Open main menu

"Earliest" Hurricane Statistics (Archived)

The Project

NOTE - I've archived much of the discussion and update-notifications from my project here, to get them off the main page. I've left some info still on the main page where it'll likely stay. The Great Zo 22:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Looks like I may get to put that "quickest five storms" list to use pretty quickly... (from the 11:30 AM outlook)
The Great Zo 15:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

That's the 98L.INVEST mentioned under the July - Week 2 heading. -- Cyrius| 17:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

You should next go add the "latest" for each category...I'd be curious to see what the absolute latest storms were... CrazyC83 03:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

That would be a rather difficult project to conceptualize, since 1914 only had one storm. Does it hold the record for "latest" second storm? :D Realistically, I could figure out when the latest first-storm formed was, and chart that pretty easily, but given the nature of 2005 I'm going to focus my efforts for now on earliest-kind of stuff. The Great Zo 04:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

July 13

The Site has been updated with charts for the quickest seventh and eigth named storms, as well as a "latest first-storm" chart as well. LINK The Great Zo 16:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Morning of July 16 - site has been updated to reflect Emily as the 8th-fastest Cat 3 ever, and the 3rd-fastest Cat 4 ever. The Great Zo 13:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

July 22 - site has been updated to reflect Franklin as the fastest sixth-storm ever, and also to make a few changes to the Cat-4 list after a little further research. I'm still not totally satisfied with that part, though. The Great Zo 15:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

July 24 - site has been updated YET AGAIN (this is getting tiresome!) to reflect Gert as the fastest-seventh-storm ever. I also created a short list of stats to prove, from a different perspective, just how crazy this season has been. Here's a look at where 2005 stands, against the "curve" of all the old earliest-#th-storm records:

  • 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

The Great Zo 06:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking you'll want to get lists of 9th and 10th storms ready... -- Cyrius| 08:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
You're one step ahead - that's in the plans for today or tomorrow. The Great Zo 10:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
Just to let you know, those 160 M.P.H. winds in Ethel were flight level winds, not surface winds. The advisory (NHC has it) says those winds were reported at flight level, and thus it was the advisory intensity. Now we know that 160 up there is a Cat. 3 or weak 4. Hurricanehink 16:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Is that right? Well that throws a wrench in the gears.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 17:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

August 2

August 2 - site has been updated again, this time to add lists for the 1st, 2nd, 11th, and 12th storms. I expect I'll be updating it again within the next 12 hours or so to put Harvey on the 8th-storm list... heh. The Great Zo 21:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

As expected - updated now to reflect Harvey Harvey Harvey the Wonder Tropical Storm as earliest-eigth-storm ever. The Great Zo 15:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Didn't expect a Weird Al reference in here. -- Cyrius| 19:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
And I didn't expect anyone to get the reference :D The Great Zo 15:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
A quick note pending full tables from Zo: from 13 onwards the record earliest dates were all in 1933. 13=Sept 8, 14=Sept 10, 15=Sept 16, 16=Sept 27, 17=Sept 28, 18=Oct 1, 19=Oct 25, 20=Oct 26, 21=Nov 15, the last two being the only time these numbers have been reached.--Keith Edkins 08:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
You knew that the busiest season in history would take over the top sooner or later. Look for 1969 to make a bit of a surge to the top as well as I go on to finish the rest of the tables next week. The Great Zo 15:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Some other charts you should add, to see what it was historically like in October and November (and beyond), in case 2005 has a busy late season (I think it will!):

  • Latest Category 1 hurricane
  • Latest Category 2 hurricane
  • Latest Category 3 hurricane
  • Latest Category 4 hurricane
  • Latest Category 5 hurricane
  • Latest end to a season (last named storm) (I know the record is the second Alice of 1954-55, but I'd be curious to see a longer list)

CrazyC83 01:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Updated to get Irene in the list (FINALLY, haha) as earliest-ninth-storm. CrazyC, those are excellent ideas, and I'll get to work on those after I'm done with the 21 earliest-storm lists. The Cat-5 research page has the full list of all Cat-5 storms, which I'll basically just have to invert for the latest-cat-5 list. The rest will obviously take a bit more work. The Great Zo 15:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

August 9

August 9: The final major update has been completed, and all 21 lists have been created! Contrary to what Keith found, 1936 did beat out 1933 for earliest 13th and 14th storms, but only by 6 hours in each case! I tweaked some of the images a bit too. I'll take a break from all of this for a little while and do up another page with CrazyC's idea in a week or so. The Great Zo 02:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

NOTE - the "curve" has been moved down a bit.
Only around a day and a half left to go to take first place for the 10th Storm... The Great Zo 01:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Hopefully we can get Jose. By the way, I "split" this section into five different headings to make it easier to use and edit. -- RattleMan 01:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Good idea on the split - thank you! We'll see if we can get Jose from TD11 tonight. The Great Zo 15:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
We might get the 10th AND 11th in the next 48 hours if models show up correctly...(TD12/Katrina out near Cape Verde) CrazyC83 19:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
We've got the 10th - Jose in the Bay of Campeche. Unfortunately, the darn advisory time was 22:15Z, which doesn't fit as nicely into my tables as the best-track stuff. I will have to revise the advisory times for ALL of 2005 once the Best Track reanalysis is complete at the end of the season.
The site has been updated with Jose, with only about half a day left to beat Jerry's record in 1995. We now have until August 28 to get an 11th - and then only an extra day to get a 12th. The Great Zo 22:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It's still very much possible...I see TD12 forming in the next 24 hours, and then becoming Tropical Storm Katrina (and then Hurricane Katrina, a major Cape Verde storm) while Lee could be the ghost of TD10... CrazyC83 23:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

"...ghost of TD 10" Hey, that was my line :). Yeah I was noticing the same thing. The Cape Verde wave is not improving and I don't know why. Probably good news for the US though.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 00:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The eastern Atlantic just hasn't been friendly to storms yet this year. Given the pace at which good waves come off of Africa, and the pace of development further west, if the conditions ever do improve out there, LOOK OUT!
Site has been updated with Katrina. The Great Zo 15:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

August 28

The site has been updated to reflect Katrina's rapid strengthening. As of the 11:00 AM EDT Advisory (Aug 28) the storm is the sixth-strongest by pressure, and tied-for-sixth-strongest by winds. Out of 26 Cat-5 hurricanes, it is also the fifth-earliest to form. In addition, this is the first time in history that a Cat-5 hurricane has formed in three consecutive years. The Great Zo 16:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

2:00 PM EDT update - Estimated Pressure now 906 MB - Winds unchanged - updated to reflect on the site. The Great Zo 17:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I just heard that the pressure is 902 mb. The winds are reportedly unchanged. -- RattleMan 18:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
The Weather Channel reported pressure of 902 mb and winds of 184 mph, but I haven't seen an advisory from the NHC saying that. --Holderca1 18:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
The 902 MB report came from a Vortex Data Message from recon. It will likely be noted in the next advisory (or perhaps something lower) and I'll wait until it's official to post it. As for their 184 MPH wind reading, I'm not sure where they got that from. Perhaps they converted the most recent reading of 160 knot flight level winds straight to MPH without adjustment to surface level. The Great Zo 19:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

5:00 PM EDT update - Pressure down to 902. Now 4th place overall. The Great Zo 20:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

When does Maria have to form by for the earliest 13th storm on record to be broken? CrazyC83 20:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

August 31 - site has been updated with Lee's formation. Finally, the streak of records has ended. Lee is the third-fastest 12th-storm ever, at 21Z on August 31. Second place is storm 12, at 06Z, August 31, 1933. In first place is the destructive Luis of 1995 - August 29 at 00Z.
Despite falling behind, the next storm (Maria, #13) has quite a bit of time to form - until the 8th of September. We will likely take the streak back over. The Great Zo 21:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Sep. 2 - Maria's on the site. Earliest 13th storm by slightly over a week. The Great Zo 16:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Sep. 5 - Nate has been added. Earliest 14th storm by four days and change. The Great Zo 03:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

September 7

Ophelia has been added to the list as the earliest 15th storm... by a full 9 days. We're far, far ahead of pace again. 2005 is only the 8th year in recorded history to see 15 tropical storms form in the Atlantic basin.

Now Philippe has a long time to form - a full 20 days! We could hit a break for the next couple weeks and still be ahead of the pace... CrazyC83 14:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Sep. 18 update - At 03Z, Philippe became the earliest 16th storm. The next earliest was Sep. 27 at 06Z in 1933. Provided that T.D.18 becomes Rita (a certainty) and that Invest97 becomes Stan (a possibility), we will easily continue the first-place pace. The Great Zo 18:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
I think we are going to stay on record pace until we get into uncharted territory (the 22nd storm)... CrazyC83 18:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
There's still hope that it will stop at Wilma. We can hope for an inactive October, like the one last year.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 18:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Sep. 18 update #2 - At 21Z, Rita became the earliest 17th storm. The next earliest was Sep. 28 at 06Z in 1933. In addition, this is only the fifth time in recorded history that we have reached 17 named storms in the Atlantic Basin - and we are just barely coming down the peak of this season... The Great Zo 21:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
The tropical wave is having problems getting organized, but should have enough convection to become ATD19-N in about 36 to 48 hours. Stirling Newberry 01:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
What is amazing me the most is the fact that we've gotten this far with practically NO Cape Verde activity... The Great Zo 02:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

What is the deadline for Stan to form to keep the streak alive? Poor Lee must be feeling left out (especially when he has been the biggest dud of the season)! CrazyC83 06:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Stan's got basically 'til the end of the month - the deadline is 2:00 AM EDT on October 1 (06Z). After that, the next two come on October 25 and 26. Quite honestly, not only does Lee feel "left out" I'm sure, but there have been a fairly large number of "boring", dud storms this year - Maria was Cat 3 for one whole advisory, and that's the only major hurricane fish-spinner we've had. Obviously, the "inactivity" of our record-setting activity will be overshadowed by a handful of monsters. The Great Zo 06:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Also looks like ATD19-N is dissipating without reaching tropical storm status. Stirling Newberry 14:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

September 21

I have updated the Cat 5 research page with Rita's statistics. Truly it is incredible to have two storms from this year so high (well, low) on the most-intense chart by pressure. Link: Cat 5 Research

I also archived about 2/3 of the discussion on the project into Archive 6. Much of it was not worth being on this front page anymore, and just made it really, really long. The Great Zo 23:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Edited to move Rita up to #3 overall by pressure - 898 mb. The Great Zo 00:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
What happens if Emily is upgraded in the final assessment (quite possible), will that show up as well? (It would also make this the first season ever with three Category 5 monsters - and it still ain't over yet!) CrazyC83 03:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
If Emily is upgraded, then I'll include her too. I'm thinking that's unlikely, but you've been right more than once before, this season.
Updated the site to reflect slightly 897 mb pressure, and move it up quite a bit in the winds, to 150 knots. The Great Zo 03:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Less than one day left (I believe exactly 22 hours, 56 minutes as of this post) until Stan is lost from 2005's grasp forever... -- RattleMan 07:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Haha, yeah... down to 15 hours and 15 minutes as of this post. There's two areas that could possibly do it (Invests 99 and 90, in the Caribbean and open Atlantic, respectively) but neither are sure bets...) - The Great Zo 18:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC) (oops, wasn't logged in earlier!)
However, the way things look, Stan and Tammy will develop in pretty quick succession, and like Lee, Stan could just be a break in the chain... CrazyC83 16:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
The 11:00 advisory strengthens T.D. 19 to 35 MPH, meaning that the NHC is refusing 2005 to keep the record books going by a measly 5 MPH. Shame on them for practicing meteorological integrity :D :D. Ah well, I expect Stan will come in a very, very close second. The Great Zo 02:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
It will likely miss - by 3 hours. (Unless we get a special update in between) CrazyC83 03:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
About an hour and 15 minutes until the deadline is up. -- RattleMan 04:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
There's no way in hell they'd issue a special advisory just to keep up the records, or to otherwise report the strengthening of an insignificant depression into an insignificant storm. Keep in mind that it's entirely possible that if Stan forms at the 5:00 AM advisory, once they complete the best-track reanalysis, they could decide that at 06Z (aka the 2:00 deadline) it was already at "Stan" strength - which would tie the record. The Great Zo 05:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

October 2

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

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)

When does Tammy have to develop now? (It will have to be out of TD21) CrazyC83 15:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Tammy has until October 25... which is likely plenty of time. The Great Zo 17:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
In fact, we may already have Tammy's baby picture, there is a mid level cyclonic disturbance over the mid-atlantic. Stirling Newberry 18:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Tammy will most likely come from 92L. -- RattleMan 22:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
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 12:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)
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)
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)

Indian Ocean

(This will be crossposted the Southern hemisphere season article)

We now have articles for the Atlantic hurricane season; the Pacific hurricane season; the Pacific typhoon season; and the Southern Hemisphere in general. But what about the Indian Ocean? These storms traditionally are the worst killers, and it doesn't fit into any of the above definitions. Perhaps we should have a 2005 Indian Ocean tropical cyclone season article? --Golbez 21:16, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to that. Sounds like a good idea as a matter of fact. Hey, by the way, the Joint Typhoon Warning Center says that a tropical cyclone is forming in the South Indian Ocean. I thought their season was over!
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 21:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Right, seeing 93B.INVEST on the FNMOC made me realize we didn't have an Indian ocean page. And if you're referring to 95S.INVEST, on the contrary - it's just starting. This is equivalent to about February on the northern calendar, and storms form off-season more often in basins other than the Atlantic I think. --Golbez 21:30, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
February is not off-season for the Western Pacific, their season goes year-round. The South Indian's off season really only consists of two months: July and August, although you could argue that June is part of the off-season too since storms rarely form there during that month.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 22:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Would the Indian Ocean article encompass the entire Indian Ocean or just the northern part? If so, we may have to reorganize and remove the Indian portion of the Southern Hemisphere section and just make it an Australian and South Pacific section. Perhaps an article for the Northern Hemisphere, with the Atlantic, Western Pacific, and Eastern Pacific just having brief summaries of their seasons with links to their main pages. The Northern Hemisphere section would have detailed info on the Northern Indian and Central Pacific since these basins produce relatively few storms. Okay, I am full of ideas on this, now which one would be best? --Holderca1 00:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I figure, have one article for each of the US Navy's major divisions. So, L (Atlantic), E (E. Pacific), C (C. Pacific), W (W. Pacific), S (Southern Hemisphere), and B (Indian Ocean, Northern Hemisphere). I think that accounts for everything. Since the southern Indian season would run at the opposite end of the year than the northern Indian season, there's no reason to combine the two. --Golbez 02:15, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, looks like we have a couple pages to make. Why does the Atlantic Basin get a L designation? I figure the north Indian Ocean gets a B for the Bay of Bengal. --Holderca1 03:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I figured it was just a letter to give away. As for L, I always figured that stood for Low pressure. It was obviously the first basin they started monitoring. --Golbez 04:27, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
Actually the Navy gives the Southern Hemisphere two letter designations, "S" for South Indian and "P" for South Pacific, although they still number them all sequentially so 01S would be followed by 02P, 03P, 04S, ect... I just noticed another thing, we will need to move 2005 Pacific hurricane season to 2005 East Pacific hurricane season --Holderca1 13:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
No, we don't. Pacific hurricanes take place only in the NE Pacific and N Central Pacific. The current article handles those. Any storms in the W Pacific are typhoons; any in the S Pacific are cyclones. I said we should have one article for each, but E and C can (and have been) easily combined, especially since C rarely gets storms. (Maybe B rarely gets storms too? I dunno.) --Golbez 15:10, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I misunderstood you earlier, I thought you were wanting to make a specific page for Central Pacific hurricanes as well. I agree though, since they are so rare, they can be covered with the Eastern Pacific. The North Indian has about 5 systems a year mainly just do to limited space for them to organize and strengthen before encountering land. --Holderca1 15:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

(Bad indent! Bad!) OK, so let's go over this. The major basins are:

  1. North Atlantic [NHC]
    • Any south Atlantic storms - extremely rare - should be mentioned both here and in Southern Hemi.
  2. Northeast Pacific [NHC]
    • North Central Pacific is a minor basin that piggybacks on this; 0-2 storms per year, not really needing its own page, and it has the same terminology [hurricane] though is not monitored by the same people [CPHC].
  3. Northwest Pacific [JTWC, various others]

Then we have two others - the Northern Indian Ocean, and the "Southern Hemisphere" which is a collection of various basins that generally won't effect land that much.

So if only five storms a year tend to form in the Northern Indian, is that enough to justify an article? And if not, what article could it piggyback on? --Golbez 16:04, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

See my user page, I think this may be a good option. Those basins that do not warrant their own page based on activity will just have all their storm info on that page, while the more active basins will keep their storms on their respective pages with just a brief summary of the season on the new page. --Holderca1 16:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
So that would turn into a 2005 tropical cyclone season article maybe? And the basins that have specific articles would be "main articles" off that, and the ones that don't - at this point, only N. Indian - would be included in the article? --Golbez 17:44, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

How about just a page over the North Indian Ocean tropical cyclones which would include the current season in addition to the history of the basin. I really don't think a single season requires it's own page and it doesn't really fit into any of the other basins. --Holderca1 18:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

That would become horribly large over time. Maybe when it got big enough, split into a decade-long list, assuming any of us are still here in 2010. Who monitors the Indian Ocean? Do the storms there have any names? I mean, by 1970 most basins were naming storms, but we still only know the monster killer as the "Bhola cyclone" because of where it struck, Bhola in Bangladesh. --Golbez 18:23, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
They do have names, the list is on the WMO master list of storm names. It's a new concept for the North Indian basin, they have actually only used two names off their list, Vamei and Agni. Although they do not recieve a name until they reach cyclone strength (64 kts). So they only had one named storm but had four tropical storms that just went by the alphnumeric designation last year. The basin is monitored by the India Meteorological Department in New Dehli.--Holderca1 18:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I just looked at Geo-Earth for the cyclone season and there was an A storm - Arabian Sea. So I guess B does mean Bay of Bengal. The Geo-Earth forums go by name - they have three forums, 2005 Hurricane Season, 2005 Typhoon Season, and 2005 Cyclone Season. Maybe we should do the same, and change "2005-2006 s. hemi season" to "2005 cyclone season"? Sure, it's a little north-centric, but since those basins don't seem to have the same seasonal studies as the NHC and such, there's no problem with splitting a season across two years... I mean, people say "Cyclone Tracy hit in 1970", they don't say it was "part of the 1970-1971 cyclone season" like we say Andrew was part of the 1992 hurricane season. --Golbez 20:17, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
What would complicate that would be the storm names lists. Not all of the cyclone basins use a sequential list of names, the Southwest Indian has an annual list. Not to mention that the S. Hemi page is rather large to begin with, adding the N. Indian list of names the 2004-05 SW Indian names would just make it that much larger. Let me think on this one a bit longer, I may come up with a solution. (I love it when Wikipedia randomly logs me out) --Holderca1 21:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I think the typhoon/cyclone pages did it wrong - Don't show the whole list. It's not a list specific to that year, so there's no reason to have it mentioned every year. Point out the first used name on the list, and list each name since then, and mention the next unused name, and link to the article that lists tropical cyclone names for the whole thing. That alone would trim those articles impressively, and I might just try it out. --Golbez 21:03, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I like that idea. I am going to start hacking away at the S. Hemi page to see how it looks afterwards. --Holderca1 21:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in the Navy's annual tropical cyclone reports, it includes the Western Pacific and North Indian basins in the same section. Which makes sense, since they affect the same continent. --Holderca1 21:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Last I checked, those reports are still not out yet. Most of the Southern Hemisphere storms are in but none of the Northern Hemisphere reports are in. The JTWC are the worlds slowest people. A corpse could produce a decent report faster than these people.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 22:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
That's accurate, the 2004 report is still incomplete(actually the southern hemisphere storms in the report are 2003-2004 so that season has been over with for over a year). In their defense though, the cover a lot more water than the NHC does, but still, they are pretty slow. --Holderca1 22:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Shrinking list

I take it many of you have noticed that we're barely into September and we have a scant six names left on the list (Phillipe, Rita, Stan, Tammy, Vince and Wilma). That's insane.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 02:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Can Alpha, Beta, etc. be added to the next column of the list in the article, for easy reference? AySz88^-^ 03:33, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
I would say no; they are not part of the 2005 list until needed. --Golbez 04:15, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
I agree - they aren't part of the list. Here is how it should be formatted if necessary (based on 24 names):
  • Harvey
  • Irene
  • Jose
  • Katrina
  • Lee
  • Maria
  • Nate
  • Ophelia
  • Philippe
  • Rita
  • Stan
  • Tammy
  • Vince
  • Wilma
  • Since there have been 24 tropical storms formed in 2005, the list was exhausted and three names were used from the Greek Alphabet: Alpha, Beta and Gamma (active).
CrazyC83 15:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite expecting that the hurricane season will end up exactly on Hurricane Wilma...

has a hurricane season ever used Greek letters before? --Revolución (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

No. The highest post-naming season was 1995, which reached 19 storms, T. In the 50s they briefly used a phonetic alphabet, and before then storms were not named. --Golbez 16:35, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Greek names have been used before, but for different reasons. They were used in 1972 and 1973 to name subtropical storms. Techincally they used the NATO phonetic alphabet, but since Alpha and Delta are part of it, we can say they were used. 1972 used two in fact.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 20:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I think if we go into Greek letters, it should go like this (again, based on 24 names):

  • Harvey
  • Irene
  • Jose
  • Katrina
  • Lee
  • Maria
  • Nate
  • Ophelia
  • Philippe
  • Rita
  • Stan
  • Tammy
  • Vince
  • Wilma
  • Alpha
  • Beta
  • Gamma
  • Delta (unused)
  • Epsilon (unused)
  • Zeta (unused)
  • Eta (unused)

To fill up the columns.

-- RattleMan 21:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

That may be confusing to some people. We need to differentiate the two lists, make it clear that the Greek list is not normally used. Hopefully the carefully-laid plans won't be needed. A quiet period seems imminent in the Atlantic and we can just hope it lasts a while.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 03:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I guess so. Maybe we can fill up the normal name list, then have something below it that says "Because there were more than 21 named storms, the following name list was used" and have another table below that, or "The official normal name list was used up; below are the backup names"...I have no clue, neither of them sound too good. -- RattleMan 03:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
A little space-consuming, but do-able. Again, hopefully we'll never have to do this.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 17:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
An anonymous user added the list, apparently. I changed it around a little, and maybe the result is a suitable compromise? AySz88^-^ 18:26, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Intensity Fluctuations on the Time Line

What say ye, that short term intensity fluctuations like Ophelia's, which just happen to change its categorisation for 1 or 2 advisories, should be removed from the Time Line when it becomes apparent that that was all they were? Ophelia would get very cluttered if we included them all--Keith Edkins 15:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

That's what I keep saying! Note increases to new categories, or losses of strength over land, and dissipation. That's it! --Golbez 16:47, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Also an exception is made if a storm drops to TD strength over water then recharges. (I was going through the list and saw Irene) but I could be overruled. But honestly, no more than that. --Golbez 16:50, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Maria...

Keep an eye on [] - it mentions "Milli Jan Mayen og Noregs er 990 mb lægð sem fjarlægist, en um 1100 km SV af Reykjanesi er víðáttumikil 970 mb lægð á norðausturleið." I know not a lick of Icelandic, but I know what "970 mb" means. I can guess what it's saying - 1100 km southwest of Reykjavik there is a storm that is 970mb, and over Norway's Jan Mayen is a 990mb system. This is more intense than it was when it lost tropical characteristics. It already says that Stórhöfði, on the south-southwest side of the country, is experiencing 13m/s winds - 30 mph. --Golbez 23:09, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Golbez, I removed the link. That site is not going help many people here in America. The NHC said you could find info on Extratropical Maria in the High Seas forecasts but I have only seen Ophelia mentioned in there. I don't know where we'll find info on the storm. I'm hoping that we aren't going to have to wait for the post-season reports. Maybe there's a site in English out there somewhere.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 23:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
One: Unless it's porn, I'll link whatever the hell I want to. Don't edit someone else's comments except to remove a personal attack, please. Two: You might have noticed the "English" link in the upper right. --Golbez 02:56, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
I have never heard such a high-and mighty piece of garbage in a long time ("I'll link to whatever the hell I want to"). I know many people who would start a fist fight with a comment like that. What the hell are going crazy over now! All I did was say I removed your link from the article and I gave you the reasons why. I also didn't insult your use of the site, I just said I didn't think it was useful. I don't know what your talking about editing someone's comments, but Jesus Christ calm down! I don't what set you off, but honest to God!
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 04:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Sounds to me like there's been a miscommunication; I think Golbez thought you edited the link out of his comment (or removed the brackets, or something; the URL still isn't hyperlinked, anyway, probably because it's missing the http:// ). AySz88^-^ 05:12, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

... and Ophelia

Since Ophelia is strengthening and pointing at the coast, plus it has taken a bizarre track, should it be moved to its own article? CrazyC83 21:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

It will be moved if and when the section on this page expands beyond a few paragraphs. No need to jump the gun. --tomf688<TALK> 21:28, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
I agree. --Revolución (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Some anonymous user created the Hurricane Ophelia page. Since that link would otherwise redirect to the 2005 season page, I would leave it for now - and if it fails to strengthen, I'd rename it Hurricane Ophelia (2005) since the name Ophelia would likely not be retired if it made landfall at its current intensity. After all, do we really want to delete a page we might need in 24 hours anyway, especially when there is no Ophelia disambiguation? CrazyC83 16:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree, let's keep it for now. If Ophelia doesn't amount to much, we could just redirect it back here. --Revolución (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmm, it seems somebody already redirected it back. --Revolución (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, it looks obvious we won't be needing an article on Hurricane Ophelia, which is good. Unless she strengthens to a strong hurricane and causes alot of damage upon landfall, I think it should stay redirected. --Revolución (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
It depends on the amount of information we get. However, it appears unlikely (at this point) that the name Ophelia will be headed for the dustbin, so it leaves us with a naming dilemma. Since this is the first Ophelia, do we just leave it as Hurricane Ophelia until 2011, at which point we (could) have to shift it to Hurricane Ophelia (2005), since the date is redundant? CrazyC83 01:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Boooo. The NHC typoed Pamlico Sound as Pimlico Sound and now the ignorant nuts at TWC are saying Pimlico over and over - and someone created a Pimlico sound article on WP. Please go over to Talk:Pimlico sound and help out on the WP:VfD. --Mm35173 02:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I noticed in the lead in section that it says that Ophelia made landfall when it actually hasn't. The center of circulation has remained over water for its entire existence or is there something I am missing? --Holderca1 15:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should delete the Hurricane Ophelia article, but add to it instead. There already is a lot of information about it in the 2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season page. Besides, we can always change it to Hurricane Ophelia (2005) if it isn't retired.--Cool Genius 20:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

That's what I am thinking. It is a difficult call to make, since there is certainly no guarantee the name will be retired (it is definitely not an obvious case like Katrina is - right now I don't think Ophelia will be retired but there will likely be some consideration) but the information calls for an article. I don't know if the year is necessary to add, since this is the first time Ophelia has been used (so there is no disambiguation page) and it would take a busy 2011 season for the name to re-appear. I'd take it to Hurricane Ophelia and if the name is not retired, add (2005) to the official page but have the main article link redirect until a disambiguation is necessary. CrazyC83 21:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
My opinion: a separate article should only be created if it is long enough to justify separating. Right now the length of the Ophelia section in the season article isn't sufficient I think but with a bit more data it could be. The name should be Hurricane Ophelia (2005) since it's not going to be retired (presumably) and Hurricane Ophelia should be set up as a redirect or disambiguation. There probably aren't going to be any Atlantic Ophelia's for a while, but eventually there will be. However, there were several Typhoon Ophelia storms that probably justify a disambiguation 1958 (super-typhoon, caused the loss of a hurricane hunter aircraft), 1960 (direct hit on Hong Kong), and probably others. Anyway, whatever standard is agreed on should be added to the "standards" section at Template_talk:hurricane. Jdorje 21:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Ooh look: [1], a list of all Pacific typhoons. Jdorje 22:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Would the name Ophelia be retired next year?
Very doubtful. But until they make their decision, purely speculative. --tomf688<TALK> 03:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
I personally don't think Ophelia should be retired, although I would expect there to be some consideration. It's an "iffy" storm - certainly not an obvious case either way. CrazyC83 03:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Edits by

It seems like the edits by this user don't really contribute much to the article. I think one of them should definately be removed (Tropical Storm Lee: "With a record season of strong, immense and numerous storms, Lee was the odd man out with barely staying a tropical storm during its existence." - is obviously an opinon) and the others (on Gert and Harvey on some minor weather effects and in Nate about minor delays) probably aren't appropriate either. A few of them have been removed a couple times, but he keeps adding them into the article again. I might have missed a few more such instances. AySz88^-^ 05:29, September 12, 2005 (UTC) P.S. If you're reading this, thank you for trying to contribute. However, if multiple people remove some portion of your addition, then it's probably been decided that the addition doesn't help the article. Please don't repost things which have been removed. 06:09, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that he kept adding them too. Worst of all, his grammar is bad. I fixed his comments like, three times already, and when people remove it, he keeps reinserting the copy with bad grammar (not the one I fixed)...If you look in History, I make this comment: "If you're going to insist on readding this again and again, MAKE SURE IT HAS PROPER GRAMMAR.. *grumble*" -- RattleMan 05:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Tonight he added "Two days later after Killer Katrina struck the US Gulf Coast." which is not a sentence, "Tough the circulation of Lee's remnants continued no regeneration was expected or occurred" which had been removed, and he readded the bad-grammared "With a record season of strong, immense and numerous strongs, Lee was the odd man out with barely staying a tropical storm during its existence". What's up with this guy? -- RattleMan 05:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

"With a record season of strong, immense and numerous strongs, Lee was the odd man out with barely staying a tropical storm during its existence." - bad grammar, misspelling, and useless/opinionated content (though perhaps it would be interesting for the talk page; who was it that picked Lee to be the strongest storm of the year?). I agree with the revert(s). Jdorje 06:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I left a polite message on his talk page asking him to stop.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 23:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Return to "2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 6" page.