Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season

Please remember to sign your comments using "~~~~"! (This request includes anonymous users.) Please keep off-topic discussion unrelated to the upkeep of the article to a minimum. See below for special discussion areas.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21.

Monthly Event Archives: June - July - August - September - October - November - December Storm Event Archives: Katrina - Rita - Wilma - Epsilon Specialized Discussion: Records - Speculation - Betting Pools - Records Not Broken

Other Basin Talkpages: Atlantic - W. Pacific - E. Pacific - S. Hemisphere - N. Indian

Spaghetti intro

The intro is flawed in that it does not cover what is really important about the season. Four storms are mentioned, but of those, only one is among the 5 most notable storms of the season. It mentions the 1950 Atlantic hurricane season, but not New Orleans. It spends several sentences making comparisons to the 2004 season, but doesn't mention that the most intense hurricane of all time happened this year. Jdorje 03:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The introduction was meant to have a meteorological overview though, not an impact overview. CrazyC83 04:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The introduction probably should to be reworked to have both. --AySz88^-^ 04:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The introduction should definitely describe the impacts. Somebody just looking at the intro would be confused as to why the most important aspects of the season were not covered there (and, frankly, even people who don't just look at the intro, like me). I usually count on the intro to provide me with a basic overview of the subject at hand. bob rulz 04:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The intro blub is supposed to tell the reader what the 2005AHS is definitionally. This is an encyclopedia, I don't care what kind. This is supposed to be kind of like a Hurricanes For Dummies". -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 20:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The intro does badly need work. It's needed work for a long time; no one's done a significant update since Stan except the recent slimming down. If I have a chance I'll rewrite it. - Cuivienen 04:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The length of the intro could probably be slightly increased, but it is about right. The content should also be somewhat renovated, such as having the fact that the season was unusually long moved to the bottom while having the fact that thousands of human beings died moved to the top. --tomf688^{talk} 00:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The intro shouldn't be more than 3 paragraphs (as it is now), but the content needs to be changed. Important points may include:

Meteorological:

• 27 storms (most ever)
• Greek letters
• 14 hurrianes; 7 majors
• Strongest storm ever (or, 3 of the strongest 6)
• 3 cat5 storms (most ever)
• 5 cat4+ storms (ties record)
• Extended into January

Impact:

• 100+ billion in damages
• Costliest season ever
• Damages to U.S. and Mexico
• 1300 (or however many) deaths
• Deadliest U.S. season in 75 years

Storms to be mentioned by name:

• Katrina
• Wilma
• Rita
• Others up for debate.

Information we don't need:

• Epsilon or Zeta by name.
• More than a couple of words comparing to 2004
• Comparisons to 1950 or 1969
• Mention of the weather system involving Stan (pending the Stan TCR).
• The pre-season forecast.
• That 5 seasons since 1998 have extended into December
• That 2 seasons since 1950 have extended until January

Fitting it all into three paragraphs won't be easy; some of it may have to be cut. Jdorje 00:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's the beginnings of a rewrite. It's only two paragraphs right now but it has all of the "essentials" in it.

The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season officially began June 1, 2005, and officially ended on November 30, 2005 though effectively the season persisted into January of 2006 due to continued storm activity. Forecasters originally called for a modestly above-average hurricane season in 2005. However, the 2005 season unexpectedly became the most active season on record, shattering the previous records on repeated occasions. A record twenty-seven tropical storms formed, of which a record fourteen became hurricanes. Of these, seven strengthened into major hurricanes, a record-tying five became Category 4 hurricanes and a record three reached Category 5 strength, the highest categorization for Atlantic hurricanes. Among these Category 5 storms was Hurricane Wilma, the most intense hurricane ever recorded in the Atlantic.

The impact of the season was widespread and ruinous with record damages over $100 billion USD and at least 1,777 deaths. Mexico was struck three times by major hurricanes and the US states of Florida and Louisiana were each struck twice. The most catastrophic effects of the season were felt in New Orleans, Louisiana where Hurricane Katrina’s storm surge breached levees protecting the city and caused over $75 billion in damages as well as more than 1,300 fatalities. However, Katrina was not the only catastrophic storm of the season; Hurricane Rita and Hurricane Wilma caused extreme damage in Louisiana, Texas, Mexico and Florida.

- Cuivienen 04:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Too short for the moment. There's a run-on sentence near the end of the second paragraph, and some things, which include "3 of the 6 strongest storms on record," are missing. I agree completely with Jdorje (for once) on the information that should be included in the intro. bob rulz 01:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the run-on sentence and replaced the old intro with this segment. I know that it is not the highest possible quality, but it is more likely to be improved while in the actual article and is an improvement over the sloppy and incomplete intro that was previously there. - Cuivienen 17:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

My 2 cents: "The season began in june an ended in December blah blah" is not the best way to open the article. Even an enclopedia article needs a lead that grabs the reader's attention:

The 2005 Atlantic Hurricane season was one of the most active, destructive and costliest since hurricane record keeping began. The season (officially June to December) included the most Category 5 hurricanes in one season (three), the most intense Atlantic hurricane on record (Wilma), and the most destructive hurricane in U.S. history, Katrina, which devastated New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast."

Something like that, maybe. I agree with Jdorje about the important and unimportant points. DavidH 01:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely happy with the current introduction (specifically the last sentence seems forced), but I'll note that we should wait for the TCRs of Emily, Stan, and Rita before discussing if other storms deserve mention in the intro. Jdorje 07:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Intro revisited

It says:

Mexico was struck three times by major hurricanes, and the US states of Florida and Louisiana were each struck twice. The most catastrophic effects of the season were felt in New Orleans, Louisiana where Hurricane Katrina’s storm surge breached levees protecting the city and caused over $75 billion in damages as well as more than 1,400 fatalities. However, Katrina was not the only catastrophic storm of the season; Hurricane Dennis, Hurricane Rita and Hurricane Wilma caused extremely heavy damage in Cuba, Florida, Louisiana, Texas and Mexico.

This text could use some improvement.

• What are the three Mexico strikes? Emily, Emily, and Wilma? Or Emily, Wilma, and Wilma? If "strike" means landfall, shouldn't Wilma be counted twice? Or better yet, shouldn't we limit mention to the Mexican state: "The Mexican state of Quintana Roo, and the US states of Florida and Louisiana were each struck twice by major hurricanes."
• The text implies that $75B in damage was done in New Orleans. However this isn't the case; that value is the total damages from Katrina.
• The last sentence just repeats information from earlier; we already know that Louisiana and Mexico were struck.
• The last sentence obviously needs to mention Mississippi (coastal mississippi was the hardest hit area) and probably Alabama too.
• Wording of the last sentence needs to be improved.

I'm not really sure what the intro should say, however, so I bring it up here.

Jdorje 19:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• The "three Mexico strikes" were Emily, Emily and Wilma. Wilma's double landfall was essentially one strike; it isn't as if the storm circled away and then struck again. That said, the change to refer to Quintana Roo is a good change.
• Changed it.
• Yes, but it also mentions Texas and Cuba, not previously mentioned.
• Alabama not so much, but Mississippi would be nice. That sentence was done by landfalls; I included Louisiana and Texas because no one's really sure which state Rita made landfall in.
• I agree.

—Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 01:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Katrina did landfall in Mississippi, but I agree "strike" doesn't mean the same thing as landfall. Anyway, I rewrote the second paragraph a bit to go first by storm and then by location, with the final sentence reserved for New Orleans. I considered just dropping the Katrina numbers (the last phrase), which don't really add much to the paragraph. However the new format is a little shorter so there may be some room to add more info. The problem is deciding what. Jdorje 02:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and also - because the old format was to list major hurricane strikes, and in the new format I just list the major hurricanes explicitly, Emily now gets a mention. I don't see any problem with this since the text is now short enough to fit it easily. It is rather remarkable that the major strikes were responsible for virtually all of the damage this year - though this is pending the Emily, Stan, and Beta TCRs. Jdorje 02:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Forecasts section

One section I'm still not happy with is the seasonal forecasts section. Specifically, it is too long and detailed. It should be shortened and made more "readible" - the problem is since we probably shouldn't have a 2005 Atlantic hurricane season forecasts sub-page (or should we?) we need to shorten in without losing any important information, and this won't be easy. One problem is the section includes too many numbers, which do not fit well in text form; maybe these would be more appropriate in a table form but I'm not sure what such a table would look like. We can probably shorten the dates - we don't need to know the exact date each forecast was released on; simply giving the month would be enough. It's also possible that some of the forecast "updates" can be removed - there are 2 pre-season "updates" given by Dr. Gray's team, and maybe one of them can be dropped. I don't want to sound negative about this section though, it has some really good content (the last sentence for instance is brilliant). The problem is the reader is likely to be lost in the numbers before he gets to the end. Jdorje 07:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point. However, I think making it into table form will make it too complicated to read. Maybe a solution would be to limit the number of sentences. It is not worthy of a sub page though. M cappeluti

Main Page

When will we get the 2005 storm tracks picture in the fact box? And when we finally get the picture in there, we need to move the related articles box BELOW the fact box. It would look 200% better then. Weatherman90 02:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The track map will be put up once the NHC releases it. It will be at the bottom of this page, which right now says "A seasonal track map will be available after the end of the season". --tomf688^{talk} 04:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

They might not want to make one until they get all of their best tracks done in the final reports. —BazookaJoe 19:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Well they have since changed their notation at the bottom to "A seasonal track map will be available after all reports are complete". --tomf688^{talk} 23:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Spoken article?

EDIT: You guys have done a fantastic job editing this article! I think this piece of fine work should be seen and heard by every visitor of wikipedia. Do you think that this article be a narrated article? M cappeluti 09:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Not until it becomes more stable (when all TCRs are complete and end-of-season editing is finished). Jdorje 17:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Order of TCRs

Does anybody know how the NHC forecaster guys choose which order to issue TCRs? I would really like to know.Icelandic Hurricane 22:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Easiest to hardest? It's a mystery, really. Certainly we've gotten almost all of the easy ones already, but Katrina was one of the first. I think it's just the order in which they decide to tackle the storms. - Cuivienen

My guess is that Rita is going to be coming next, or one of the next ones, to get another large and difficult one out of the way. Cindy and Emily will likely be the last ones, as they are the most disputed. CrazyC83 23:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Given that they already had Cindy changed to a hurricane on their chart even before Epsilon formed, I don't think there was much debate about its status at landfall. Emily, however, will probably come last. - Cuivienen 01:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Epsilon had already formed by the time their chart was brought to our attention. Based on the fact that the chart has Wilma peak winds at 185 mph, which it was upgraded to in the TCR, one can guess that Cindy will become a hurricane and Emily will not be upgraded to Category 5 (though that does seem odd, as discussions mentioned the fact that it might have been [1] [2]). -- RattleMan 02:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

They might have still been discussing when that picture was taken, so nothing there really means anything. --AySz88^-^ 03:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

That's entirely possible, I'm just throwing it out in the air. -- RattleMan 03:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Jose was still listed at 50 mph on that chart, and was upgraded to 60 mph officially. CrazyC83 21:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Still missing Reports:

Emily, Beta, Zeta, Franklin, Harvey, Irene, Maria, Phillippe, Stan, Delta, Rita, Tammy There's the list.HurricaneCraze32 21:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Delta's another one that I think might have been a hurricane. Also I think there is a chance that Maria might be downgraded to Category 2 (110 mph)... CrazyC83 04:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Other possible report changes I see

Besides Emily, here are some others that I think might be changed:

• Maria - downgrade to 110 mph and Category 2
• Rita - no change to peak intensity but upgrade of landfall intensity to 125 mph and stronger sooner
• Beta - upgrade to 120-125 mph and landfall at Category 3
• Delta - upgrade to 75 mph and hurricane intensity

CrazyC83 17:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought Vince might be upgraded slightly too. Jamie C 18:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Vince wasn't really noticed for a while, so they might mark it as (sub)tropical earlier. --AySz88^-^ 18:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's unlikely that we'll see so many changes. Emily is a possibility, and Vince is a possibility. Others? Probably not, but they surprised me with Jose. - Cuivienen (Travel eastward) 22:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

They did? It was intensifying rapidly just before landfall and there were no aircraft observations just prior to landfall. I believe it even said in the advisory just after landfall that it was possibly stronger than reported. bob rulz 23:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess it was mostly surprising that they bothered. I mean, it didn't get upgraded or anything. It was just a bit stronger. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 05:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting

Well, I stumbled upon this tool, and it shows who has edited the article the most. It just seemed interesting. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I'd expect someone who lives in a hurricane-threatened region to make the most edits on the topic. Good kitty 23:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, unless you mean <anonymous>, I seem to have come out top, and I'm in Cambridge, England where I thought I was safe before Vince ... I thought I was just covering while the US contributors got some sleep. Maybe I need help ...--Keith Edkins | Talk 19:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, interesting. That's a really sweet tool. I want to point out that Cyrius might have had a lot more edits if he hadn't been directly hit by Rita. :) --Golbez 23:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Some of us (like myself) have probably made more edits as anonymous users, either while starting out or forgetting to log in... CrazyC83 00:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

And some of us may have inflated edit counts from vandalism reversion. Jdorje 20:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough I'm hardly ever hit by cyclones, in fact the only one in recent history is Typhoon Vamei. NSLE _(T+C) 恭喜发财! 01:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Michigan only got rain from Arlene, a persistant east wind from Dennis, and clouds from Katrina. I'm not as far down on that list as I thought. —BazookaJoe 02:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been in tropical storm Eugene, in the Eastern pacific. It never made landfall but still in the coast there were strong winds and high waves. Memicho 02:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I experienced Hurricane Floyd and Hurricane Isabel as strong inland tropical storms, but nothing else. Yet, I am fascinated by tropical cyclones, and have devoted ~1.2% of my total edits to this article it would seem. :) --tomf688^{talk} 02:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I have NEVER been in a Tropical Depression/Tropical Storm/Hurricane, although I think I was on-the-outer-edge-of/got-some-weather-associated-with Arlene while I was vacationing in Cancun, Mexico this year (which was extensively damaged by Wilma). Yet, like Tom, I am also fascinated by tropical cyclones. This year, I was hoping to get something from Hurricane Otis in the EPAC (rain, anything, we are in desperate need of rain) but it turned away. =\ We may have gotten something from Hurricane Claudette in 2003, I'm not sure...We also probably got something from Hurricane Nora, an 1997 EPAC storm. It's possible we got something from Hurricane Javier, EPAC 2004. -- RattleMan 03:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The only hurricane I ever experienced was Hurricane Floyd; a lot of the houses at lower elevations than mine were badly flooded. Other than that the only tropical-related problems I recall were floods this year from what was left of Tropical Storm Tammy. Doesn't prevent me from being fascinated. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 06:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Living in the UK, I dont experience many tropical storms/depressions/hurricanes but I did get the remnants of TS Bonnie in 2004 when I was in Georgia. Irene was supposed to hit where i was in 2005 but it turned away. I strangley felt disappointed. Jamie C 12:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, thanks to that tool, which I didn't know existed, I found out I'm the largest single editor to United States. Sweet. :) Also, my cyclone history: I lived in Savannah, Georgia, in 1989 when Hurricane Hugo threatened it, and evacuated to Macon, Georgia, to have it miss at the last minute. A year later, I moved to the Charlotte, North Carolina, area, which was still recovering from Hugo. The only storm I've actually been in, though was Hurricane Fran, which was still a tropical storm when it passed near Washington, DC in 1996. I lost an umbrella that day, and gained a true respect for these beasts. --Golbez 03:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, wouldn't you have been affected, or at least brushed, by Hurricane Floyd and Hurricane Isabel? Those ones were hard to miss - over 60 million people were affected from each of them. (I remember Floyd's circulation - at once - covering an area from the Bahamas to eastern Ontario - over 20 degrees of latitude!) CrazyC83 05:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I lived in Washington DC in 1999, and Charlotte in 2003; if Isabel grazed me, I don't remember it, and I wasn't anywhere near Floyd. Again, if it brushed me, I don't recall. --Golbez 06:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been through... hmmmm, let's see here, Hurricane Floyd, Hurricane Isabel, Hurricane Charley, Hurricane Ivan, Arlene, Hurricane Cindy (2005), Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita, Tammy and Hurricane Wilma. Fishhead 13:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stay away from me, then. It seems like you are attracting the worst ones. Good kitty 15:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.Hurricane Andrew,Hurricane Opal,Hurricane Floyd-thats the main ones.HurricaneCraze32 15:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks that you have been in very strong hurricanes. I was going to experience Hurricane Kenna because I had a flight to Acapulco in Oaxaca, but the flight was canceled, so as I said earlier i've only been in TS Eugene, and Chihuahua has only received a lot of rain by this year Hurricane Emily. Memicho 16:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Being at about 46°N 80°W, hurricanes are quite rare up where I am. Several from 2005 appear to have reached here based on the final reports but I thought they had lost their identities or been absorbed by another system (so they don't count in my books). The last one that clearly came into my area was Hurricane Isabel, just after becoming extratropical, as a 40 mph storm. The strongest one I remember being in was Hurricane Opal as a 60 mph tropical storm - and I was farther south and east at the time. I've never gone on vacation into an area intending to go into a hurricane, and I would cancel vacation plans otherwise. CrazyC83 17:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Ivan was my most memorable tropical cyclone experience. It was just a strong tropical depression when it passed just north of where I live. The power went out, the trees were leaning in the wind, and the rain was coming down in sheets. Our neighbor's yard flooded because his drainage system clogged. Opal gave us a similar thrashing ten years ago but not quite as bad. Dennis also affected us. Cindy passed to our south but didn't affect us. Tropical Storm Tammy drenced my beach condo on St. Simons Island with 10 inches of rain, but I wasn't there. They also got some stiff winds, I hear. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 23:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm 11th for this one, and 5th for 2004, although I must point out that most of those anon edits were probably mine, considering I didn't have an account until October of 2004. More people=less chances to get to the advisory updates before someone else, which is what happened in the 2005 season, plus the endless controversy on this article tired me out, and led me to stop editing it after a while, sadly.

As for my cyclone history, I have nothing significant. I lived in New Jersey from when I was born in 1990 until 1991, and in North Carolina from 1991 until 1993, so I may have been hit with some remnants or a weakening inland TS during those times. No way I was hit with anything in Montana, and since I've lived in Utah since 1995, there's a possibility that I have been hit with weak remnants of EPAC storms. bob rulz 23:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Me? Cyclone history? Being around 35°S and 139°E (Canberra, Australia), not to mention a fair way inland and 500m above sea level means I'll never get a cyclone. Which can, of course be a good and a very bad thing. -- Sarsaparilla39 20:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As for my cyclone history; I believe I was hit by Tropical Storm Hermine and anything else on Coastal New England. Luckily, I was born after Bob!Icelandic Hurricane 21:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Something Peculiar

On this NHC Governmental website, It supplies a list of all the names retired, and on the list is Wilma and Katrina of 2005, but no others. There is also a list of the names to be used in 2011, which has all the 2005 names intact, except for 2 blank spots...again for just Katrina and Wilma. I can't imagine them just retiring two names though. Weatherman90 01:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this site official? They may only have Katrina and Wilma as those are definite. Katrina caused severe damage, and Wilma was the strongest storm to exist in the Atlantic, so it makes sense they are definitely retired.WotGoPlunk 01:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah..I figure they are playing it safe, but it's still strange they would venture to take Katrina and Wilma off the list before the announcement...it just doesn't seem like something the NHC would do. Weatherman90 02:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Since each national government makes a case for which storms to retire at the WMO conference, perhaps this means that the U.S. will only pursue having the names Katrina and Wilma retired. However, I thought Rita and Dennis, which both did a good deal of damage to the U.S., would also be retired. Or, perhaps they don't want to diminish the significance of Katrina. Argh, politics. --tomf688^{talk} 02:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I would be shocked if Dennis and Rita, at least, were not retired. A case can be made for not retiring Stan or Emily, but not retiring the other two would be bigger than not retiring Hurricane Gordon. Maybe they just haven't made the final decision yet on the others yet. I suppose Dennis could still be retired by the request of Cuba, too. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 04:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have looked at the cited HNC page, and note that it is put out by a regional office. Personally, I think that the most authoritative statement is the one in the article for this talk page: The final decision will be made by the WMO in March, and any statements about retired names (and their replacements) made before then are purely speculative. (Even so, I must agree with the author of that page that Katrina and Wilma are "slam-dunk" candidates for retirement, even if I also agree with the other editors of this thread that they are almost certainly not going the be the only retirements.) --EMS | Talk 04:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. My guess is that the WMO has already approved those decisions and they are the most obvious. Rita should also be there as it will be a US-made case (I guess it is awaiting approval); no other countries were seriously affected by it. Dennis could be either made by the US or Cuba (it was the worst storm to hit Cuba in a long time, so if the US overlooks it, Cuba will likely make the case). Emily and Stan would definitely be made by other agencies though (Stan did not affect the US at all and Emily only brushed extreme southern Texas), so the NHC won't know what is happening with them. CrazyC83 05:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The EPac list is out of date; Kenna's still on it. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I just saw this page, Katrina and Wilma are still listed on it. The lists definitely need some updating, as Iris, Michelle, Isidore, and Lili are still on them! PenguinCDF 19:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Something Peculiar - Answered!

Got Email from one of the people maintaining the site, Dennis Cain, who works for the the NWS. Contact information for him is at [3]. If someone things that the information here can be properly compressed please make the change.

---Begin Message
Randolph, 
 
It is B, an assumption on my part only and it may or may not occur. My guess is the US
government (or whoever makes the request) will ask that Katrina be retired and that the 
Mexican government will ask that Wilma be retired. I could be wrong (and have been before).
I'm much less confident about Rita though. I have no connection/association with the RA IV 
Hurricane Committee. Hope this helps, 
 
Dennis Cain 

> According to the tc_names page 
> (http://www.srh.weather.gov/srh/jetstream/tropics/tc_names.htm ), 
> jetstream lists Katrina and Wilma as being retired. 
> 
> Is this 
> A) a commitment of members of the RA IV Hurricane Committee prior to 
> the beginning of the conference in San Juan which has officially 
> retired them 
> 
> or 
> B) An assumption given their size and damage which may or may not 
> actually occur after the RA IV Hurricane Committee meets? 
> 
> Thank You 
> Randolph Finder 
---End Message

Naraht 19:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. Less confident with Rita? That name also has a perfect case to be retired. After that, you get into retirement cases likely to be made by other governments - I think Dennis will be retired by Cuba (they seemed to take a harder hit), Emily by Grenada or Mexico and Stan by Guatemala. CrazyC83 02:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that the time has come to stop grumbling about this. Mr. Cain admits that they are "jumping the gun" on this, and that is all that we need to know. Case closed IMO. --EMS | Talk 04:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The question is how much the wiki folks should care. Should we try to get him to retract it and fill Katrina and WIlma back in? Naraht 15:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I think it is fine the way it is there...they know what they are doing and know that they will be retired. I wouldn't mention it on this site though. CrazyC83 20:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I really can't believe that Only Katrina and Wilma are being the candidates for retiring. Dennis made landfall in cuba a it's peak of 150mph winds, and then reintensified to a category 4 and finally made it's 2nd landfall near Pensacola, leaving extensive damage in Cuba and in the U.S.A.

Emily Made landfall at Grenada as a hurricane (notable because only Ivan has done that), then became the strongest hurricane of July with a pressure of 929mb and 155mph winds, then Emily made it's 2nd landfall at the Yucatan Peninsula as a category 4. And finally it made it's last landfall near San Fernando in Mexico and TS force winds reached sothern Texas. Rita passed near the Florida Keys sending hurricane force winds and then after passing the Gulf Loop Current it strenghten up to 175mph winds with a pressure of 897 and made landfall near Sabine pass as a category 3. And stan wasn't notable for it's winds, it was notable for being a Deadly storm, most of them in Guatemala by rains and flooding, also let a lot of damage in Mexico and in some parts of central America. So I think that these storms also made enough disaster to be retired and now be history. Memicho 23:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Other Sub-national entities.

With the mention of the state of Quintana Roo in Mexico, are there other sub-national entities (Cuban Provinces or Haitian Departments for example) which should be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs) 01:44, February 1, 2006 (UTC)

Judging by territorial extension, Quintana Roo is larger than several states in the Northeastern US, so if the departments are larger than that, perhaps. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If they can be broken down, yes. I did the same on the death toll lists by country/region... CrazyC83 04:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm largely responsible for the introduction of Mexican states as "atomic" locations. I personally have no idea where most Mexican states are, but when doing my rewrite I realized that it is merely US-centrism that causes us to treat US states as recognizable single names while the similarly-sized mexican states are largely unrecognized. So, in place of qualifiers like "Yucatan Peninsula" or "Northeast Mexico" I just added the state names. I figured someone would add more qualifiers, but I'm glad nobody did. So now we should all learn the names of the mexican states! As for Cuba, however, it looks like the Provinces of Cuba are more like U.S. counties in size. Jdorje 06:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

All the ones you'll ever need to know are Tamaulipas, Veracruz, Tabasco, Campeche, Yucatán and Quintana Roo, at least in the Gulf Coast. They are large territories, around the size of most American states. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to start looking into the sub-national entries for the death toll charts for all the other countries, if they can be broken down... CrazyC83 16:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for the unsigned comment. According to the Quintana Roo, the state is 19th in area and 29th in population, (out of 31 states +DF), so it isn't that large, OTOH, it does seem to get nailed by Hurricanes more often than most Mexicans states (sort of like the US State of Mississippi). As for the Provinces of Cuba, the largest, Camagüey_Province, is larger than three US States, and the province on the far western end that always seems to get hit by Hurricanes, Pinar_del_Río_Province, is bigger than two US states. OTOH, there are counties in the far western US States (like Elko_County, Nevada) are are also bigger than *nine* US States. Naraht 20:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If we decide to add Cuban provinces, Dennis made landfall on Granma and Cienfuegos Provinces. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 22:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I live in Mexico, so I don't have problem in recognizing the states. In the Atlantic Basin the most treathened states of Mexico are Quintana Roo, Yucatan and Campeche, These 3 states are allways refered as Yucatan Peninsula, and also Tamaulipas and Veracruz. And in the Eastern Pacific Basin The mos treathened states are: Baja California, Sinaloa, Jalisco, Colima, Michoacan, Oaxaca and Guerrero.

So that way you won't have much Problem in knowing the most treathened states of Mexico by hurricanes. Since I live here In Mexico and if you need to know something Please ask me. Memicho 00:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

In the infoboxes, if a storm is large enough that it covered multiple jurisdictions (or the entire country, in the case of Cuba with Dennis), I would ignore those and just write in the country name. (However, if the death toll can be broken down, I'll write them into that chart!) CrazyC83 00:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hottest year on record

From [4] [5] :

The global mean surface temperature in 2005 is currently estimated to be +0.48°C above the 1961-1990 annual average (14°C), according to the records maintained by Members of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). This year is currently the second warmest and likely to be among the warmest four years in the temperature record since 1861. The official figures will be available at the beginning of 2006. Uncertainty in the global temperature values, arising mainly from gaps in data coverage, are such that 2005 could end up being the warmest or the eighth warmest year on record. The last 10 years (1996-2005), with the exception of 1996, are the warmest years on record. The year 1998 remains the warmest, with optimum averaged surface temperatures averaging +0.54°C above the same 30-year mean.

Averaged separately for both hemispheres, 2005 surface temperatures for the northern hemisphere (0.65°C above 30-year mean) are likely to be the warmest and for the southern hemisphere (0.32°C above 30-year mean), the fourth warmest in the instrumental record from 1861 to the present.

Globally, October 2005 was the warmest October on record, surpassing that of last year and June 2005 was the warmest June, surpassing that of 1998. Regions of significant warmth were widespread with large areas of Africa, Australia, Brazil, China and the United States showing significantly above-average temperatures. Much of the North Atlantic and tropical Indian Ocean were also significantly warm, along with the Gulf of Alaska. Sea-surface temperatures in the North Atlantic in 2005 are likely to be the warmest on record.

So 2005 is likely to end up as the hottest year in the northern hemisphere since 1861. Jdorje 07:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Only 1 female fishie?

Is it just me or was Irene the only fish-spinner with a female name? Jamie C 21:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You could also count Maria, but she made landfall in Norway as an extratropical storm...Lee and the Greek names are somewhat genderless... -- RattleMan 21:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

My name is Lee and I can damn well tell you that I'm not genderless. ColdRedRain 00:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Lee is a male name very rarely used for girls. Much like Ashley, which is a common female name and a rare male name. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 00:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I did my research before I chose on putting Lee there. Notice that I put Lee in on a separate edit. I checked various websites and Googled "Name Lee Unisex", and good results pop up. Didn't mean to be insulting :) -- RattleMan 02:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Has there ever been a Hurricane Pat? Good kitty 02:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No, but there have been three ones named "Hurricane_Patricia". Another close match is "Hurricane Pam", a name of a fictional disaster-preparation scenario, designed by New Orleans officials (or FEMA) to see if they were ready for a monster hurricane...this was done in 2004 and had many similarities to what Katrina would do a year later. -- RattleMan 02:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be correct, although I don't think of the Greek names as genderless (I kept the sequence going) and based on that, Zeta was a female storm that remained at sea. CrazyC83 00:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps more significantly, 5 of the 6 non-greek major hurricanes were female. There was a marked tendency (though well within the range of statistical likelihood) for the "bad" storms to be female. Jdorje 02:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Plus (if you extend the order into Greek letters) 7 of the 8 strongest storms (add Irene and Beta). Except for Dennis, no male storms exceeded Category 1. CrazyC83 02:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured Topic

From Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates:

start copying

To be a featured topic the collection of articles must meet the following criteria:

1. There should be a clear similarity between each of articles – they should be able to be grouped under one collective name
2. There must be at least three separate articles
3. All articles in the series should be linked together, preferably using a template
4. There should not be any obvious gap (missing or stub article) in the topic
5. Each article should be of a good quality, including references

As well as these requirements, the following are recommended:

• The articles should be in the same category
• The structure of the articles should be similar (having the same section titles and order where possible)
• Each article should have been peer reviewed

end copying

Perhaps, once all the reports are out and consensus is reached on what to do with the storms article, we can try and get this topic as a Featured Topic? The pages I count are the timeline, statistics page, main season article, the list of storms, as well as the storm articles. I think that once all of these articles settle down and become more stable we can get a featured topic. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to that. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 02:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be a good idea. We have a Featured Portal Candidate, a few Featured Articles, I don't see why not we can get a Featured Topic. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but let's only feature one thing at a time. To get this featured we will all have to work to improve the quality and consistency of the sub-articles. Jdorje 02:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. We can certainly get the 2005 season page to FA, the List of 2005 storms to FL (those two are just waiting on all of the final reports) and the Portal to FP. Plus, of course, Hurricane Dennis is already an FA and a number of the other storm articles could easily become FAs. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 04:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

TCRs

How long does it take for another TCR to come out? I've been waiting forever but havn't seen anything new.Icelandic Hurricane 22:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

They might be doing a long one, e.g. Emily, Rita, Stan.WotGoPlunk 23:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ohh Goody!Icelandic Hurricane 23:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

They're probably done with a few small ones, or even a big one, right now. They tend not to release them right away pending peer review and whatever other reasons. I notice the date at the top of the TCR is not always the date it's released. —BazookaJoe 02:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Dennis FA on main page soon

Guys, please add Hurricane Dennis to your watchlists (click here to do so) as it will appear on the Main page as the featured article on February 6 and vandalism is to be expected. NSLE _(T+C) 00:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It is unsettling that a FA could have as many factual errors as Dennis had (before I just fixed them). We need to be careful about this in future when marking articles as featured! — jdorje (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Emily

Jeez guys! If you think about it, Emily would only have to raise one mph to be a Cat. 5; chances are it raised that much.Icelandic Hurricane 21:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane wind speeds are only recorded in intervals of 5 mph. Thus, Emily would have to increase 5 mph to 160 mph to be a Cat 5. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 21:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that but I don't see why they'd do that. Still, don't you agree?Icelandic Hurricane 21:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You could say similar things about other hurricanes, like Floyd for instance Jamie C 22:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes that should be different, too.Icelandic Hurricane 23:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe they round it based on knots. However, a tendency is to round up, not down, especially when it is on a boundary between categories. 155 mph = 135 knots, and 136 is Category 5.

The worst example I remember was when Wilma (with a 940-ish pressure) was still listed as Category 2 with 110 mph (just as she was starting the dizzying intensification that memorable night of October 18-19) yet they said it was a conservative estimate. (I never believed that number at all - after all, it is difficult to get the strongest winds in a nighttime flyover). I would have moved it up at least to Category 3 at that time. CrazyC83 00:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems just as likely that they would lower Emily's wind speed. — jdorje (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Why? They actually said she could have been a category 5. Jamie|C 21:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

A pressure of 929 is not particularly consistent with 155 mph winds, and emily was not (unlike andrew) an especially small storm. — jdorje (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

But they actually said that it may well have been a Cat 5, relatively high pressure or not. Jamie|C 22:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, and they might upgrade it to 160 mph. They might also weaken it to 150 mph. Information on the storm is quite conflicting, and I don't know what their conclusions will be about it. — jdorje (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Just by way of comparison, to the best of my knowledge Hurricane Opal (150 mph/919 mbar) and Hurricane Floyd (155 mph/921 mbar) are the strongest Category 4 storms, and Hurricane David (924 mbar) was the weakest Category 5. According to the info in the advisories, Emily was substantially weaker than all three of these storms. — jdorje (talk) 09:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Wilma was the strongest Cat. 4.Icelandic Hurricane 13:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

True, but it was already a cat. 5. Those 2 never made it to Cat. 5 status. I think Emily might make it. Hurricanehink 15:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Wilma was a cat5. Q.E.D., it could not have been the strongest cat4 (though you're right that even as Wilma weakened, it was stronger than any of these other storms). — jdorje (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Also Janet was a Category 4 storm when its pressure of 914 mbar (which remains one of the lowest ever recorded) was taken, but it intensified to Category 5 by the next flight so it doesn't count for my original example either. All data from that period is suspect anyway. — jdorje (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Wilma was Cat 4 at 892 mbar, much lower than Janet or any other Cat 4. However, that's not really relevant. What is interesting is that we just saw Irene dropped by 5 mbar when it was not suggested in the discussions that the value was conservative. Given that a suggestion was actually made that Emily's estimate might be low, so too could the measured pressure have been high. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 03:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Allen was reported to be a Category 5 with some (IMO) outlandishly high pressure readings. From the best track, I found 180 mph/932 mb, 175 mph/940 mb, 160 mph/945 mb, 180 mph/920 mb, and 165 mph/935 mb. I'd say that the only two readings in which it was actually a 5 are the 920 and maybe the 932 mb, and the wind speeds are likely too high for those. Personally I think Emily was briefly a Cat 5 because recon found a flight-level wind speed of 176 mph (159 mph at the surface with 90% reduction) after the pressure had risen above the usual level for Category 5, but I think they'll be reluctant to upgrade it postmortem because of the implications of it -- four Cat 5s, the earliest storm to reach it, the only known pre-August Cat 5.... Unless they have proof or very strong evidence of it, I think it'll "officially" be kept as a 155 mph Cat 4 to play it safe. PolitiCalypso 07:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wilma and Janet were both cat5 hurricanes: Janet was strengthening and Wilma was weakening when those data points were taken, and it is very unlikely they could have that pressure with that windspeed unless they achieved cat5. Good point about Irene though, and I would hope that if Emily is upgraded to cat5 that the pressure would be dropped. As for Allen, you're right, and it is bizarre - Allen also falls into the period (1945-1995) where all data is suspect, and I wonder if it's possible they're mixing up data points here and the 932 mbar is actually from a few hours earlier or later than the 180 mph. — jdorje (talk) 07:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Another strong cat4 is Hurricane Gloria - 920 mbar, 150 mph winds. Pretty much along the lines of Opal and Floyd. — jdorje (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Rita's Report

Nothing much except that Rita's winds were lowered to 145 knots... pressue is the same 897....— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.236.80 (talk • contribs) 03:32, February 4, 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a link? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls. — jdorje (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

'tis the same guy that did the fake Emily report post. -- RattleMan 04:28, 4 February 2006 (

I highly doubt that a report would come out on the weekend anyway... CrazyC83 22:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This made me laugh. The idiot tried to sound all casual and professional. Weatherman90 04:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Jaja, you're right. This guy is just trying to bother us, so next time just ignore him.Memicho 01:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

TS Franklin

Anyone think Franklin will be upgraded to a hurricane? It doesn't seem to be getting the attention Arlene and Cindy received, even though it was at the same intensity.(192.80.65.234 17:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC))

I think it is quite possible.Icelandic Hurricane 17:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Cindy was redesignated a hurricane, as it was certainly a hurricane. The forecaster was conservative in keeping it at TS strength. There was never really a question over Arlene,Franklin, or Delta.

However the NHC guys said that Delta might have briefly been a hurricane . 24.85.161.198 19:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Franklin? I doubt it. Reason is that unlike with Cindy, it was far out over water and they didn't have radar or land/ship observations to help out. In addition, the 997 mbar pressure is quite high for its intensity. Delta seems more likely, simply because its 980 mbar pressure is quite low for a tropical storm and the suggestion that it was briefly a hurricane. CrazyC83 22:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Who knows. They could lower the preassure like they did with Jose.Icelandic Hurricane 15:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

If Franklin does what Cindy has,it'll really be no suprise. The only main thing is that it had a high ACE.HurricaneCraze32 19:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Irene's report

It's now out. No real surprises (none were expected). CrazyC83 18:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I figured there'd be one today. I wonder if there will be any more... — jdorje (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually that's a pretty significant strengthening...+5 mph and -5 mbar, to 105 mph and 970 mbar. Close to Cat3, but...not that close. — jdorje (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Irene is notable for 1 thing. Being the only Peak Intensity Category 2 Hurricane. Now if Maria is dropped to Category 2, Beta will be notable for being the only Peak Category 3.HurricaneCraze32 20:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Irene was the longest lived 05 hurricane as well Jamie|C 15:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

B-Class

Huh, why is the article down to B Class now? Jamie|C 20:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I assume it is because, for whatever reason, some people believe that every single bit of information on every single storm needs to be squeezed into this article rather than distributed over subarticles. --tomf688^{talk} 20:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

E. Brown provided his reasoning on my talk page after I requested it. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 21:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

IMO it shouldn't be A-class until all info from all TCRs is merged in. But it doesn't matter much; the assessments are mostly useful for keeping track of low-volume articles and so the exact categorization of this one isn't crucial until the editing settles down. — jdorje (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

From my discussion with Eric (carried on on both our talk pages under the heading "2005 AHS", though it probably won't make much sense since it's split between the two pages), I think (and I believe he agrees with but I could be wrong):

• The current length and level of detail of the storms section is good, though of course the individual storm paragraphs can be tweaked and improved.
• We need a method to index the individual storms through a TOC. I don't think (though Eric probably disagrees) that giving each storm its own subsection is a good idea. The problem with that is that it makes the TOC obnoxiously large, and many of the sections are too small for their own good (several of the storms have just a single sentence). However there are already anchors in place so that 2005 Atlantic hurricane season#Hurricane Katrina links to where you'd expect. So we can make our own indexing mechanism - for instance the pastel monstrosity currently at the top of the storms section could easily link directly within the storms section, instead of linking to the "list of storms" sub-article.
• More pictures are needed. The storms section currently only has meteorological pictures since I'd originally thought it would just cover the meteorological histories of each storm. But there's room for more pictures there, and there's a need for more damage photos in the article.
• The economic impact section needs to be rethought. This section has basically been unchanged from the original article (before it was shortened), and it doesn't really fit in as its own top-level section.

— jdorje (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Windswath

Does anybody know of the area of land that a specific cyclonic system passed over? I need an example for a formula on my userpage. Please answer on my talkpage.Icelandic Hurricane 22:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No (in response to Hurricanehink). I need to find out the sq. mi. of the windswath on land for any storm.Icelandic Hurricane 22:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That would be extremely difficult to calculate. My guess is that Katrina passed over the most land of all the 2005 storms (its dissipation point was about 47°N, 69°W). (IMO, that calculation should be based on the entire circulation, from the time it becomes a tropical depression to the time it dissipates or becomes unrecognizable) CrazyC83 22:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Then should I do something else? If it's going to be hard to calculate, may as well put something similar in its place.Icelandic Hurricane 22:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems nearly certain that Katrina passed over the most land of any Atlantic hurricane in recorded history. Looking at the Image:Hurricane_Katrina_wind_swath.gif wind swath map it looks like about 150,000 square miles of land with tropical-storm force winds. In fact I'd guess Katrina's swath through Florida alone is about the same size as Andrew's. — jdorje (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That's just wind, not rainfall (which basically followed the length of the Appalachians). Last year's Frances and Ivan probably came close, if not surpassed, Katrina's "effective" area. CrazyC83 22:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's what he was talking about...wind swath. As for rainfall, you're right that Katrina didn't drop much because it was torn apart as it moved inland, and didn't cross any mountainous areas. Very, very lucky. — jdorje (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Very true as she stayed on the western front of the Appalachians for over 48 hours from just after landfall right up to (basically) dissipation...from the descriptions I could find, the worst inland flooding due to actual rain was more than 60 hours after landfall - at the end of the line in eastern Quebec, just as another system was absorbing Katrina on August 31st! If Katrina had shifted 100 miles to the east, it would have been a long trail of destruction, and we'd be talking about many more lost communities. That could have increased the death toll several hundred more and caused billions of dollars in additional damage. Yes, Katrina could have been worse! CrazyC83 04:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I would venture to guess that Hurricane Donna covered the largest land area with hurricane- and tropical storm-force winds of any recorded hurricane, but data is not available for Donna as it is for Katrina. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 03:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point...although I don't know how far inland Donna's winds went, so Katrina might still be bigger. No way to know though. — jdorje (talk) 05:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Donna hugged the coast, so it was probably smaller... CrazyC83 18:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It still covered almost all of Florida and Maine with TS-force winds. That's probably more than Katrina by itself, ignoring the entire coastline between Florida and Maine. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 23:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Maria's report

It's now out. Not downgraded. A few minor changes (minimum pressure changed from 960 to 962), but the most interesting part is how intense it was after becoming extratropical - 962 mbar! CrazyC83 16:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Added it in the references. What's surprising about the extratropical storm is, with a pressure of 962 mbar, it still only had 75 mph winds. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 16:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That is very surprising indeed - 962 mbar suggests winds around 110 mph... CrazyC83 16:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Beta

What do you think prediction wise? He seems to the Major hurricane left out.All i am wondering is did he do more or less than Stan.Your opinions? Oh and shall i add Beta to the major landfalling hurricanes?HurricaneCraze32 20:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It didn't make landfall as a major hurricane. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 20:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.Even though i also ask for a prediction (dont have to do it).HurricaneCraze32 20:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Philippe's report

It's now out. No changes to its track or intensity, but we learned something new: it was actually formed and embedded WITHIN an extratropical cyclone, a la The Perfect Storm. CrazyC83 18:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Count down beings just 10 more reports left!!! tdwuhs

Interesting. I thought that couldn't happen? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded Maria and Philippe track maps. — jdorje (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Monthly Global Summary

Gary Padgett's Monthly Global Tropical Cyclone Summary for September 2005 is out. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Zeta a Hurricane?

From the seventh paragraph of NASA Earth Observatory News: "While never a threat to land, tropical storm Zeta formed on December 30, a month after the official end of the season, tying 1954’s Alice as the latest-forming storm. Briefly reaching hurricane status, Zeta became the first storm to ever survive so long in January, before it finally dissipated on January 6." (my emphasis) Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm confused, but also skeptical. They call Cindy a tropical storm in the first paragraph. They also cite 14 hurricanes even though, if Zeta had been a hurricane, the number would be 15 (or 16 with Cindy). —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 00:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I must say, even though Zeta had only max. winds of 65 mph, it had a preassure of 994 mb. And Cindy had a preassure of 992 as a hurricane. Who knows what's true?Icelandic Hurricane 00:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Formerly extratropical systems tend to have lower pressures at lower wind speeds. Delta had a minimum pressure of 980 mbar but was only a tropical storm. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 01:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Delta is questionable - that is one that could be upgraded IMO. CrazyC83 04:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

TCR citations

I changed the TCRs to use {{web reference}}. Interestingly, the date on the Jose TCR is wrong (it says January 2005). — jdorje (talk) 05:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Stan and Tammy Reports

Are out: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2005atlan.shtml --Ajm⁸¹ 19:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, this really answers no questions about Stan. They even used the confusing phrase "cannot be directly attributed to Stan", implying that the 2,000+ deaths might be indirectly attributed to the storm (which I doubt is what they meant). As for Tammy, all we know is that it caused less than $25 million in insured damage, but it says nothing about how much less. — jdorje (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, I'd count the 1,000-2,000 as indirect deaths but related to Stan. It was clear that Stan played a role in their formation, but it wasn't its own circulation. Also it has been found that Tammy itself was not a feature when the new system caused the flooding in the Northeast; it was a larger extratropical low that absorbed Tammy (and later TD22).CrazyC83 20:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The TCR does not say that they are indirectly the result of stan. Saying they're not directly the result is not the same (it could just be a coincidental phrase that happens to use the word "directly"). However without any further guidance I'd say we might as well treat those deaths as indirect. — jdorje (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That's how I'd do it. The flooding alone would warrant an article notwithstanding Stan, and the media and other reports classify the deaths as related to Stan. I remember that when it was Tropical Depression Twenty, the circulation reached over Central America before it crossed into Mexico, which would mean that Stan at least made a bad situation worse. CrazyC83 20:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we can safely say that, at the least, Stan brought a great deal more moisture into the devastating system that caused those 2,000 deaths. I don't think any number of deaths can be directly attributed unless they were due to winds, but we should call the deaths indirect. After all, that's how we do tornadoes and such (right?) —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 23:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That's correct. Any death remotely related to the storm is considered to be attributed to the storm, just not necessarily direct. Direct deaths are those based on its direct impacts - its storm surge, winds, inland flooding, high ocean waves from the storm or tornadoes within the storm itself (not a spun-off system). 03:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Deaths from a spin-off system are not indirectly or directly caused by the system. Indirect deaths are those caused by the system, just not by its weather (surge, winds, rain, and waves). Weather that just happens to be nearby does not count as indirect. And we can't carry causality too far: you can't say that Rita's 100+ "indirect" deaths are indirectly from Katrina, even though without Katrina there wouldn't have been a "Rita panic" and those deaths would not have happened. — jdorje (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I quote from Wilma's TCR:

"Twenty-two deaths have been directly attributed to Wilma: 12 in Haiti, 1 in Jamaica, 4 in Mexico, and 5 in Florida.

Damage was reported to have been very severe in portions of the northeastern Yucatan Peninsula, but detailed information from Mexico is not available. This dealt a major blow to the tourist industry in that area. There was major flooding from storm surge and/or wave action in portions of western Cuba. In southern Florida, damage was unusually widespread, including numerous downed trees, substantial crop losses, downed power lines and poles, broken windows, extensive roof damage, and destruction of mobile homes. Wilma caused the largest disruption to electrical service ever experienced in Florida. Media reports indicate up to 98 per cent of South Florida lost electrical service, and Florida Power and Light reported outages in 42 Florida counties. A preliminary amount of total insured damage compiled by the Property Claims Service is $6.1 billion. Using a doubling of insured losses to obtain the total damage gives a current estimate of Wilma’s U.S. damage to be $12.2 billion."

There's no mention of the 40 indirect deaths in the entire report. This seems like a reasonable precedent for counting those 2,000 deaths as indirect for Stan. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 00:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Rita: Category 2 at landfall?

Looking at how Katrina was downgraded with minimal evidence of winds, I wonder if the same will happen with Rita, to a 110 mph Category 2 storm? I can't find any land data that suggests winds over 110 mph...although nothing is available in Cameron Parish (like Plaquemines with Katrina). CrazyC83 21:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That would really screw with our intro. — jdorje (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think it should be downgraded (neither did I think Katrina should have) but I think there is a chance it could be. CrazyC83 23:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I still say its a three Jrc0028

I don't think it will be downgraded, the wind readings were as much as 100 mph several miles away from the center. And look at Dennis, its landfall intensity stayed the same. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 00:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

What references?

For each storm there are three possible references:

• The NHC advisory archive.
• The NHC TCR.
• The HPC advisory archive.

Which of these sources should be referenced? Does it just depend on what information is put into the section, or do we aim for completeness? Currently all storms that have a TCR reference that instead of the NHC advisories. But we still give the HPC advisories for these storms, even though they are unlikely to have any data we include and may also be superceded by the TCR. So should we just reference the TCR? Or both? Or all three? — jdorje (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Reference the TCR first, the advisory archive only if the info is not in the TCR. I say we should still give links to the NHC/HPC advisories with each individual storms, but not too useful here. Keep a link to the main list of NHC and HPC advisories. --Golbez 08:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Delta Report

It wasnt upgraded to hurricane... Jamie|C 13:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Can't see it - the NHC site is down... CrazyC83 15:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I got, added to references. Not much to speak of. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 15:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I still think Delta was a hurricane - it's hard to get data though when it is in the open sea. The pressure was too low for the intensity (980 mbar suggests about an 85 mph storm). The damage in the Canary Islands was also consistent with a Category 1 hurricane. It also says this: Based on the ragged eye (Figure 5), and on the 60-kt ship report in what would normally be the weaker side of an east-northeastward-moving tropical cyclone, it is possible that Delta reached hurricane strength for a brief time on 27 November. However, the data are not conclusive enough to justify an after-the-fact upgrade. CrazyC83 16:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Franklin's Report

it wasn't expected that it was a hurricane! how shocking... http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2005atlan.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.236.13 (talk • contribs) 15:55, February 15, 2006 (UTC)

I guess they found some ships passing through the storm or something, since unlike with Cindy, they had no land data to work with... CrazyC83 16:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not there. Mike H. That's hot 16:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh please. The troll again. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 16:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Just ignore him(her). Memicho 01:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Retirement Thought

Since they wont use greek letters any more-you think we should consider Alpha-Zeta Retired?HurricaneCraze32 19:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

They won't? --Golbez 19:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

So I see. I say no - they could always add them to future main lists. --Golbez 19:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a big doubt on that one.HurricaneCraze32 20:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not conclusive that they won't use greek letters anymore (at least not based on the brief news summary referenced in the article). And no, changing the naming system is not the same as retirement; we don't consider Able/Baker/Charlie/Dog/... retired either. — jdorje (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This is Alpha's 2nd Use-he killed 42.You think that would deserve retirement.Tropical Storm Alpha=42,Hurricane Emily=14.HurricaneCraze32 20:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Alpha was a tropical storm, Emily at least a Category 4 hurricane. Big difference. CrazyC83 22:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think if any of them get retired it would Have to be Beta Jrc028 15 February 2006

and that happens alot in haiti alot (death wise) Jrco28 15 February 2006

I don't think any of them will get retired, personally. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 00:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I personally think that Zeta might be retired for being only the 2nd cross-over storm. Fishhead 12:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh... right. They didn't even retire Alice for being the first. The only Greek storm that has the slimmest chance of retirement is Beta, and even that is a <10% chance. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 14:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure they want to retire Epsilon after all the annoyance it caused! Jamie|C 22:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

List of Records Broken by the 2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season

Hi Guys - My name is Cory Pesaturo and I ade the List of records that is currently being fixed up so it can later be "officially" put on the Main "2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season" site. I was wondering if any of you guys can help me with it because I don't know how to put links and sources and the many things Wikipedia wants me to do before it becomes an "Official" article

 Thanks - 

   Musically and Snowily - Cory Pesaturo