Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13

Greek characters

Should we put in the Greek characters (α β) next to the Greek names? --WolFox 05:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

No, they're not in the official advisories, nor names. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 05:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Ah, but we use them in the button bar.--WolFox 05:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Ah, but "A" and "B" are already used ;) -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 05:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

template design

the template designs look pretty good! Well done! But, there is a problem. There are just letters there. People who look at the article will not know which hurricane is which. Sure, i can get it (well most of it anyway), but not everyone knows which numbers are names of hurricanes. So therefore an idea is to show the full names. ----

Which will just make it large and confer no further information. A link to the season page has been and continues to be sufficient. --Golbez 09:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

ok, i understand that. I mean one like this. This is a template from the c64 (commodore 64) article. And in case you can't find it at first, it's at the bottom. And colour can be added later to it. ----

Too-long storm sections (again)

I don't know how but Arlene and Cindy have grown to be too long. Probably Tammy too. Do we need separate articles for these storms? I condensed the sections for the storms that do have separate articles, but this now means some of the lesser storms have more info than the big ones. Jdorje 16:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Alpha needs to be shortened --Revolución (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • hmm, somebody shortened it right as I said that. --Revolución (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the length of Arlene and Cindy is perfect. Nothing is left out, and it explains everything we need to know about these storms. If only all landfalling storms were was well fleshed out, and there's little fat in either that I can see. --Golbez 21:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Tammy's probably could be shotened a bit. All the sections with main articles need to be shortened considerably. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 02:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


Reports are coming in very slow for Beta, but this is the information I have gotten so far from news reports, in regards to human casualties (for more info on damage, check Hurricane_Beta#Impact regularly:

  • At least 30 people are reported to have been injured during Hurricane Beta's wrath on the island of Providencia.
  • 10 boaters are reported to be missing in Puerto Cabezas.

--Revolución (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

News reports now saying four missing and one injured in Nicaragua. --Revolución (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

There's a new image of Hurricane Beta at NASA. Maybe the current one (which is B&W) can be replaced by this one that fits with all the other ones. I know someone likes to lighten all the borders, so I will leave this one to them. Good kitty 05:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Done. --Holderca1 19:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Radical Reorganization

Well, after all this stuff about trimming things down and getting rid of information and what storms should have their own article and such, I got an idea for a major reorganization of the format of these hurricane seasons. Remembering that Wikipedia is not paper, who really cares whether every storm gets an article, as long as a better, appropriate, from-scratch summary is left behind? Since we're living through these events and have all this information at our fingertips, there's no reason why we can't include all the stuff people might possibly want to reference in the future. There should be several levels of detail depending on what is desired - the season summary at the top of the season article, the storms' summaries in the context of the season article, the individual storm's summary, and the storm's article. There have also been complaints that the length of the article is too long. One might as well move everything to other articles, leaving only the most important bits. This also avoids loss of otherwise fine information. I propose the following:

The yyyy Oceanician hurricane season article has just bare bones:

  • An introduction of only the most important few events, like currently.
  • A table containing statistics, such as maximum strength, minimum pressure, number of deaths, maximum wind speed, duration, ACE, landfalls, etc. Symbolically, like an expanded version of the navigation bar.
  • One column in the table with a couple-sentence to one-paragraph very condensed summary for each storm.
  • All other information about the season beneath this table, or summaries with details in another article (i.e. [[Forecasts for the yyyy Oceanician hurricane season]], [[Records set by the yyyy Oceanician hurricane season]])

Every named storm of the season has its own article i.e. [[Storm xyz (yyyy)]] :

  • A navigation bar, symbolically a mini version of the aforementioned statistics table (though in practice not much different than the current bar).
  • An introduction of what we currently have as the "summaries" (more text than numbers, like Arlene)
  • A main text detailing storm development, dates, times, pressures, winds, categories, deaths, etc. This can probably include more liberal use of numbers and dates and details, like the last few sentences of Irene.

Improvements/comments/lynchings? Feel free to copy/paste and edit this.

AySz88^-^ 03:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that if we could make an article that was more than a stub of two or so paragraphs for every named storm, we should do it. Unfortunately, I don't think that there IS that much to write about every storm. And also, and more importantly, I think the majority of the storms that COULD have articles would be neglected and left with stubs. I also don't think article length is a problem, as we've got it well-divided into sections. Also, some people have said that the current format is overly technical, well.. to expand the info we have, we've need to make it even more technical. So I don't think that this plan would work out very well. Although I wish it could. --Patteroast 05:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia is not paper - but that doesn't mean we should make articles about every single weather system. Why stop at cyclones? I hear there might be tornadoes this year. Remember - We are a reference work, not a comprehensive journal. That's what the TCRs are for. I generally disagree with this shift for two reasons - One, I generally disagree with the shift, and two, you'll have to change several hundred season articles and make several thousand storm articles. And no, I don't think we need that. Most of these storms aren't notable. Period. Even if the NHC named them. --Golbez 06:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
It should be noted that implementing this doesn't necessarily imply going back to every single season and doing it for all of them - I mean, beyond a certain year in the past, you already stop getting annual articles and get decadal articles. Heck, this could just start next year with the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season. As for the last couple sentences, getting rid of the notion that a named storm has to be "notable" (a very subjective word) for an article is part of the point (I'm using the "article" more as an organizational bin instead of some special status), so it's a little off-track to argue that they shouldn't get articles because they're not notable. Also note it's really just a reorganization of information that will have been existing or will have had existed (i.e. the history of "current" information over a storm's lifetime) - there's not much demand for additional stuff except maybe statistics to plug into tables.
"Getting rid of the otion that a named storm has to be notable"? So we're going to start having articles about non-notable things? --Golbez 06:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
(Why are my comments always getting broken up into pieces by replies?) The sentence was partly against the subjectivity of "notable" and partly against allowing the notion of "notability" get in the way of better usability. AySz88^-^ 06:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree that success would depend on whether the articles get enough treatment. But really, there's how many of us looking at a storm during its whole lifetime, 10 or 15? Also, I think it's specifically noted somewhere that a "full article" can consist of only a few paragraphs - articles don't have to be long to be full. AySz88^-^ 06:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

October summary

Does anyone find this to be odd? They said the official death toll for Stan was 100. Also in the detailed portion they said:


I always thought hurricanes cause torrential rains. --Holderca1 19:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I think they're saying other storms move in at the same time Stan did, and those may have caused the landslides, not Stan. They're just being conservative I think. The TCR will have the full info. --Golbez 19:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
The real number will likely never be known. After all, some bodies were probably decomposed in the mud and they will have a hard time confirming them - or even finding them. As for the direct/indirect figure, I'd expect almost all (if not all) of the deaths to be directly associated with the storm, as it was a mudslide disaster primarily. CrazyC83 00:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Economic Effects Paragraph

I propose adding the following paragraphs to the article in a new section, perhaps after the storm summaries. It is mostly a rewrite of part of the season summary, as well as parts of some of the storm articles. This would also entail removing the paragraph of the season summary section that starts "The level of activity this season has had..." This is what I propose adding:

This season has had far-ranging economic consequences. The economic effects of Hurricane Katrina have been particularly important.

The damage estimate from Hurricane Katrina alone makes this season the costliest season in history, with total damage estimates reaching 100 billion USD. Wilma and Rita are also among the costliest Atlantic hurricanes. This has caused large payments by insurers. However, as insurance companies buy reinsurance to spread the risk around, they are not likely to be threatened with bankruptcy.

Rita and Katrina also damaged crude oil production in the gulf. Due to the low overhead of additional global capacity for petroleum production, and the vulnerability of both oil extracting and refining capacity in the Gulf of Mexico, storms have led to speculative spikes in the price of crude oil. The damage to refinery capacity in the United States caused gasoline prices to soar to prices, when adjusted for inflation, exceeded only by the two inflationary spikes of 1918-1920 and 1979-1982. Governments worldwide tapped strategic reserves of gasoline and petroleum as shortages were reported in the days after Katrina in areas heavily dependent on the Gulf of Mexico for refined gasoline. These elevated prices remained for weeks after the storm. Rita also damaged exploratory wells, leading to concerns that future production would be dampened for some time to come.

Hurricane Wilma disrupted the sugar and citrus fruit industries. Wilma’s damage to fruit trees could have an impact for several growing cycles, compounding problems caused by last year’s season. Florida’s sugar industry was hard hit, as the harvesting had already begun and had to be halted indefinitely. Damage to sugarcane crops was critical and widespread.

Tourism has also taken a hit. Katrina caused heavy damage to New Orleans, disrupting its tourist industry. Mexican tourist havens Playa del Carmen, Cozumel, and Cancún all suffered significant damage from Emily and especially Wilma, causing a major loss of tourism revenue for some time to come.

Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 22:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I like it. It's a summary of the entire season, rather than the current practice of summarizing each storm's individual effects. Jdorje 04:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


The top of this article has the worst layout, I changed it earlier today to make it more presentable but it was reverted. Right now, the infobox sits alone at the top with a huge amount of white space. The text then begins at the bottom of the infobox, then the ToC and Saffir-Simpson scale box throw everything off as well. --Holderca1 03:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

What screen resolution are you using? There is no giant white space for me using 1024x768. Oh, you mean the white space between the ToC and the SSScale (Saffir-Simpson Scale)/active infobox? It's not that big for me, and I just quickly scroll past that with the PgDwn key. (for those interested in looking at Holderca1's version, here it is) -- RattleMan 04:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I just fixed it again before seeing this. There is a huge block of whitespace for IE - the season statistics table is on the right with nothing on the left, and then, below that, the season summary text appears alongside the Saffir Simpson Scale. AySz88^-^ 05:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Ah, at second glance, it appears Holderca1 went a step further. (I am still of the opinion we should just kill the automatic ToC in favor of something more compact.) AySz88^-^ 05:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

H-O-L-Y COW. I am using Firefox, and just looked at it in IE as you said - WOAH. That's some huge rendering difference! I didn't know you were using IE, Holderca1, sorry. We have to fix that! -- RattleMan 05:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I thought I was losing my mind or something. I am using 1024x768, but wouldn't have thought IE and others would render the pages that much differently. What does it look like on Firefox when the ToC is floated? I see no problem in creating a custom ToC to help out the layout of the page. --Holderca1 13:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Here's how your ToC-floater version looks in Firefox: [1]. A difference between the two is that in Firefox the SSScale is pushed down to right next to the "In early October, the relatively weak Hurricane Stan..." sentence, while in IE the SSScale is right under the Wikinews thing. -- RattleMan 21:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm, that is interesting, I wonder why it moves the SSScale down that far. --Holderca1 23:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Earliest-formed storms

Here is my proposal for a table format. I'm not sure how it should be integrated with the structure (headings). Jdorje 05:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Rapid formation of storms in 2005
Almost every storm in 2005 has set a record for rapid formation. Below are shown the dates on which each storm formed, and the old record for earliest-forming storm of that number.
From the NHC "best track" data [2]
Storm # Formation Day Name Old record Difference
1 June 9 Arlene January 19, 1978 +141 days
2 June 28 Bret May 17, 1887 +42 days
3 July 5 Cindy June 11, 1887 +24 days
4 July 5 Dennis Cindy - July 7, 1959 -2 days
5 July 11 Emily Danny - July 16, 1997 -5 days
6 July 21 Franklin August 4, 1936 -14 days
7 July 24 Gert August 7, 1936 -14 days
8 August 3 Harvey August 15, 1936 -12 days
9 August 7 Irene August 20, 1936 -13 days
10 August 22 Jose Jerry - August 23, 1995 -1 day
11 August 24 Katrina August 28, 1933/1936/1995 -4 days
12 August 31 Lee Luis - August 29, 1995 +2 days
13 September 2 Maria September 8, 1936 -6 days
14 September 5 Nate September 10, 1936 -5 days
15 September 7 Ophelia September 16, 1933 -9 days
16 September 17 Philippe September 27, 1933 -10 days
17 September 18 Rita September 28, 1933 -10 days
18 October 2 Stan October 1, 1933 +1 day
19 October 5 Tammy October 25, 1933 -20 days
20 October 9 Vince October 26, 1933 -17 days
21 October 17 Wilma November 15, 1933 -29 days
22 October 22 Alpha none N/A
23 October 27 Beta none N/A

Here are my own calculations for storms 1, 2 and 3 that I put in Zo's October 2 subsection of the hurricane research project (doublecheck them to be sure):

  1. 1st Storm - 132 days behind
  2. 2nd Storm - 43 days behind
  3. 3rd Storm - 25 days behind

-- RattleMan 05:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, but what storms and seasons are they from? The first storm isn't Hurricane Alice is it? I think that would be wrong (Alice should be part of 1954 not 1955.) Jdorje 06:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

This is what I get from the HURDAT data:

01: 01/18/1978 SUBTROP 1
02: 05/17/1887 NOT NAMED
03: 06/11/1887 NOT NAMED
04: 07/05/1959 CINDY
05: 07/16/1997 DANNY
06: 08/04/1936 NOT NAMED
07: 08/07/1936 NOT NAMED
08: 08/15/1936 NOT NAMED
09: 08/20/1936 NOT NAMED
10: 08/22/1995 JERRY
11: 08/26/1995 KAREN
12: 08/27/1995 LUIS
13: 09/08/1933 NOT NAMED
13: 09/08/1936 NOT NAMED
14: 09/10/1933 NOT NAMED
14: 09/10/1936 NOT NAMED
15: 09/16/1933 NOT NAMED
16: 09/27/1933 NOT NAMED
17: 09/28/1933 NOT NAMED
18: 10/01/1933 NOT NAMED
19: 10/25/1933 NOT NAMED
20: 10/26/1933 NOT NAMED
21: 11/15/1933 NOT NAMED

Note that this conflicts with what's in the table now in a few places; this needs closer analysis (for instance in #5 it's because 1997 has a subtropical storm that's not mentioned on the season article but is included in the HURDAT). Jdorje 09:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC) Jdorje 09:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Season Summary Section

Why is there a season summary section? I always thought that the lead section was supposed to summarize the article. Why not fold that section into the rest of the article? Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 16:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

My opinion is slightly different: the season summary is what the whole article is supposed to be about. Everything else in the article is about specific storms and should be moved into separate articles. (But I agree, having a "summary" section isn't right; this area should be changed to "storm history" or something). Jdorje 19:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
So you think we should have seperate articles for Tropical Storm Lee and Tropical Depression Twenty-two? --Holderca1 21:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Why not? Then you wouldn't have to scroll past their summaries on the main page to get to the interesting text. If nobody is interested in reading it anyway it shouldn't be on the main page. Jdorje 23:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I am going to have to strongly disagree with this one. First off, what is the point of creating an article for Tropical Storm Lee if it is going to be a permanent stub? Second, the storms are what make the article, without the storms, there is no article. If it isn't interesting enough to be on the main page, it certainly doesn't need to have it's own page. Most people are not going to want to click on 25 or so different pages to get the whole story here, having it all one page consolidates it nicely. If you are concerned on the length of some of them, just remove the extra fluff that is in there, a lot of the sections are way too detailed anyway. These are summaries after all. --Holderca1 04:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I differentiate between a stub and a deservingly short (but satisfactorily fleshed-out) article (i.e. Suzuki Beane, Arthur Wesley Dow, Syosset High School). I remember something in the Wikipedia namespace about the difference - however, I can't recall where it is.
I think we have very different viewpoints as to what this article is supposed to be about. An easier way to say this might be that I feel the blurb in this article should not serve the same function as a full introduction to the storm - that is not appropriate in an article about the 2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season as a whole. Currently, it seems to me that each of the blurbs is basically the introduction to a would-be article. AySz88^-^ 02:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I think it's a reflection of the many layers of detail that has ended up being represented in this article. The lead paragraph is a concise introduction which defines the importance of the 2005 season. The body of the actual article - what is currently the "season summary" - runs through the main events, going into more details about topics which were mentioned in the introduction. I share Jdorje's sentiment that that section is the real point of the article. The storm list holds additional details about individual storms. (Conceptually, I think of it as the merging of the summaries of major storms with all the mini-articles of storms that don't have their own article.) That's three layers of detail that have to be included in one article. Those layers have to be separate - removing a layer entirely and folding them into each other increases the probability of giving too much or too little information for a section to be useful to someone.
(I think there's an oddity of organization here. Because of the exponential nature of increasing the level of detail, having to take care of three of them bloats the article too much - but that seems to be acceptable if there is no way to adequately split sections away from the main article. I've already expressed my belief that each storm can already have its own article, leaving only a sentence or two behind and dropping things down to two levels of detail - probably similar to what Jdorje believes.) AySz88^-^ 21:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm beginning to agree. Jdorje 23:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I think the biggest problem with having the Season Summary separate from teh induction is the visual problem it creates. There is a huge amount of white space near the beginning of the article because the ToC, SSS and Season template all force the Season Summary section far down. This would be solved instantly by combining the Season Summary with the brief introductory blurb. In fact, I'm going to do that now, and we can argue about it later if anyone feels passionately otherwise. -- 04:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I hate to admit it, but I think every storm could use its own article. An analog to this situation could be the Beatles. Every song has an article, to why not every storm? Here is what I propose: In the 2 year period before the active year, they should have articles for all storms. 2003-2005 in this case. When the next year (2006) gets its first storm, the last year (2003) goes back to its old self, with only retired storms or extremely significant storms remaining. Because 2005 is almost done, we could do this for 2004, resulting in 9 new articles. When the year is over, those 10 articles (including Alex) become merged with the article. This allows time for interest in the old seasons for a time, yet getting rid of those articles in the years after the season is over when the interest dies down. Hopefully you understood that... Hurricanehink 23:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I also think every storm could use its own article, but I don't think this should be changed after 2 years. The idea behind putting every storm into the season article is that this makes for one medium-sized article instead of 10 tiny articles. But in the case of 2005 it makes for one giant article instead of 25 smallish articles. None of those 25 would be truly tiny (i.e., stub level) since we have at least 2 paragraphs for each storm, and will be able to get 2 pictures for most storms. Jdorje 00:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I think the articles should remain at least until we see which names are retired. Its a pretty good bet that there will never be more Hurricanes Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Rita, Stan, and Wilma (and maybe Beta). Maybe they will retire Vince since it is noteworthy. Who knows? It'll be another six years before the other articles conflict with other named storms (except TS Alpha, which could happen every year).Good kitty 05:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
It is not looking like Beta will get retired, it's been a week now and no reports of fatalites which is great news. --Holderca1 14:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. The storm needs to be notable for it to have an article. The main page is for the storms of 2005. When people go there and just see links to subpages (bad, bad, bad!), they go "Wow, this is stupid!". People don't like being lead on a leash. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 03:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Please explain further? What would be "stupid", and what would make them feel they're being "led on a leash"? (And the articles, of course, won't necessarily go to subpages.... Although Jdorje might have used subpages when he built his example, that doesn't mean they'll have to be in subpages in the real, final product.)
I'd expect someone coming to "2005 Atlantic hurricane season" to want a general overview of the season, not only the storms of 2005 or a list of the individual storms' summaries? AySz88^-^ 03:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Awesome, since we have both! And every other season is designed in such a fashion, and it worked all last year. --Golbez 03:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I really don't follow what you mean by that (what are you responding to?). My bit was in response to a possible meaning of Brown's post, because he doesn't seem to like having the "summary" bit at all (?).
(Similarly, I'm going to try to guess at what you meant and respond to that.) The full summary of each storm of the season is inappropriate in this article because that crams three (not two/"both") full levels of detail into one article. Most articles seem to have two levels - an introduction and a rundown of details about what was mentioned in the introduction. If there is so much information that a section needs to be recategorized into a third level, that section is split away into another article, leaving a brief(er) summary behind (see the logic behind Hurricane Katrina article --> Local effects and aftermath --> the "Impact of Hurricane Katrina on..." articles). However, we seem to be putting three levels into this article and trying to pass it off as two - the introduction and the summary of the season is already two levels, not one. Then there's the third level, the list of summaries of each individual storm. There is simply far too much detail to fit the season into this one article about "2005 Atlantic hurricane season", even if you selectively split articles away. AySz88^-^ 02:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
If you really want to make an article for EVERY storm, here is one exception that should be made: Tropical Storm Tammy and Subtropical Depression Twenty-two should redirect to the Northeast Flooding of October 2005 article, with both mentioned there. CrazyC83 20:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
The problem seems to be that each individual storm does not seem to have enough text. As some kind of compromise, perhaps do something like "August 2005 Atlantic basin tropical storms" or "Early-October 2005 Atlantic basin tropical storms", if too-short article length is a problem? AySz88^-^ 02:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

ACE index section

I really don't like how the ACE section says that this years ACE index understates activity. ACE doesn't measure activity or impact to land; it is an estimate of kinetic energy dissipation. By saying the ACE understates activity (storm numbers/impact/whatever), we imply that ACE has anything to do with activity, which it doesn't. It is about seasonal intensity. Anyone else have thoughts?--Mm35173 15:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

ACE does have something to do with activity. Here are some averages for you to munch on:
  • Seasons with 0-5 storms (4 seasons) - average ACE = 28
  • 6-10 storms (24 seasons) - avg ACE = 68
  • 11-15 storms (24 seasons) - avg ACE = 133
  • 16 and up (4 seasons) - avg ACE = 195
--Holderca1 19:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree a rewrite is needed. I agree ACE doesn't measure impact to land. It does measure activity but in a way that gives a high weighting to duration. An alternative measure Emanuel's power dissipation index uses wind speeds cubed (instead of squared) which gives more weighting to wind speeds and less weighting to duration. Just because the weighting is different doesn't mean that ACE is wrong and over-rates duration. Here my first stab:

The tropical storms of 2005 ranked from highest to lowest ACE, given to three significant figures. The total for the season up to and including Hurricane Beta is 218. This would place it 4th in the list of most energetic seasons since 1950.

ACE measures the strength and duration of a tropical cyclone. It may, at first, appear odd that 2005 has more tropical cyclones than any other season and several of the most intense hurricanes while only being 4th in ACE index. The reason for this is that duration of hurricanes play an important role in the calculation of ACE. Only three long-lasting Cape Verde hurricanes - Maria, Irene, and Emily - formed, a lower number than in other seasons of similar activity. This effect is most obvious in the comparatively high ACE value of Hurricane Emily (also 2004's Ivan's ACE of 69.95) to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: Emily was not as strong as either storm, but formed out in the Atlantic and made a long trek across the Caribbean Sea before making landfall whereas Katrina and Rita both developed in the Bahamas, close to the mainland, and lasted for much shorter periods of time. A further example is Ophelia (only Category 1) which has high ACE because it maintained itself for a long period of time and was slow to build and dissipate. There are other measures such as Kerry Emanuel's Power dissipation index which give less weighting to duration.

crandles 21:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

In the long run, it shouldn't matter. The only people who care about ACE are those who either work for a weather bureau, meteorologists, and people who contribute to the Wikipedia hurricane articles. If we're writing this simply for ourselves (and not the masses), then it is best omitted. B.Wind 20:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Tammy and TD22

Should those two storms redirect to Northeast Flooding of October 2005 with clear linkages back and forth and strong mention on that page (becoming a double-main article in essence)? CrazyC83 21:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Now there's an interesting idea. Maybe if we make a plain, blatant reference in the lead/summary here, we could redir here, but this is worth discussing. Or maybe they should redirect there, with an obvious link back here. Huh. --Golbez 21:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
The interesting thing about Tammy is that it never even came close to New England, it dissipated over the Florida panhandle and the northeast Gulf of Mexico. The HPC only issued one advisory for Tammy with rainfall amounts for the southern states. Tammy just pulled up a lot of tropical moisture to help fuel the storms in the northeast. --Holderca1 21:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Come to think of it, the storm summary mentions that new advisories were issued on October 8th for Tammy in the northeast. There is no mention of who issued them, it wasn't the NHC or the HPC. So it's anyones guess. --Holderca1 21:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
That's because they were National Weather Service flood watches and warnings. Tammy merged with an oncoming front. That front stalled out just offshore of the southern coasts and right over the northeast. TD22 slammed right into it and made the whole situation even worse. Once Tammy merged with the front, it was no longer a tropical system. 22 was actually a massive non-tropical gale area when it clashed with the front. Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 03:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)