Isaias and Paulette.
Six years ago, Isabel, which caused so much damage in Maryland and elsewhere was retired and replaced by this year's "I" storm - Ida.








Comments
Mr. Roylance
This is off-topic.
Why do people think it looks sophisticated to have a picture taken of them while chewing on their eyeglass temples?
Thanks.
FR: We didn't "think" about it at all. It was a studio photo shoot, trying all sorts of things - glasses on, glasses off, temple (is that what it's called?) in my mouth (I never do that in real life - ick), toothy smile, lippy smile, no smile. The photographer, or somebody above both our pay grades, picked the image. I've never liked it. I like the standup shot better, except that my stomach sticks out. It seems to be genetic. My dad stood the same way, and so does my son. Anybody else hate the glasses thing? Does anybody even notice? Or care? Should we shoot a new picture?
Posted by: Jimmy | May 5, 2009 1:40 PM
Frank, I wouldn't be so concerned about the picture as keeping a job given the recent climate (too punny for a weather blog?) at the Sun.
Did they retire Katrina from this database? Or did they just retire the name FEMA?
FR: I agree. As for Katrina, yes, it has been retired and replaced by Katia in 2011.
Posted by: JTK | May 6, 2009 10:40 AM