Jump to content

Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NSLE (talk | contribs) at 05:13, 29 October 2005 (→Poll: vote). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Hurricane

Please remember to sign your comments using "~~~~"! (This request includes anonymous users.) Please try to keep off-topic discussion and speculation unrelated to the upkeep of the article, 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, to a minimum. If you must put speculation here, please visit the subpage /Speculation and write it there.


Archives: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9

Events specific to: June - July - August (excluding Hurricane Katrina) - Katrina - September - October (excluding Hurricane Wilma) - Wilma

For discussions on records set during the 2005 season, see /Records.

For speculative discussions on the 2005 season, see /Speculation.

For Informal Betting Pools during the 2005 season, see /Betting Pools.

For the records not broken during the 2005 season, see /Records Not Broken.

October

Week 4

26L.Beta

Beyond Wilmalpha

In my glances around the internet, I don't believe anyone else has noted this - but nearly every major model is calling for development in the southwest Caribbean in the 3-6 day time span, and this has been consistent over the last few model runs. Otherwise things look quiet but as Wilma writes her last chapter, this may be where our eyes should turn. The Great Zo 12:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could that be Beta on the horizon? Then again, Wilma seems to still have more to write about... CrazyC83 16:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want anything else to develop. I had betted on Stan being the last, but that didn't work out. So I thought it would be more reasonable to say Beta, and now we're almost to that! I'm getting tired of having to change my prediction. ;-) But seriously, I think there needs to be some peace in the Atlantic for once. --Revolución (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Heck, I originally picked Beta thinking that we wouldn't get close. I picked it just to pick it. Now it is possible to go past Beta. --Holderca1 17:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be changing my vote to Zeta if Gamma forms. And if it gets past Zeta, I'm going to have a heart attack... --Revolución (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A sobering note. The Hurricane Season doesn't officially end until the end of november. We still have a month to go yet!

Does anyone else remember 08L.NONAME (1991)? Wilma is getting wrapped up in a monster Nor'easter. This situation looks very similar. If the extratropical low gets hung out over the Gulf Stream, weird things can and do happen.--Mm35173 18:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking we might have something like that happen, too, but it's looking like Wilma's moisture isn't going to be brought into the Nor'easter after all. Which is a good thing, because it could be a monster if it did...
On the other hand, the TWO is now mentioning two systems, the first of which was already mentioned by The Great Zo. --Patteroast 19:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
AN AREA OF DISTURBED WEATHER HAS FORMED OVER THE SOUTHWESTERN
CARIBBEAN SEA.  SOME SLOW DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SYSTEM IS POSSIBLE
DURING THE NEXT DAY OR SO.

ANOTHER AREA OF DISTURBED WEATHER...ASSOCIATED WITH A WESTWARD-
MOVING TROPICAL WAVE...IS LOCATED ABOUT 550 MILES EAST OF THE
SOUTHERN WINDWARD ISLANDS.  UPPER-LEVEL WINDS ARE NOT CURRENTLY
FAVORABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT.
Looking at satellite, the second area is sheared straight to heck. The first area (which Jeff Masters of WUnderground mentioned a few hours after my post here) needs watching, especially because it isn't often the NHC introduces a system to the TWO with "development of this system is possible". The Great Zo 19:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That second one should die before it does anything, although that first area has Beta written all over it (although I can't see it getting to high intensity). If a weird Perfect Storm-style hurricane were to develop out of the nor'easter, would they go ahead and name it Beta (or Gamma), or leave it as 26L.NONAME (Hurricane #26)? CrazyC83 22:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As of the 10/25 @ 530 p.m. TWO, Dr. Avila changed the Caribbean formation bit to "CONDITIONS APPEAR TO BE FAVORABLE FOR SLOW DEVELOPMENT DURING THE NEXT DAY OR TWO." Sounds like a depression is likely. This could be Beta. Looks like it has more potential than the Lesser Antilles storm. ColdCaffeine 23:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
@Crazy: It would have to be tropical or subtropical for it to receive a name. --tomf688{talk} 00:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he was referring to the "Perfect Storm" which spawned a new tropical system (a hurricane, in fact) that the NHC opted to leave unnamed - to avoid public confusion. If something were to develop in the same way out of the Wilmalpha Nor'Easter, they could opt to do the same again. Of course, that won't happen this time. The Great Zo 02:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
90L.INVEST

Here we go again! -- RattleMan 01:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my! Toto, I don't think were in the Atlantic any more! tdwuhs

Looks more like the Western Pacific don't it. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 19:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Beta, anyone? This is getting out of hand!!! CrazyC83 02:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious... is there a reason you seem to get giddy with every single invest that comes along? I'm a bit of a hurricane-phile (did I just make that word up?) but enough is enough after a while. Sure this season has been unique and interesting to document but honestly there comes a point where you just hope this season slows down a little bit. We're not supposed to see this kind of activity in October, let alone the pace the entire season has been setting. I'm just wondering why the enthusiasm every time a wave shows up. --RPIRED 12:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone noticed that the Atlantic now is much more active than the east and west pacific? How freaky can you get? RoswellAtup
The basins have often worked in opposite of each other. In 1983, the Pacifc exhausted it's naming list, while the Atlantic only had four named storms the entire season. --tomf688{talk} 12:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That is not always true at all, 2003 hurricane seasons in both basins were tied at 16 RoswellAtup
16 is only slightly above average for the Eastern Pacific though... CrazyC83 15:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking better. Recon is set to check it out in a couple days. Hurricanehink 14:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, between satellite and quikscat, this thing looks like it's going to be a depression sooner rather than later. The Great Zo 16:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NHC says conditions are favorable for development. There is a chance that it could hit Central America before it develops. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 19:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


OH TOTO!

RECENT SATELLITE IMAGES AND SURFACE OBSERVATIONS INDICATE THAT A TROPICAL DEPRESSION COULD BE FORMING IN THE EXTREME SOUTHWESTERN CARIBBEAN SEA ABOUT 140 MILES EAST OF THE COAST OF COSTA RICA. IF THIS DEVELOPING TREND CONTINUES ADVISORIES COULD BE INITIATED AT ANY TIME. HOWEVER...EVEN IF TROPICAL CYCLONE FORMATION DOES NOT OCCUR...THIS DISTURBANCE IS EXPECTED TO MOVE SLOWLY TOWARD THE WEST OR NORTHWEST BRINGING TORRENTIAL RAINS AND SQUALLS TO PORTIONS OF CENTRAL AMERICA...PRIMARILY OVER COSTA RICA...NICARAGUA AND HONDURAS. THESE RAINS COULD CAUSE LIFE-THREATENING FLASH FLOODS AND MUDSLIDES. INTERESTS IN THE SOUTHWESTERN CARIBBEAN SHOULD MONITOR THE PROGRESS OF THIS SYSTEM.

tdwuhs

Tropical Depression 26

The Navy Site now lists it at 26L.NONAME... --Patteroast 01:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No surprise. However this one looks like it will be a quick landfall, probably at tropical storm strength. One thing this might do is cross into the Pacific though... CrazyC83 01:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The forecast I saw in the TWO suggest a northwestward drift, which seems more likely to take it over Nicaragua and back over water in the NW Caribbean, rather than the Pacific. --DavidK93 02:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, the Backup Navy site has an additional 92L for this system, most likely the same problem with TD25 and the erroneous 90L. -- RattleMan 02:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-oh this is predicted to go into Central America! Let's hope it's not like Stan or worse Mitch! Beta you better be tame! tdwuhs

[Cocks gun. Puts gun to head and pulls trigger. Blood and brains spill onto floor. Sad music plays.] Tell me I'm dreaming. Will someone please tell me that? Tell me the 26th tropical depression of the season has not formed. The weathered faces of the NHC guys probably have several more wrinkles than they had in May. I'm about ready to go clinically insane here. This is looking more and more like a Western Pacific season and the West Pacific, meanwhile, is quiet. What's wrong with this picture? I cannot believe this is happening. I just cannot believe it. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 03:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two things worry me from the discussion:
"WE WERE NOT SUCCESSFUL IN CONTACTING THE COLOMBIAN WEATHER SERVICE TO COORDINATE THE WARNINGS"
... and ...
"THE OFFICIAL FORECAST IS NOT AS AGGRESSIVE AS THE GFDL WHICH MAKES THE DEPRESSION A 94-KNOT HURRICANE BEFORE LANDFALL."
Both situations aren't positive at all. I assume the Colombians coordinate warnings for Central America, so this means the people in the areas that will be affected are going to have even less warning than usual. Also, this thing could be a hurricane! Very very troublesome indeed. --tomf688{talk} 03:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt that this will become a hurricane, but it's not impossible. -- E. Brown
No, the tiny islands that they're mentioning in the advisory are owned by Colombia. bob rulz 04:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tropical Storm Beta

Now listed as Beta. Ajm81 07:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would have never thought we would have gotten this far...Jane, stop this crazy thing! -- RattleMan 07:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Damn it, Stop you crazy season! Although Alpha wasn't as bad as feared, this is another section of the world that could see major damage from even a tropical storm. SargeAbernathy 09:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Discussion #2: "SINCE THE 36 HOUR FORECAST IS NEAR HURRICANE STRENGTH... IT IS CERTANLY POSSIBLE THAT HURRICANE CONDITIONS COULD OCCUR WITHIN 36 HOURS IN THE AREAS ALREADY UNDER A TROPICAL STORM WARNING. HOWEVER...WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN ABLE TO CONTACT NICARAGUA REGARDING THE ISSUANCE OF A HURRICANE WATCH IN ADDITION TO THE TROPICAL STORM WARNING." Rather worrying stuff. The wind chart from advisory #1 implies greater than 20% chance of becoming a hurricane. Tompw 13:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The GFDL brings it to Cat 2 at landfall and the Canadian model is on crack takes it up towards Florida. Obviously, these are the outliers - a general concensus would be a strong tropical storm or weak hurricane to hit Nicaragua. The conditions are insanely ripe, so if it hangs off the coast a bit longer, who knows how rapid it could ramp itself up. The Great Zo 13:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Christ, I thought people were kidding when they guess in Greeks. Good God this can't be happening. The West Pacific seems to have moved to the Atlantic. Let's hope it's not here to stay. I feel like I'm in a car going 150 mph with a murderous psycopath at the wheel. This season has drifted well past insane. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 13:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, could you not mention "150 mph," please? Might as well chant "Bloody Mary" into a mirror at midnight. --DavidK93 14:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's better than "150 knots" though...although I'm sure this sorority wants to get there, they don't have much time (thank God!) CrazyC83 15:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...TROPICAL STORM BETA STRENGTHENING AND RE-LOCATED EASTWARD...NEW WARNINGS AND WATCHES ISSUED...

doesn't sound good -there is an 85 KT forecast nowcrandles 14:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

60 mph as of 2 pm so most of the strengthening forecast for twelve hours has happened in three.I tend to think of Alpha,Beta,etc. as one co-ed fraternity/sorority of which the storms are members...here's hoping pledge week is a dud!--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 18:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I alternate it as if the gender run continued...like Vince (M) - Wilma (F) - Alpha (M) - Beta (F) - Gamma (M) - Delta (F) - etc. CrazyC83 19:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes,but Beta is not a sorority all by herself,she's a sister of the Greek Letter Society.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 19:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What's with the Beta sorority jokes? Sororities either have two or three Greek letters. Is there some "joke" I missed? Mike H (Talking is hot) 20:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It could be a short-form being used for something like Beta Beta Beta... CrazyC83 22:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Basically, during the initial discussion about the Greek letters, someone started calling them fraternities. However, that would be sexist so CrazyC decided to continue the alternation of genders, hence the Alpha fraternity and the Beta sorority. PK9 23:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But my point is that the hurricanes are (like the ones with people's names) best considered as individuals who are members of a co-ed fraternity/sorority.Not each of them being a collective group.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 23:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
...ALTHOUGH IT WOULD NOT BE ANY SURPRISE IF BETA GOT STRONGER AND BECAME A MAJOR HURRICANE.

Ugh, with this season, I don't know what is a surprise any longer. Titoxd(?!?) 20:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, anything's possible. Category 5, anyone? (Please, no...) CrazyC83 22:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh! No! Crazy C, don't take this the wrong way, but everytime you mentioned Category 5 in a storm discussion, something bad happened. It's like in the old Western movies where the good guys walk into town and say, "It's quiet...too quiet." I'm still hoping that it won't get any worse than a low end Category 3. Or, better yet, upwell some cold water and weaken. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 22:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well,the future can hold anything from

AN AREA OF DISTURBED WEATHER IS BEGINNING TO SHOW SIGNS OF ORGANIZATION

to

WINDS OF INCONCEIVABLY CATASTROPHIC HURRICANE GODZILLA REACH SUPERSONIC SPEED...HURRICANE HUNTER AIRCRAFT LOST AFTER REPORTING EXPLOSION OF DROPSONDE IN CENTRAL VACUUUM...PRESIDENT ORDERS EVACUATION OF CENTRAL AND EASTERN TIME ZONES...MOST OF FLORIDA WILL BE UNDERWATER BY THE TIME YOU READ THIS...IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD...THAT'S ALL FOLKS!--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 22:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC) She doesn't want to strengthen right now...that has bought people time and means that she won't get as strong as otherwise first thought... CrazyC83 15:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wilma, Rita, and Katrina all stalled out at a certain level for a while. As a caveat, so did Lee... but you see what I'm saying is possible. The Great Zo 16:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Almost a hurricane now, up to 70 mph (and they say it is a conservative estimate). Special advisory at 1 am, anyone? CrazyC83 03:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch, this could be really bad. Look at the latest forecast track. It moves it excruciatingly slowly over Nicaragua, Honduras, and Guatemala! That's not good at all. bob rulz 04:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like she wants to go into Stan's ruins? This could be catastrophic, even if Beta doesn't strengthen a whole lot!!! CrazyC83 04:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ACE calcs

I have updated the info on Beta and the ACE for 2100UTC. I would not mind someone double-checking the ACE. Based on the advisory figure of 50kt winds, I added 0.25 * 104 kt2 to the previous ACE of 0.325. --EMS | Talk 22:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intensity as of the 11 PM EDT advisory was 55 knots...time to update ACE again.--L.E./12.144.5.2 02:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Adv. Date Time Maximum Sustained Winds (kt) ACE (104 kt2)
2 27 Oct 5 am EDT 35 0.1225
3   11 am EDT 45 0.2025
4   5 pm EDT 50 0.25
5   11 pm EDT 55 0.3025
6 28 Oct 5 am EDT 55 0.3025
7   11 am EDT 55 0.3025
8   5 pm EDT 55 0.3025
9   11 pm EDT 60 0.36
10 29 Oct 5 am EDT    
11   11 am EDT    
12   5 pm EDT    
13   11 pm EDT    
Total       2.145

-- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 03:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Please note that the Advisory links won't work until the next advisory is issued. Tompw 08:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

91L.INVEST

The area east of the islands is now an invest. Floater 2 is now on it. We'll see if it pulls an Alpha. Looks like there is a race for the next storm, but I think development will be slower than 90L. Hurricanehink 14:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to say that this thing won't do much...but I could be wrong. CrazyC83 15:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The NHC says it's entering a more favorable environment, but it appears to have lost a lot of convection. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 13:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, it is coming into that area dying, so it has to start from scratch...can't see this blob even coming close to becoming Gamma... CrazyC83 15:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

10.30pm TWO: 

CLOUDINESS AND SHOWERS ASSOCIATED WITH A TROPICAL WAVE OVER THE
EASTERN CARIBBEAN SEA HAVE DIMINISHED. IT APPEARS THAT THE CHANCES
FOR DEVELOPMENT HAVE ALSO DISMINISHED.

Well, that's it then. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 02:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we won't see another fraternity house open from that blob... CrazyC83 02:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

5:00 am discussion seems to indicate a potential 'gamma' forming 

A VIGOROUS TROPICAL WAVE
LOCATED ABOUT 350 NMI NORTHEAST OF BETA HAS DEVELOPED SOME
IMPRESSIVE AROUND THE MID-LEVEL CIRCULATION... WHICH WILL LIKELY
STRENGTHEN THAT SYSTEM AND RESULT IN SOME POSSIBLE BINARY
INTERACTION

- TimL

Uh, not exactly.... 5.30am TWO: 

CLOUDINESS AND SHOWERS ASSOCIATED WITH A TROPICAL WAVE OVER THE
EASTERN CARIBBEAN SEA HAVE INCREASED THIS MORNING. HOWEVER... ALL OR
A PORTION OF THIS WAVE WILL LIKELY BECOME ABSORBED BY TROPICAL
STORM BETA... WHICH WILL DECREASE THE POTENTIAL FOR ANY TROPICAL
CYCLONE DEVELOPMENT.

Emphasis mine. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 09:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Earliest" Hurricane Statistics

The Project

Note - much of the discussion and update-notifications from my project were moved to Archive 6. The Great Zo 23:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After a lot of hard work, I finished the statistical research I had been working on, regarding various "earliest" records in regards to the Atlantic hurricane season. The project can be found here: http://pipsey.net:8080/~thegreatzo/hurricanes.html . Hopefully you can learn a thing or two from it; I sure know I learned a lot while I was digging through 150+ years of hurricane data to find all of this stuff out. The only incomplete portion is the Category-4 portion, which I will finish up eventually. Enjoy! The Great Zo 9 July 2005 07:29 (UTC)

Good work on the research. It's very cool for us "hurricane freaks". :) bob rulz 08:20, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Fantastic work on the records. People don't have a clue about the difficulty of the operation. 147.70.242.21 20:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

July 25

July 25 - site has undergone a major update. I now have lists made for the 9th and 10th storms. It is very interesting to note that, at this point on the list, there are three years that are FAR ahead of everything else - 1933, 1936, and 1995. It is also interesting to note that 2005 is WAY ahead of the curve for even those three extremes! Additionally, who would have thought that, in the crazy year of 1995, one of the more inconsequential storms (Jerry) would hold the record for fastest-tenth-storm ever?

As the other part of the major update, I added some simple numerical graphics behind each table to make it a heck of a lot easier to find stuff while scrolling through. The site was beginning to be a mess of indistinguishable tables, and this helps that immensely. LINK TO THE SITE The Great Zo 05:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

July 27 - I created a spinoff page which is linked from the main site. This new research page focuses on a few data sets exclusive to Category 5 storms (of which there are 25). The Great Zo 07:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that list, Ethel is the one that strikes me. 981 mb and a Category 5??? That seems unrealistic and more typical of a Category 1 hurricane! I know that it jumped quickly from a Cat 1 to 5 back to 1 within 24 hours, I wonder if it really was a Cat 5 or if there was an error in reporting? CrazyC83 00:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ethel was a weird storm. The Monthly Weather Review on it is ambiguous, but it aparently did undergo a record intensification period. The pressure reading of 981 millibars was taken from it as a strong Category 1. No pressure readings exist from it as a Category 5.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 00:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. As noted below the chart, "It should be obvious that some of these storms likely had lower pressure readings than those that are printed here, but that proper observations or estimations could not be made for those times." Nowhere else is that more evident than with Ethel. The 981 MB reading was taken from a time when it was far weaker. The Great Zo 01:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 2

Moved down "the curve" again... saw someone already updated it with Stan's not-so-ahead-of-pace reading. :)

  • 1st Storm - 41 days behind
  • 2nd Storm - 33 days behind
  • 3rd Storm - 23 days behind
  • 4th Storm - 2 days ahead
  • 5th Storm - 11 days ahead
  • 6th Storm - 13 days ahead
  • 7th Storm - 14 days ahead
  • 8th Storm - 12 days ahead
  • 9th Storm - 13 days ahead
  • 10th Storm - 1 day ahead
  • 11th Storm - 4 days ahead
  • 12th Storm - 2 days behind
  • 13th Storm - 6 days ahead
  • 14th Storm - 4 days ahead
  • 15th Storm - 9 days ahead
  • 16th Storm - 9 days ahead
  • 17th Storm - 10 days ahead
  • 18th Storm - 1 day behind
  • 19th Storm - 20 days ahead
  • 20th storm - 17 days ahead
  • 21st storm - 29 days ahead
  • 22nd storm - still ahead of the old record for 19th
  • 23rd storm - still ahead of the old record for 21st, and still ahead of 1995's 19th.

The site has been updated to reflect Stan as 2nd place... but out of only four seasons to make it to 18 storms, needless to say that's still very impressive. Hurricane Research Site The Great Zo 17:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When does Tammy have to develop now? (It will have to be out of TD21) CrazyC83 15:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tammy has until October 25... which is likely plenty of time. The Great Zo 17:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, we may already have Tammy's baby picture, there is a mid level cyclonic disturbance over the mid-atlantic. Stirling Newberry - Bopnews 18:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tammy will most likely come from 92L. -- RattleMan 22:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed she has. And 20 days up on 1933. This is like watching Barry Bonds chase Ruth's slugging percentage record - every day you realize that the only thing comparable is from the great depression. Stirling Newberry - Bopnews 12:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Site has been updated for Tammy on October 5, 2005, at 11:30Z (darn those odd-timed special advisories!) Congratulations... we're now in a three-way tie for the second most active season on record! The Great Zo 14:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, bring out the champagne.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 01:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll pop the proverbial (and sarcastic) cork when we hit Alpha ;D The Great Zo 03:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The 'targets' for Vince and Wilma are 26 Oct. 0900Z and and 15 Nov. 1500Z. (Zo's site seems to have gone missing at the moment)--Keith Edkins 15:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After that, we're in uncharted territory...have you planned the new charts for latest in each category (based on last advisory at that strength) and latest last storm (based on time of dissipation or becoming extratropical)? CrazyC83 15:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Workin' on the site problem as we speak - as I use a friend's server who basically just set the thing up in his basement, it's subject to occasional glitch-ups and outages (the one before this one was caused by his cat kicking over his router, for example). As for working on more projects such as those, I do feel those are great ideas - but it's not something I want to do during the school year. I just don't have the time right now, but sure would like to work on that kind of stuff eventually! The Great Zo 19:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vince is on. We have over a month to tie the record in a "speedy" fashion. The Great Zo 14:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 17

We've got Wilma. -- NSLE | Talk 08:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We are officially tied with 1933 for the most active season on record. Congratulations. (Ho ray ho ray)
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 16:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
E. Brown, why did you edit out my correction to "the curve" earlier, and completely remove the October 17 section I created? I double and triple checked the math - Wilma is 29 days ahead, not 30. If you want to claim 30, please at least back it up instead of simply removing my post. The Great Zo 21:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with 29. Oct 17 and Nov 15 are exactly 4 weeks and 1 day apart. 29 days. --Holderca1 13:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Zo, I don't remember ever removing your post. I don't think I ever saw the post. This is the only edit of mine of this section that I could find [1]. Look on the history and you'll find that I'm not lying. You should also notice that when I made this edit, the October 17 section was not there and the number of days ahead was already listed at 30. I did not remove your post and I don't know what led you to belive that I did.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - my dropsonde 21:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, got it all cleared up. Thanks. It got reverted at some point after I removed two sections to the archive to clear up the main page a bit, and confused the heck out of me. The Great Zo 00:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After the incredible 2:30 AM update from the NHC, I've tentatively updated my Cat-5 research page to include new data on Wilma... and I'll clean it up and make sure it's all correct tomorrow morning after actual advisories are out. LINK -The Great Zo 06:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Updated it. Wilma Cat-5 as of 09Z on Oct 19. 1st place overall for pressure. The Great Zo 16:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to uncharted territory now. It's all wilderness from here... CrazyC83 02:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah, I updated Alpha a few hours ago (whoops!) :D The Great Zo 03:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Anddddddddddd hello Beta (updated!) The Great Zo 13:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gaps

I wish people would stop archiving this section.

Here are the gaps we've had without any storms. Total time as of Oct. 28: 47 days, 16 hours (only 31.7% of the time!). Only 5 weeks remain in the season. --Golbez 08:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC), CrazyC83 20:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC) [reply]

  • Season started: June 1 0400Z (I'm assuming at midnight eastern)
  • TD 1 formed: June 8 2100Z.
    • A gap of 8 days, 17 hours.
  • HPC stops monitoring Arlene on June 13 2100Z.
  • TD 2 formed: June 28 2200Z.
    • A gap of 15 days, 1 hour.
  • Bret dissipates on June 30 0300Z.
  • TD 3 formed: July 3 2100Z.
    • A gap of 3 days, 18 hours.
  • Emily dissipates on July 21 1500Z.
  • TD 6 formed: July 21 2100Z.
    • A gap of 6 hours.
  • Franklin went extratropical on July 29 2100Z.
  • TD 8 formed: Aug 2 2100Z
    • A gap of 4 days.
  • Irene went extratropical on August 18 1500Z.
  • TD 11 formed: Aug 22 1600Z
    • A gap of 4 days, 1 hour.
  • Jose dissipated on August 23 1500Z.
  • TD12 formed: Aug 23 1835Z.
    • A gap of three hours 35 minutes, rounded up to four hours.
  • HPC stops monitoring Rita on Sept 26 0900Z.
  • TD19 formed: Sep 30 2100Z.
    • A gap of 4 days, 12 hours.
  • NHC stops monitoring Stan on Oct 5 0900Z.
  • Tammy formed: Oct 5 1130Z
    • A gap of two and a half hours, rounded down to two hours (as the call was likely made previously).
  • HPC stops monitoring Tammy on Oct 6 2100Z.
  • STD22 formed: Oct 8 1500Z.
    • A gap of 1 day, 18 hours.
  • STD22 dissipated on Oct 9 0300Z.
  • Vince formed: Oct 9 1500Z.
    • A gap of 12 hours.
  • NHC stops monitoring Vince on Oct 11 0900Z.
  • TD24 formed: Oct 15 2100Z.
    • A gap of 4 days, 12 hours.
  • NHC stops monitoring Wilma on Oct 25 2100Z.
  • TD26 formed: Oct 27 0000Z.
    • A gap of 1 day, 3 hours.

alignment

sorry for bringing this up again, but I tried it (before it was quickly reverted) and it actually looks better. But some people are strange in that they just want this ugly "all pictures on the right" layout. [2] --Revolución (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would be the one who reverted it. It might be just me, but it doesn't look right. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 01:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me; perhaps keep all the major hurricanes' pictures on the left? AySz88^-^ 01:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with NSLE I like then at the right.

I meant that they don't look right on the left. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 08:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. They look left on the left. --Mm35173 13:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about in the middle? ;-) --Holderca1 13:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Who's on first?" "Who is on first." "That's what I said, Who's on first?" "Who is on first!" "Stop mocking me!" "I wasn't mocking you." "Yes you were mocking me." "You wasn't mocking you." "I said you were mocking me!" "You was not mocking you!!" :D! I LOVE that skit. This sounds like a very ADD version of that. They actually look right on the right. ;D. That is absolutely hysterical XD.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - my dropsonde 00:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I get the suspicion that the only way that you can satisfy everybody with the pictures is with a PowerPoint presentation file. B.Wind 08:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, I've blocked the anon who kept reverting them for breaking WP:3RR. Titoxd(?!?) 05:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why it was changed to begin with, we never reached a consensus on it. I personally think it looks terrible with some on the left. I believe WolFox also violated the WP:3RR as well. Should he not also receive the same treatment as the anon? --Holderca1 12:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WolFox didn't break the 3RR, he made three reverts within a 24-hour period, not four (which is the treshhold for blocking). But gee, people, let's agree on this once and for all. Which one is it going to be? Titoxd(?!?) 01:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wtf?

From the CNN article on Wilma:

"Wilma is the third Category 5 storm this year...The center said it did not know if that was a record because it does not track the number of Category 5 hurricanes in a season."[3]

Are you saying that we have more comprehensive records on Wikipedia than at the NHC and that nobody at the NHC every actually bothered to figure it out? bob rulz 15:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, you would think they would spend the entire 5 minutes it would take to figure that out. Not like we have that many Cat 5s. --Holderca1 15:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was a case where CNN was talking to a staffer at NHC who wasn't prepared to answer that particular question and replied with a general 'Hell if I know' reply. Donovan Ravenhull 17:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They are probably reluctant to use records, suggesting that some may have slipped out of their hands and went unrecorded before satellites were developed. CrazyC83 17:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The NHC is either a.) too lazy to care b.) too busy (quite likely) or c.)too stupid to not know that simple answer right off the top of their head. I'm leaning on that one because after watching Max Mayfield, the director at the NHC, give his little speech he mentioned that Wilma had "one of the lowest pressures" ever recorded in the Atlantic basin. Come on, he should know that's pretty much a given, it has been calibrated, but we'll have to wait for post-season analysis.

Quite honestly records are of little importance. They have a Cat 5 to monitor. Why waste time to see if any records have been broken. --Holderca1 23:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The NHC has no time to deal with trivialities. Trivia is not part of the function of the National Hurricane Center. Tracking and reporting tropical cyclones in two oceans with an eye on saving lives is their sole concern. They don't have the "publicity department" that some commercial enterprises have. B.Wind 22:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed?

Indeed, three of the six strongest storms ever recorded in the Atlantic formed during the 2005 season: Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma.

This sentence just stuck out at me as being terribly un-encyclopedic. It sounds like unnesesary comentary and although I agree with the point of the sentence, it could be worked in better.

It all depends on the meaning of the word "strong." Here it meant "storms with the lowest central air pressure," which usually translates into "most intense storms." Again, the wording could be more specific, but it's all about... not black or white but what shade of gray is the most suitable for everybody.
It all boils down to this: if the wording is less precise than you think it should be, fine tune it. Just don't be angry if your fine-tuning is itself fine-tuned by someone with a slightly different perspective. B.Wind 18:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is it the sentence or the word "indeed" you have a problem with? I don't see anything untrue about the sentence. --Revolución (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean synoptic charts?

Although Australian, I'm interested in weather phenomena over there in the Atlantic. However, I'm frustrated by the NHC website's apparent lack of synoptic charts. All the satellite images and forecast storm track maps are interesting, but to have a better understanding of the situation I'd really like to see a synoptic chart. The impression I get from searching US weather websites is that they don't seem to show these to the public in the US. The best I could find is here [4]. Is there any place that has good current synoptic charts of the Caribbean? (And in case it's not clear what I mean, a synoptic chart (for which I note there is no WP article) is a map with isobars on it.) -dmmaus 00:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Try looking at Steve Gregory's blog at Weather Underground and Jeff Masters' blog at Weather Underground. Jdorje 01:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
These are the official synoptic charts for the tropical Atlantic within last 24 hours.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/tafb/ATSA_00Z.gif
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/tafb/ATSA_06Z.gif
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/tafb/ATSA_12Z.gif
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/tafb/ATSA_18Z.gif
Momoko 09:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)d[reply]
This page might be helpful - the NHC website isn't that user-friendly, since everything's crammed into the left sidebar. I think what you're looking for is listed under "Tropical Surface Analyses". They also cram tons of stuff into those charts (good luck reading it...). AySz88^-^ 16:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Censoring material

The NHC expects Alpha to form this afternoon. Who's gonna update the chart?

On this and other hurricane pages several editors have censored notable and citable material. It is against wiki rules to do so, and even more so to gather a group of editors together with the intent of enforcing such censorship. Stirling Newberry - Bopnews 03:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take a look at censorship and compare it to Hurricane naming before making such a ridiculous claim. Jdorje 03:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly are you refering to? Links to the changes would be helpful. --Holderca1 04:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at his contribs, he seems to think that not adding Alpha to the list now is a POV omission. I do nota think that means what he thinks ita means. But hey, since he didn't even say what he was talking about, it's clear he has no interest in fixing it, just in whining. --Golbez 04:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then I am not sure what he is talking about, the first few Greek letters are already in the article. --Holderca1 05:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the censored material again and reported as vandalism. There was no "consensus", nor was a good faith effort to gain consensus made. This is a straight reversion of simple vandalism, which includes the use of a sock puppet IP, expressly forbidden by wikipedia rules. Also includes personal attacks, incivility and POV pushing. 05:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC) Stirling Newberry - Bopnews 05:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season/Speculation#Listing_the_Greek_names Consensus was there. I'm also shocked that you accuse me of using an IP address to get around this. All of my anonymous edits are from 203.124.2.*. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 05:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so glad that not having a Wikipedia accoutn means that i am accused of being a puppet for someone else. Stirling_Newberry, your claims are ridiculous, and you have no idea what censorship even means. I was for putting the Greek names in a list next to the actual list of names, but, when consensus was reached, I decided to follow the decision that had been made. The Greek names are mentioned in the article and will only be put into list form when each forms.--69.86.16.61 15:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was not there because good faith was not made to obtain it. 05:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Listing article as totally disputed for censorship of notable and citable information, failure to achieve good faith consensus and agreement to vandalize page. Stirling Newberry - Bopnews 05:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

THERE IS NO CENSORSHIP. IT CLEARLY MENTIONS AT THE BOTTOM THAT THE NEXT THREE STORMS TO FORM WILL BE NAMED ALPHA, BETA AND GAMMA. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 06:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, you just went and removed dispute tags, proving that you are censoring the article. There was no consensus, merely an agreement to gang revert the article. Stirling Newberry - Bopnews 06:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the consensus about the listing of the Greek names at the relevant talk page linked above. This isn't censorship, it's going back to what we had agreed to before Greek names were a possiblilty. There is no guarantee these storms will in fact form. Titoxd(?!?) 06:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But you are not disputing the factual accuracy of the article. This edit war is not a question of censorship, but just a matter of formatting. The information you claim is being censored is included, not merely in the paragraph below the table, but also in the "main article" for that section which is at hurricane naming. Additionally the consensus which you claim was never achieved was arrived at through discussion (link above); the fact that you weren't here for that discussion does not invalidate it. Removal of the dispute tag could be construed as censorship, except that this argument does not have anything to do with the "factual accuracy" of the article whatsoever; also the dispute tag says to "see the discussion page" but you haven't even said here what information it is you think is being censored (one would have to look at the page history to find that out). In summary, this whole thing is simply an edit war: you versus the majority of the "regular" editors of the article. (P.S. If you wish to continue this argument, a good place to start would be by listing here what information it is you think is being censored. It is barely conceivable that we are talking about completely different things here.) Jdorje 06:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can I add to a consensus that Stirling's complaint is utterly pointless, and that warning tags do not belong on this article just because it's not arranged the way he wants? I think I shall. This isn't censorship, it's good editing. RSpeer 06:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Someone tried one version in the article and everyone stopped complaining. Sounds like there was a consensus to me. AySz88^-^ 16:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My only complaint is that the aforementioned discussion is actually relevant to this page, yet was moved into a subdirectory with a title indicating illegitimacy (i.e. "speculation). I understand that a couple days ago someone was very annoyed at the length of the page due to "off-topic" stuff like betting pools. However the resulting editing of the discussion threads has left 2/3 of this page about ONE hurricane even though this is the discussion page for "2005 Atlantic hurricane season". PK9 06:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it should be moved to /Editing. Jdorje 07:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why was it moved to /Speculation? There's nothing speculatory about how an article should be formatted. It should be moved back to the main talk page. Who exactly were the ones who met this 'concenseus'? It looks to me like the last thing posted was in support of putting the first few Greek names into the regular list.--WolFox 16:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's definately not speculation now that we have Alpha. --WolFox 23:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore the troll. --Golbez 07:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Depression Record

Just for reference, does anybody know what the most number of tropical depressions is for an Atlantic Hurricane Season? The great kawa 17:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

25 - current record. CrazyC83 22:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this number is that a good record of depressions doesn't even go back 15 years. I ran into that problem while looking up tons of records for my site. Still, given that we set the storm record and had THREE(!) unnamed depressions, I'd put money on 25 being the "real" record (in the context that we can use the phrase "record" of course). Only the diety of your choice knows for sure. The Great Zo 14:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Zo's right. The record for tropical depressions is incomplete to say the least. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 23:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A record is only a record when it is recorded. Otherwise there's no point in claiming the validity of any records. ("3 category 5 hurricanes in one season, how do we know there wasn't 6 cat-5s in 1500 B.C.?" etc.) PK9 03:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's always the asterisk.I can just see things in Hurricane Heaven (where the storms go where they die...where every cloud is a thundercloud,whirling around at unearthly speeds in lightning and rainstorms that never dissipate) where old-timers like Labor Day and Dog and Great 1780 complain that the youngsters who got measured by dropsondes and pictured by satellites get all the respect...but who knows what prehistoric monsters outstripped them all?--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 06:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Backup List

This may have been asked before, but what happens if the Pacific runs out of names one year? Would they use the Greek Alphabet? If so, could that mean there would be two Hurricane Betas in one year? SargeAbernathy 20:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The same thing; they'll use Greek letters. I don't know when this policy was decided. The East Pacific used every letter in 1983. There would have been more storms than letters in 1985, and the Greek Alphabet could have been used, but instead XYZ names were added during the season so it ended with Xina instead of Alpha. The names were again exhausted in 1992 when Z was reached. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 21:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, almost always East Pacific and Atlantic seasons have a negative correlation with each other. Thus, busy Atlantic seasons result in a sad case in the East Pacific and vice versa. For example, in 1983, there were 4 Atlantic cyclones and 21 East Pacific cyclones. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 21:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that isn't strictly true. The East Pacific is more active than usual during El Nino years and less active during La Nina years and the reverse is true of the Atlantic, but otherwise the two are not correlated. This year the East Pacific was about average while the Atlantic, well... yeah. -- 69.86.16.61 22:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merging storms?

Has there ever been a recorded case of two tropical storms / hurricanes merging together? Tompw 23:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, on a few occasions, but probably not in the manner you're thinking of. Read this: Fujiwara effect. To add to the article, one storm usually ends up "losing" the battle, but the other one doesn't add its strength to it or anything. From a meteorological standpoint, it's very interesting, but from an "end of the world" standpoint, it's not what hollywood's looking for or anything like that. The Great Zo 23:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's proved very interesting. Also, I note that the latest forecats for Alpha has it merging into Wilma in about 36 hours... Tompw 10:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arrangement of list of names

We should have Beta in the list under Alpha as next available name. The greek letters are as much a part of the season as all the rest of the names. We had Wilma on the list when Arlene was active and it obviously hadn't formed yet. Also, the parapgraph above the list has said "The following names will be used..." for the entire season. There's no reason to change that to the past tense until the season is over, which won't happen for another month. And there's no reason to move this to /Speculation either. There's nothing speculatory about how an article should be formatted.--WolFox 00:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno; yeah, we had Wilma, but it was part of the official list. Alpha wasn't til it formed, and Beta won't be til it forms. --Golbez 00:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
enough of this crap! --Revolución (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The official list for every year includes the Greek names.--216.184.33.71 01:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't --Revolución (talk) 01:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The horse is dead -- it's been beaten for far too long -- it's time to let it rest. The way the hurricane names are being presented now is sufficient. B.Wind 02:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We should at least change it back to "will be." That sufficed through Vince, why change it now? The season's not over.

Alpha Article

Is an article on Alpha really neccesary at this point? Maybe, if God forbids, it wrecks havoc on Hispaniola but at it present state I do not see the need. Only thing is it's the only storm to use a greek letter but that's it. tdwuhs

no need for separate article yet, but why was the link to NHC forecast/advisory removed?
If it wreaks havoc on Hispaniola, then yes, an article would be necessary. Even if it were only a tropical storm upon landfall. --Revolución (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the paths of Wilma an Alpha. Is there a possibility those two meet each other? And what happens if that happens?
I think they are both going to be absorbed by the frontal system that is coming through at about the same time. --Holderca1 15:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think Alpha will be absorbed by Wilma before the resulting storm merges into the frontal system and becomes a strong winter storm.Momoko 08:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the forecast paths don't show them crossing. As for what would happen if two storms merged, the answer depends on too many factors to give a general answer. (Have any two storms merged?) Tompw 15:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, two storms have merged before. bob rulz 20:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it's happened this year in the Pacific, when Kenneth absorbed Lydia. In 1995, we had Iris swallow up Karen... well, not literally, but you know what I mean. B.Wind 09:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It should be Max absorbing Lidia.Momoko 10:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Alpha is going to merge into Wilma... but prevoiusly it wasn't forecast to. Tompw 10:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha's death toll has gone up to 26. Although it may not be similar to Stan's, it seems to me that this is going to keep rising. Perhaps, an article should be created? --Cool Genius 20:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes --Revolución (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we need an article, after all, there won't be any other Alphas soon... hopefully. Titoxd(?!?) 01:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)\[reply]

I oppose an article. Most of the information is in the 2005 article anyway. What more could be added without making it too long. Heck, the summary for Katrina is longer than the entire Alpha article. No offense to Hispaniola, but any storm it seems can cause major damage there. A tropical wave early last year caused 2000 deaths. What about other storms that caused more than 25 deaths? Should Bret from 1993, a tropical storm, get its own article because it killed 184 people in Venezuela? What about Gert that killed 76 in the same year? Isabel in 1985 for killing 180 in Puerto Rico? Beryl in 1982 for killing 115 in the Cape Verdes? Tropical Storms and Hurricanes are deadly, but an article isn't needed for every storm that killed 22 or so people. Sure, it is important now, but in the long run, it will seem like any other storm. It is noteworthy for being the first Greek storm ever by running out of names, but if you look at the storm at itself, it isn't very important. I vote for no article split. Hurricanehink 02:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I support an article if it is long enough to justify it, otherwise leave it where it is. 26 dead in Haiti isn't worthy of retirement (if 26 were dead in the US, or Mexico, or even Cuba, then that would be a good candidate), so it shouldn't be moved automatically on that thought. Due to the presence of the disambiguation page, the article should be at Tropical Storm Alpha (2005). (If there was no disambiguation, it should be at the main article) CrazyC83 15:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exhausted list

The 1992 Pacific hurricane season exhausted the entire list so 2005 isn't the first season in both places to do so. (This is User:Mike Halterman, logged in from another computer.) 131.247.50.4 04:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article had previously said BOTH places (Atlantic AND Pacific), so the bolding is not really needed. Mike H (Talking is hot) 02:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mike. I changed it a few days ago. It now reads something like: "2005 was the first season in the Atlantic OR Pacific Basins to exhaust the full list of names and resort to the Greek Alphabet (The 1992 Pacific hurricane season did exhaust its longer list of 24 names but did not have to resort to the Greek Alphabet...). That sounds clearer to me.
Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 23:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Season Speed

With the speed of this season we are going to have storms into December and maybe even January? Having a year long season like the Pacific Ocean would be scary. tdwuhs

That wasn't a long season, it just had a storm form at an extremely unusual time. That season had only 11 storms. Now if you want to talk about brutal seasons, I could speak to that. Long season. Sheer murder. Unrelenting season. Brutal season. Relentless season. Endless season. Merciless season. And...The season from Hell. My opinion on the worst season in any basin in terms of relentless storm activity was the 1997 Pacific typhoon season. That season had 31 storms overall (not far behind the 1971 typhoon season with 35), 24 typhoons/hurricanes, 13 major hurricanes, and 10 Category 5s! (Isa, Nestor, Rosie, Winnie, Oliwa, Ginger, Ivan, Joan, Keith, and Paka. Bing nearly became number 11.) I don't know how the Far East functions, I really don't. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 00:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I like "The Season from Hell." Makes for a good nickname for this season. bob rulz 03:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Predictions

After the season,the coverage of the predictions will need to be rewritten in terms of how accurate they were (which in just about all cases is how much of an underestimate they were).But honestly...if Dr. Gray or someone else had gotten up in May and said,

"The name list will be exhausted before the end of October.There will be two 150 mph storms by the middle of July,and the following three months will each see a 175 mph storm with a lower minimum central pressure than Camille,and all five of these storms will make landfall off the Gulf of Mexico.Of the other seven hurricanes formed before the list runs out,one will hit Spain."

Would anyone have taken him seriously?--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 03:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that does make it sound devastating doesn't it? No, nobody would have believed him. But it happened :p. bob rulz 03:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Radar

Would it be a good idea to put in a current radar image of the entire Atlantic at the top of the article?--WolFox 05:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, unless you enjoy uploading a new image every time it needs updating. And no. This is an encyclopedia, not a news page. Link to a site with a current radar image. --Golbez 05:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And if I or someone else WAS willing to update it every few hours? Where in the article would it be put?--WolFox 19:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{hurricane season links}}

I made a new template {{hurricane season links}} and used it in this article (only). I didn't know whether to include 5 or 7 seasons in the list (the discussion at {{infobox hurricane season}} indicated 5 was preferred, but I noticed this article uses 7). So...which should it be? And, can this template be improved? Since there are well over 100 season articles, using a template for this list is very wise...and although most seasons already have the lists (varying between 5 and 7 seasons in each), the list is supposed to go inside the infobox so they'll all have to be updated eventually. Jdorje 08:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Too-long storm sections

I believe several of the storm sections are too long, and should be whittled down to a smaller summary or moved into their own article.

  • Katrina. This is very long. Of course Katrina deserves lots of mention, but then there are as many as a dozen external articles about it. There's definitely some text that can be pruned here (like the "Katrina proved difficult to forecast" paragraph).
  • Rita. I think this is just a little too long, and can just be condensed a little.
  • Wilma. Wilma's still active so it's too early to be judgemental, but it will have to be made shorter.
  • Alpha. Alpha is the fourth-longest hurricane section. Is it long enough to justify a separate article? Almost. Part of the problem is that an entire paragraph is devoted to its record-breakingness (by comparison Dennis and Emily only have a single sentence about record-breaking.) If anyone has anything else to write about it, that would make the decision easy. (Alpha has apparently killed 11 people, which is more than any of the other storms without an article.)

Jdorje 19:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tried my best to condense the articles. Only important information in my opinion stayed. Hurricanehink 01:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

infobox?

Why doesn't the article have an infobox? Well, one problem is (amazingly) it seems impossible to find a season track map. But nonetheless I think this infobox should be added. Jdorje 19:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox hurricane season nopic

Because so much stuff is unavailable. "not available", "so far", "so far", strongest storm needs a "so far", "not available", etc. --Golbez 19:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well then let's drop the "so far"s since they are implied. How's this? Jdorje 20:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify...since the article is documented as a current event it should be expected that data will change. Active hurricanes get a {{infobox hurricane}} which lists the highest winds, but this doesn't have a "so far" on it. Only in areas of particular confusion (like tallying the death tolls from Katrina and Stan, where the hurricane is no longer a current event but the data is still likely to change) is a "so far" qualifier needed. Jdorje 20:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about a {{SeasonActive}} template of some sort (See here for an example? -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 01:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. However it should be called {{infobox hurricane season active}}. And it should have a picture somehow...I changed {{infobox hurricane season}} and {{infobox hurricane season piconly}} to automatically include the track map picture (to make it easy to add these to all 100+ atlantic seasons, which I did)...but for the active season a track map is generally not available, it seems. Jdorje 01:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also the 5seasons might not want to list future seasons but instead the previous 4 ones. Jdorje 01:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The way to allow inclusion of an image is just to add {{{image name}}} and {{{image caption}}} back to the infobox. The question is what makes a good image - are there guidelines we can set here? Should it be a picture of the latest active storm? Or of the most intense or worst storm of the season? Or (best of all) is there some way we can get a season track map for active seasons? Jdorje 02:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{infobox hurricane season active}} has been created, although any other comments are appreciated. Should we also put this into the article, or stick with the current one first? -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 04:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, we should use it. Jdorje 06:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You can actually write into the code for the template to only show an image if their is a value for it, otherwise it will get hidden. See Template:Infobox_river fow what I mean and the specific code needed to make it happen. --Holderca1 20:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Track maps get published by the NHC at the end of the season. You could look at the UniSys page, which has an uptodate track map. It's rather crowded... Tompw 21:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The strongest storm section should be sepperated into Pressure and Wind Speeds like the other seasons. Fableheroesguild 03:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note

I added that the 1983 Pacific hurricane season exhausted its list. That is true. There was a Hurricane Winnie (which formed in December!). There were no X, Y, or Z names that year, so the list was exhausted. Please do not remove that note. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 19:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect?

Should Tropical Storm Alpha redirect here? There were Subtropical Storms Alpha in 1972 and Alfa in 1973. A disambiguation page would look something like this:

The name Alpha has been used for two subtropical cyclones and one tropical storm in the Atlantic Ocean. It was used to name subtropical storms in 1972 and 1973, and is used to name the first storm in excess of the last name on the basin's list.

In the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, the list was enhausted and Alpha was used to name the season's 22nd tropical storm:

Should the East Pacific exhaust its list, the Greek Alphabet will be used to name storms in excess of 24. This has never happened. However, the 1983 and 1992 seasons exhausted the list. The 1985 would have exhausted its list, but instead Xina, York and Zelda were added during the season. As the season ended with Hurricane Xina, there would have been a Hurricane Alpha that year. Had there not been X, Y, and Z names in 1992, that season would have had a Tropical Storm Alpha.

PAGASA and the Southwest Indian Ocean also use annual lists to name tropical cyclones in their areas of responsibility. It is not known if the Greek Alphabet will be used should those lists be exhausted in a season. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 19:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PAGASA has some additional names, but not Greek Alphabet. RSMC La Reunion has no policy on how to due with an exhasuted name list for Southwest Indian Ocean. Momoko 09:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on the disambiguation. The 1972 and 1973 Alphas could be confused for a tropical storm. CrazyC83 22:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on that change. It would at least ameliorate some of us who felt others forced the redirect without a consensus. Are you going to go ahead and do the page Michelle? What you've written above sounds fine.--Sturmde 15:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)\[reply]
I made a page. It has since been edited by others. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 22:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Analysis

Moved to /Speculation, where it belongs. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 18:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Picking up after ourselves

In the progression of each hurricane article, we upload many, many images which will probably never be reused on Wikipedia. For example, after the forecasts are discontinued, we typically have a forecast image page which has been updated many, many times, eating many megabytes of space on the servers. Should we be nice and pick up after ourselves? The currently recommended procedure which would apply in this case would be to list these images on IfD as orphans. Some images actually cause copyright problems when they are orphaned, because the fair use rational no longer apply. For example, Image:Wilma forecast track (Canada).png. The original uploaders cannot speedy them because they were not uploaded accidentally. --Mm35173 12:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


October storms

What is the record number of storms for October? If TD26 strengthens into Beta then it will make six storms for October. Would that be a record? It seems like it would be. Even odder though is that this would mean that October would have more storms than either of the other months...this season just keeps getting stranger and stranger. bob rulz 05:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I remember at the beginning of the month we were discussing the possibility of getting to Greek letters and the odds of storms in November and December. Well, I made the comment that we could be into Greek letters in October and people thought I was crazy for saying that. Well here we are. --Holderca1 12:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On GameFAQs, a user on the Harry Potter board had posted details about HP6 a few days before, and he was driven out with calls of "Idiot" and "Liar". Strange enough, the details were true. Goes to show, doesn't it? Sceptre 12:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, what does this have to do with the hurricane season? -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 12:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The circumstances are similar to one and the another Sceptre 13:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I was thrown off for a moment because Stan began forming well in september, but did not actually form until october. Jdorje 16:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • June - 2 (A-B)
  • July - 5 (C-G)
  • August - 5 (H-L)
  • September - 5 (M-R)
  • October - 6 (S-b)
Storm formation has been quite uniform throughout the season. It's kind of surprising, though, that October has been our most active month (even moreso if 91L.invest should get a name)... --tomf688{talk} 22:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Six storms have formed this month and five each in July, August and September. Then there was the two in June. -- E. Brown
We wonder how many there will be in November, although anything more than 2 or 3 would be extremely busy. CrazyC83 03:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rankings, Records and Statistics

Hmmm is it just me, or is this article a veritable orgasm of rankings, records and statistics.... often repeated over and over... with very little actual content, with real meaning? Where is the information to *EXPLAIN* these statistics, rankings and records?

Which ones in particular would you like explained? Earliest formation of nth storm, most storms during a particular month, and most intense storm on record are fairly self explanatory. ACE is fairly well described on this page and is linked to its main page on the topic. Also, please sign your comments. --Holderca1 03:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Separate Article Requirements

Can someone please explain to me what would count as a separate article? Are the requirements different if the storm lands in America as opposed to a non-english country (seeing as this is en.wikipedia)? If so what are the different requirements for that? I make this point only because I take note that Opehlia did 2 ... 3 fatalities while both Jose and Alpha killed more than her. Why is it that despite the higher fatalities and the scarier possibilities (both landed in places that could see mudslides), Ophelia has an article all of her own and even some people saying she would have a better chance at being retired than Jose or Alpha? --SargeAbernathy 07:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind with José and Alpha that only one storm name has been retired without the storm reaching hurricane strength, Tropical Storm Allison in 2001. It caused over 50 deaths in the Houston area. Although I am sure, Jeanne would have joined Allison had it not reach hurricane strenght due to what it did as a tropical storm. I also highly doubt Ophelia will be retired and am not so sure that it merits its own article. But, these are things we can take care of in the off-season (if there is one) and we have more time for cleanup. --Holderca1 15:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only way Ophelia will be retired as a name in 2006 is as part of a seven-pack. Considering that the greatest number of names retired in one year is four and we will most likely have Katrina, Rita, Dennis, Stan, and Wilma be retired (and Emily is much more "worthy" of retirement than Ophelia), I seriously doubt that it will happen... particularly considering that Ophelia never had landfall as a hurricane. B.Wind 07:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My only criteria is article length. If the "summary" text for a hurricane in the main article becomes too long, it should be moved into a separate article. If a separate storm article exists but has the exact same text as the main article, it should be merged back into the main article. There are a few border cases (like Alpha currently) where I'd say the summary text is about 1 paragraph too long for the main article, and it's hard to judge whether a separate article is justified. For active storms it is better not to have duplicate copies of the updates since then they'll end up out of date - for Wilma this was solved by just adding a disclaimer to the main page that said only the storm page had updates; for other storms it's been a problem since people make articles for just about every new storm and these quickly become out of date. Jdorje 08:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think there is value in writing an article that is only useful as a piece of current news (as some anonymous user or other has tried to do for just about every storm this season). This is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. Consider all the articles in Category:Hurricane Katrina; most of these were written in the current tense and are badly out of date or obsolete. Maybe someone should go through and update them but many are of little encyclopedic value. If a new article were created about each new storm this is the chaos we'd end up with. We should strive for quality, not quantity. Jdorje 08:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
People have complained about how US-centric the articles are. The above criteria are only US-centric because US citizens have more to write about hurricanes that affect the US. In a supposedly global encyclopedia this is a problem, but I don't see what we can do about it. The people who are complaining that Alpha is more "deserving" of an article than Ophelia (which is probably true) are obviously also US citizens because they, too, have nothing to write about Alpha. Jdorje 08:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I had thought of that point. This is an en.wikipedia site, not spanish. The storms Jose and Alpha did not effect English users, so interest in creating an article for them is not as strong as it was for Ophelia which struck an english nation, and Emily which struck a tourist destination with english speakers and was large enough to distrupt a lot of people. I suppose Jose and Alpha would be good articles to write about in the spanish wikipedia site. --SargeAbernathy 09:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please, that's about as anti-NPOV as one can get. Linguistic chauvinism? So, what, should we take out all articles on the Koran because it is only authentic in Arabic? Or articles on the Louvre because only French speakers would care? Just in case you're not awares, Jamaica, Belize, the Virgin Islands, the Bahamas, the Caymans, Grenada, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and....so on... there are many English-speaking nations scattered throughout the Caribbean. Wikipedia is for people of all nations; other language editions aren't supposed to be totally different Wikis... In any event, going by your rationale, the article information on Martian dust devils should be thrown out, because only Martian users would have interest in such an article! --Sturmde 02:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason for the Ophelia article: the section got too long on the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season page. Due to the Internet availability and the high presence of local media information in that region, the information was enough to move it off. Same with Alex (2004). That didn't happen with Alpha or Jose (or Arlene or Cindy, for that matter). Note that some other past storms that don't have articles likely would have them if they formed today with all the information available. CrazyC83 15:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some other storms not retired from 1993-2000 that possibly or likely would have had their own articles if they formed today based on current information available (*indicates article later made):

  • 1993 - Bret, Emily, Gert
  • 1994 - Alberto*, Gordon*
  • 1995 - Erin
  • 1996 - Bertha*, Edouard
  • 1997 - (none)
  • 1998 - Bonnie
  • 1999 - Bret, Dennis, Irene
  • 2000 - Alberto*

There are none since 2001 that were in that position.

CrazyC83 15:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On why Alpha deserves its own separate article:

  • 1. The death toll: Alpha killed 26 people total.
  • 2. Tropical Storm articles are nothing new, as you can see here:
Tropical Storm Alberto (1994)
Tropical Storm Allison
Tropical Storm Odette (2003)
  • 3. Some people are claiming that the article was created only because it was a Greek letter, no that was not the reason. And I was one of the people who said no to an Alpha article at first, but after seeing the death toll, I couldn't see why you couldn't have a separate article.

--Revolución (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that to be the case, then by all means add to the article. The current three-and-a-half paragraphs that it has is not enough to justify a separate article, but I'm sure if you do some research you can find some more. In particular some pictures would be nice. As I said before, length is my criteria not notability: the current article is the exact same length as its "summary" in the main article. Jdorje 20:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The only factor should be length. It's not about being US-centric, it's simply the fact that there are only a very small amount of people who hold a personal interest in Beta, for example, that contribute to this Wikipedia. It's up to them to write the article, or for someone to take a vested interest in seeking out the scarce news information that comes out of Central America following tropical storms. --tomf688{talk} 20:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
About those tropical storms, in the case of Odette, it was originally placed at the main article (since it was the first use of Odette) but later moved once confirmed it was not retired (although there wasn't much chance of it). Same will happen with Ophelia next spring - if not retired, it will be moved to Hurricane Ophelia (2005) (currently a redirect), as will Vince to Hurricane Vince (2005), with both main articles redirecting to the date-modified pages - unless there are dissenting voices here. In the case of Alpha, it was necessary due to the disambiguation page. CrazyC83 20:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What follows Epsilon?

Or alternatively which Greek alphabet? If we're talking numbering storms after the moment we ran out, should it be Digamma? Or is it (boringly) Zeta? 82.36.26.229 21:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Digamma is an obsolete letter. It is no longer used. So if we get a storm after Epsilon (God forbid), it would be named 'Zeta'. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 21:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One should follow the flush-right Greek letter chart, and not the full linguistic chart in the Greek alphabet article. That means digamma, vau, stigma; san; qoppa; sampi; and apostrophe wouldn't be used. I believe the National Hurricane Center consensus is that if it ever comes to What follows Omega?, storms will simply retain their tropical depression number. Frankly, if we ever get to a TD47+N (where N is the number of TD's not turning into tropical storms), we will have plenty of other climatological worries on our hands. But Tropical Storm Forty-Seven+N after Tropical Storm Omega seems rational. Then again, numbering them Roman style like Super Bowls or Jovian satellites might have merit. Tropical Storm LXIX anyone? --Sturmde 02:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If we start getting into Greek letters frequently, what they should consider is a rolling list that doesn't follow years at all...for example, assuming the list started with the 2005 season list, Alpha ---> Alberto, Beta ---> Beryl, Gamma (if formed) ---> Chris, etc.. The first storm of the following season (2006 in this case) would pick up where the last storm of the previous year ended, regardless of position on the alphabet. CrazyC83 03:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

Can we take a poll on how we can the alignment of the pictures to be so we can get it over with. Please state if you like then on the:

Left:

Right: tdwuhs

Alternating Left and Right: Hurricanehink Jdorje CrazyC83 Patteroast

Middle:

Makes no difference: NSLE

It is better alternating because if there are too many pictures they will otherwise run over each other. See the current 1870-1879 Atlantic hurricane seasons for an example of where alternating is *needed*. Jdorje 03:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season&oldid=26768158"