Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Gray's prediction

I don't think that the prediction will be correct; I think it will be yet another busy hurricane season in 2005...15 tropical storms, 10 hurricanes, 5 major hurricanes, several landfalling hurricanes...

We make no claims on Dr. Gray's accuracy. He's just noted for making the predictions, and there really isn't anything else to say about the 2005 season at this point. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:17, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

South Atlantic

Did we make it through March without any S. Atlantic activity? Quite a difference from the last few years. --Golbez 07:03, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't heard of anything happening. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pacific

Just to let y'all know I've started the sister page, 2005 Pacific hurricane season. Need to find pre-season forecasts... not sure where. --Golbez 20:22, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know that there are any. -- Cyrius|✎ 13:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well I have some for 2004, but I'm not sure where I got them from. :P --Golbez 17:57, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

New layout on NHC

Looks like www.nhc.noaa.gov has a new layout.. not sure if I like it. Have to wait for the first storm to see how it really looks. --Golbez 09:00, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Links! http://www.nhc.noaa.gov. Indeed, wait and see. --tomf688^(talk) 15:24, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Easier to get an "at a glance" view of a storm with the thumbnails of the track forecast chart and the wind forecast chart right on the main page. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Adrian ---> Arlene?

The forecast suggests that Tropical Storm Adrian in the Eastern Pacific will cross Central America and continue on in the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. If it keeps or regains tropical storm strength, will it be renamed Arlene if such happens?

Yes. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Right. I wonder if it ever happened, that a storm "crossed over" in that direction into the Gulf and regained storm status. Awolf002 17:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

For reasons that should be fairly clear, the reverse (Atlantic->Pacific) is more common than this case. There has been one instance since storm naming began, 1989's Tropical Storm Allison, which formed out of the remnants of Hurricane Cosme. The only other occurrence on record was in 1949. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! Let's hope this one just fizzles! Awolf002 18:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Uuhhh... I read in one of the discussions on the NHC site that re-naming will depend on its tropical status. If it stays a tropical storm, it will keep its original name. If it fizzles and then some wave/remnant action create a new storm in the Carribean, it will have the Atlantic name. Does that jive with you guys? Here is the link [1] and the quote

ONLY IF THE SYSTEM SHOULD MAINTAIN TROPICAL CYCLONE STATUS THROUGHOUT ITS PASSAGE OVER LAND WOULD IT RETAIN THE NAME ADRIAN IN THE ATLANTIC BASIN.

Awolf002 20:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

That makes sense; it's just extremely unlikely. In fact, based on what I know, it's never happened. When 2004A Earl crossed over and became 2004P Frank, (Hey, I actually like that kind of ID number), it changed names because it became a tropical depression. Central America, like Hispaniola, is death to cyclones, the mountains shred them to pieces. It's extremely unlikely that Adrian will survive the transition. I would wager a storm would have to be at least category 3 to survive the American spine. And thanks for pointing that out, Awolf :) --Golbez 20:50, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

History contradicts that quote. 1996's Hurricane Cesar and 1988's Hurricane Joan both crossed into the Pacific while still at tropical storm strength, and both were renamed (to Douglas and Miriam). The intro to the Preliminary Report on Cesar states that all such storms are renamed. This argument could obviously be rendered moot by a change in practice in the last nine years. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it also ironic that they both kept the same gender? (Cesar to Douglas, Joan to Miriam).

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 23:42, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

To quote Bender, "that's not ironic, it's just coincidental." -- Cyrius|✎ 06:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikinews

(crossposted from the pacific page)

OK, folks, this is a warmup for the much more important (at least as far as clicks are concerned, no one in Central America right now should take this as a slight. I mean for Wikipedia, for publicity, for getting our name out) Atlantic season. Last year, we either didn't have Wikinews, or none of us felt it up to snuff to either make articles for it, or link them if they did exist.

I'm making Wikinews for every major milestone along Adrian's course, and plan to make them for each subsequent storm, regardless of impact. (Well, I mean, I would make one about the formation of Karl, and maybe the dissipation, and that's it. And time will tell if this is necessary)

ANYWAY.

So far, I've linked every story (two so far) under Adrian. Now, this could get long for a large storm, but then again, a large storm will get its own article (Adrian will likely deserve one before the week is out) and thus have room for a long list of links.

Now imagine if we have another Hurricane Jeanne or Ivan this year, and everyone who comes to look at the article sees links to Wikinews articles.

I would daresay it's the best advertising Wikinews can get. We all know how powerful the storm articles were last year; the Hurricane Frances article was, IIRC (And I could be very wrong), for a while, the most read article on Wikipedia. If we even only get 1% of clickthroughs to Wikinews, that could be a huge boon for that site; maybe they're better off, I don't know, I've been remiss in my duties there.

My point is, let's see how this style works here, and I suggest we implement it on the Atlantic page. It couldn't hurt. Yes, the Wikinews article at present is mostly a clone of the Wikipedia article, but the differences are, the Wikinews article has the ability to expand beyond that, especially with local reports which would be just awesome. Also, the Wikinews article will still be there - so even after this article says "Adrian dissipated on this and that date", there will still be articles chronicling its formation, strengthening, strike, and effects. So while Wikipedia remains up to date, Wikinews serves as a useful archive outside of the history page.

Any comments? --Golbez 18:29, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Since Adrian is only a Category 1 storm now, and Pacific retirements are much rarer, it should be Hurricane Adrian (2005). If it reforms into Arlene, then Tropical Storm Arlene (2005) or Hurricane Arlene (2005) should redirect to that page. (Unless Arlene makes a name for herself)

1) Please sign your comments with ~~~~.

2) I disagree. Until I have another Adrian article, there's no reason to quantify it with a year. Furthermore, Pacific retirements are much rarer because deadly storms are much rarer - that doesn't mean a deadly storm has less chance of being retired. As for what happens if Adrian survives to be Arlene, we should discuss that, and have a plan ready just in case. It's all moot if neither storm warrants their own article; then we can just redirect the names to the proper season, and then cross-link. If one or the other, or god forbid BOTH, warrant an article, then we have to figure out the logistics. if Adrian becomes worthy, then Arlene should redirect to the Atlantic page with a short mention that it used to be Adrian, unless Arlene is similarly notable, in which case it might be better to merge the two articles into some "Hurricane Adrian/Hurricane Arlene" amalgam - but thankfully, we don't need to cross that bridge til we reach it. --Golbez 08:08, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Well, Adrian has rendered this moot by letting itself get torn apart by the terrain. Between the shear the NHC is talking about, and the low Caribbean water temperatures, it's not looking like we'll have to deal with it this year. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

On Arlene

It's now Tropical Depression One. --Goobergunch|? 21:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since 1) There are ALREADY watches up [Cuba] and 2) It is likely to become Tropical Storm Arlene, would it be premature to make a Storm section for TD1? --Golbez 22:11, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Premature, yes. While the NHC is forecasting it to strengthen, it could also do just the opposite and dissipate. Just wait a few more days and see what happens. --tomf688^(talk) 22:17, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia can wait for stuff to happen. However, Golbez wanted to do the Wikinews thing this year, and first system of the season would fit well over there. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's officially Tropical Storm Arlene now. This is the ninth time Arlene has been used, regaining the title of the most used name (which it will hold for a while)24.226.10.99 16:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Current subjects: Arlene, possibly bringing heavy rainfall to Cuba and the Gulf Coast, and just-tagged 91L INVEST, well northeast of Puerto Rico. As for Wikinews, I'm better at writing wire reports and headlines than at writing articles, but I think Wikinews might be able to handle itself. Hopefully. If not, I can write up a quick blurb. --Golbez 17:33, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with Wikinews policies, but I wrote up wikinews:First tropical storm of 2005 season forms in the Atlantic based on the lates advisory. --Goobergunch|? 17:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Heh, whoops, I just wrote Wikinews:Tropical Storm Arlene forms, threatens Cuba, U.S.. --Golbez 18:02, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

2400 vs 0000 day + 1

Based on experience from last year, using 0000Z instead of 2400Z is a pain in the ass, even if it is more "normal". It's harder to read, and more work to edit. Compare:

• June 28 - 7pm CDT (0000 June 29 UTC)
• June 28 - 7pm CDT (2400 UTC)

Zerbey changed my use of the latter, but failed to add the date, and the resulting "7pm CDT (0000 UTC)" either relied on assumption or was just plain wrong. Well-intended, yes, but factual accuracy trumps style. Use of 2400 to specifically indicate the end of the day is standard (literally, see ISO 8601), and helps reduce clutter in this case. -- Cyrius|✎ 29 June 2005 00:10 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure that 0000 UTC is correct. Midnight is technically the beginning of the new day. bob rulz June 29, 2005 01:24 (UTC)

They're both correct, that was the whole point. It's just that one encourages factual mistakes and is painful to keep properly updated, and the other looks wrong to some people. When providing "current" information, it is far more important to be factually correct than stylistically correct. -- Cyrius|✎ 29 June 2005 01:37 (UTC)

Okay, you lost me. You said that they're both correct, but that one encourages factual mistakes? How is that? If it's correct, then how does it encourage factual mistakes? And how would it encourage factual mistakes anyway? bob rulz June 29, 2005 01:51 (UTC)

0000 is the more formal use I thought. The 24-hour clock goes from 00:00 to 23:59. --tomf688^(talk) June 29, 2005 02:01 (UTC)

A 24-hour clock cannot display both 0000 and 2400 simultaneously. 0000 is more formal, but 2400 is also correct and should be used where circumstances make it more useful. -- Cyrius|✎ 29 June 2005 12:38 (UTC)

bob, I told you how it encourages factual mistakes in our particular situation. It was half the original message. -- Cyrius|✎ 29 June 2005 12:38 (UTC)

You've still lost me. What makes this any different than any other 0000/2400 usage? And how exactly is one more useful than the other? bob rulz June 29, 2005 23:05 (UTC)

June 28 - 7pm CDT (0000 UTC), which appeared in the actual article, is incorrect.

June 28 - 7pm CDT (2400 UTC) is correct, but looks weird to some people.

June 28 - 7pm CDT (0000 June 29 UTC) is correct, but requires the repeated addition and removal of the date. If the date is not added when necessary, it becomes the incorrect first example. It's also a bit messy.

The usefulness of 2400 over 0000 in certain circumstances comes from its ability to describe the midnight at the end of the day, rather than the midnight at the beginning.

If you want to hang around every day a storm's active at 7pm CDT/8pm EDT and add date+1 to all the UTC times, be my guest. But I'm not bothering, and will revert anyone who "fixes" it incorrectly, like in the case that caused me to bitch in the first place. -- Cyrius|✎ 30 June 2005 00:59 (UTC)

Oh, okay, I see what you mean now. Nevermind then. bob rulz June 30, 2005 01:32 (UTC)

I don't consider this nearly as big a deal as the volumes of text I've written may seem to indicate. I'm just extremely annoyed by fixes that aren't. -- Cyrius|✎ 30 June 2005 02:41 (UTC)

Category 3 / Category 4 borderline discrepancy?

While working on another research project (which I'll share here once my webpage is done), I ran into a troublesome problem regarding hurricanes on the borderline of Cat-3 and Cat-4 intensity.

According to the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale, and from all of my prior knowledge, 130 MPH is Cat-3, and 131 MPH is Cat-4. This can be verified as well by the 8:00 PM EDT (July 7) advisory on Hurricane Dennis, which brings the storm to 130 MPH and claims it to be of Cat-3 strength.

However, the Saffir-Simpson scale also suggests that any storm with winds equal to or greater than 113 knots are Category 4... and according to Unisys (a source I've been using very frequently), Dennis has reached 115 knots as of the aforementioned 8:00 PM EDT advisory. Unisys lists the storm as Category 4, which directly contradicts the NHC's public advisory. Indeed, the entire Unisys archive lists storms at 115 knots as Category 4.

Even more troubling is that the official re-analysis done by HURDAT (warning: large html file) lists all wind speeds by MPH, and includes all 130 MPH storms as Category 4.

So, where is the line really drawn?

The Great Zo 8 July 2005 01:51 (UTC)

---

More info: On that HURDAT data I linked above, the only storm EVER listed as having winds of 135 MPH is two data points for Helene in 1988... I looked to see the corresponding wind speed in knots for those two data points (on Unisys) and they were 117 knots and 118 knots - two very strange numbers.

So it looks like 115 knots = 130 MPH, and 120 knots = 140 MPH....

but 115 knots also = Cat-4, although 130 MPH = Cat-3...

This is darn confusing...

The Great Zo 8 July 2005 02:15 (UTC)

Since Dennis continues to strengthen, I'd say it is a Category 4 hurricane right now, although we need to wait for the official numbers. CrazyC83 8 July 2005 02:27 (UTC)

The 11:00 PM EDT is out and Dennis has reached Cat-4 as you expected, but your comment didn't really address the crux of my issue. However, Dennis is now at 135 MPH... and listed in the forecast advisory of being at 115 knots. So now, does 135 MPH = 115 knots? Obviously the NHC is having some consistency issues they may not even know about. - The Great Zo 8 July 2005 02:40 (UTC)

I think it's an issue of rounding. Apparently, 135 mph is 117 knots, so it could be either one of them that's in error. I might be in error, since math confuses me (not THAT simple of math, but still...I don't want to take the time to sift through these numbers...). bob rulz July 8, 2005 06:03 (UTC)

Also, realize that these are estimates. Until the storm makes landfall, they have no way of getting accurate windspeeds where it counts, so the hurricane hunters measure windspeeds at altitude and make a general guess (subtracting 10%) from that amount. When a storm is out at sea, I would imagine there are several factors for a category - if it's right on the cusp between 3 and 4, but pressure shows it dropping into a traditionally Cat 4 territory, they may mung the numbers to make it reach that. Likewise, if the pressure doesn't really match a Cat 4, then they may do it otherwise. I'm not saying this is how it is - but it's my guess. --Golbez July 8, 2005 06:18 (UTC)

Yup, there's definitely some rounding that goes on, and always have been - that's why all the wind speeds, in knots and MPH both, are always rounded to the nearest 5. Doing that creates some obvious problems since knots and MPH don't run on the same scale, and somewhere along the line, a reported 5 knot increase is going to have to become a reported 10 MPH increase. I guess my issue right now is that the Saffir-Simpson scale, and the 8PM "130 MPH" advisory on Dennis, both state that 130MPH is Category 3 - and we all know that wind speed is what determines a category. If that's true, why is the official HURDAT stuff declaring 130 MPH as Cat 4? It all goes back to those discrepancies with the rounding, how the storms were reported initially, and perhaps how they were tweaked in post-storm analysis as well. I'll look more into the historical data tomorrow and see what else I can dig up. -- Golbez, your point is certainly valid, but whatever tweaking goes on is "behind the scenes" and something eventually has to be reported as the official advisory intensity. If they wanted to tweak a storm to a certain category, they can do that, but all we see in the public advisory is the reported wind speed they've set it to - which THEN determines the category. The current forecasting crew, as seen from Dennis, seems pretty set that 130 was Cat-3, and 135 was Cat-4. The Great Zo 8 July 2005 06:33 (UTC)

If HURDAT and the TPC disagree, then the best option is probably to send an email to the TPC or the NHC. --Golbez July 8, 2005 06:55 (UTC)

Hey, I was right on the rounding! Someone agrees with me! I'm not completely stupid!

...

Anyway...yeah, I was going to suggest sending them an e-mail and informing them of the discrepancies. bob rulz July 8, 2005 09:20 (UTC)

Yup, I guess I'll have to resort to that, so I'll send them an email - however, I'll be waiting until Dennis is done destroying things, as to actually stand a chance of not being ignored, heh. I can still finish most of my small project without that info and I'll probably be done with it by late tonight. The Great Zo 8 July 2005 15:14 (UTC)

Losing strength

Should we note in the timeline whenever a storm drops to TD strength? We didn't note when it lost a category last year, and I think it's kind of redundant to note when a landfalling TS drops to TD strength - are these really relevant? Though in the case of Cindy, come to think of it, that was when the NHC ceased monitoring it, so it's kind of like a "half death", the full death coming when the HPC gives up on it. So never mind. What will matter is if a storm stays out at sea and drops to a TD, that's not worth mentioning. --Golbez July 6, 2005 18:37 (UTC)

Come to think of it, never mind - dropping to a TD over land is somewhat relevant. The original objection with mentioning a Karl-like storm stands. =p --Golbez July 7, 2005 19:55 (UTC)

Yes, when things happen over land (going to TD or dissipating) we should keep track of that. Otherwise we should just mention the "track end point" when each storm is no longer named (eg. going extra-tropical). Awolf002 7 July 2005 21:26 (UTC)

CrownWeather

Personally, I don't think this should be included. It's a useful concatenation of satellite images, but every single thing there, apart from some of the paths, are NOAA products and available from the NHC website. And the paths imply more defined forecasting than I think we should endorse with a link. I didn't want to delete it before bringing it to discussion first, though. --Golbez 13:37, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Any site that inlines other sites' images just rubs me the wrong way. Toss it. -- Cyrius|✎ 16:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Emily page

Emily hasn't even been officially named, but someone already moved the page Hurricane Emily for the 2005 storm, assuming it will be retired! (although on that track it is a possibility) The original Emily page is at Hurricane Emily (disambiguation). Isn't it WAY too early for that? At the most, if we want to speculate, it should be at Hurricane Emily (2005). CrazyC83 03:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

No, that page needs to be deleted ASAP. There is no justification for creating a Hurricane Emily page yet. Yes, it's entirely possible that it could turn into a monster like Dennis, but, as Cyrius has said many times before, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (or was that Golbez?). bob rulz 03:44, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

That page shouldn't be there yet. --tomf688^(talk) 03:53, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Leave the amateur forecasting to the discussion pages. While Emily's likely going to merit it's own page at some point, it certainly doesn't now. Seeing especially as the article title isn't even in the correct format, I'm in support of deleting it. Thankfully, it was there long enough that I could get a chuckle out of the insinuation that it's TWC's job to "spot" depressions off of Africa :D The Great Zo 04:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay I've actually read the article, and it cites the Weather Channel as spotting the tropical depression. Right. --tomf688^(talk) 04:15, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I did a page shift; moving the disambiguation page back to the main article and moving the Emily storm page to Hurricane Emily (2005) with a merge/redirect notice. (Not a deletion notice, after all, once the process is complete, we very well may need it - it takes five days) The amateur Emily page also gave me laughs in that the creator said TD6 was forming and it would be named Floyd (ahhhh, no, it would be Franklin - Floyd was retired after 1999)...CrazyC83 04:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I speedy deleted the Emily 2005 page. I don't figure anyone's going to object except possibly the creator. If I'm wrong, let me know. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

That's ok. I did that move only as a placeholder since I didn't know how to speedy-delete and I wanted to have a clear Hurricane Emily page for the disambiguation. CrazyC83 04:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)