Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Featured Article?

What do other editors think about bringing this up at WP:FAC? It looks ready; we have all of the reports, even the unnamed storm, and any additional radical changes will be made to subpages rather than this page itself. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 27 April 2006 @ 00:47 UTC

There might be another change. Given that every storm has an article, the information is a little repetitive, so I was thinking that the storm section should be removed. In its place, I think that Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Rita, Vince, Wilma, Alpha, and Zeta should be mentioned, with some statistics there. Maybe that's too extreme, I don't know, but it's just an idea. No need to freak out about it, a simple no way is fine. Hurricanehink 01:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

There needs to be at least some sort of mention about every storm in the article, otherwise it would be incomplete. The Statistics sub-article needs a bit of love, but I'd say this one is ready to go. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. Well, otherwise, the article is probably pretty close. Hurricanehink 01:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Titoxd here, when the assessment was done the only criticism was "the difficulty of finding one individual storm in the summary". The only way that could be improved beyond what is here already would be to remove the monthly headings and restore individual storm ones, and that would need a custom ToC probably.--Nilfanion 10:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the original reason they were removed was because they were longer than the rest of the article put together, which was a definite problem. The bolding has, I think, improved the ability to find ifnormation about an individual storm, so the issue has been addressed. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 27 April 2006 @ 15:33 UTC

I still wouldn't be that upset to see the storms section turned into a well-formatted, concise table. In this instance, a table might be preferable over paragraphs, in my humble opinion. --tomf688 (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Eh, on second thought, I don't really know. I'd say just leave the storms section as-is and go ahead with the nomination. --tomf688 (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Given that there is consensus on this being ready, I'm nominating it for a featured article. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL. We thought of the same thing at the same time. :P Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 20:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Double LOL. You edit conflicted me to the nomination reasons. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what hink said on Apr27 at 1:33, excepting that Zeta should be replaced by Gamma. Gamma has a lot more notabilities then Zeta:

Zeta: Formed Dec.29 just before Alice, lasted longer in January then any system in the Atlantic.

Gamma: 41 deaths (7th deadliest of the season), 18M in damage,Odd formation, missed status in tracking, a lot more notable.

Storms that deserve mention are:

1) Cindy- 320M is enough for mentioning, upgraded

2) Dennis- 4-6B damage,reitred,89 deaths

3) Emily- Cat5,550M,not retired Cat5

4) Katrina- Obvious

5) Ophelia-Odd long track

6) Rita- Obvious

7) Stan- Obvious

8) Vince-Too many records to count for

9) Wilma- Obvious

10) Alpha- 43 deaths (6th deadliest)

11) Beta- 7th major hurricane, only major hurricane with Greek letters.

12) Gamma- as mentioned.

13) Delta- Rarities

14) Epsilon- Uncertainities in forecasting.

Whats the record for most annular hurricanes in 1 season? We need a top deatha and a top fatalities of 2005 chart.

Rank	Storm	Fatalities	Rank	Storm	Fatalities	Rank	Storm	Fatalities
1	Stan	1662+	7	Gamma	41	13	Cindy	3
2	Katrina	1605+	8	Emily	15	14	Ophelia	3
3	Rita	119	9	Tammy	10	15	Bret	2
4	Dennis	89	10	Twenty-Two	10	16	Arlene	1
5	Wilma	62	11	Jose	8	17	Maria	1
6	Alpha	43	12	Delta	7

Rank	Storm	Damage	Rank	Storm	Damage	Rank	Storm	Damage
1	Katrina	75000+	2	Wilma	16-22000	3	Rita	10000
4	Dennis	4000	5	Stan	1-2000	6	Emily	550
7	Cindy	320	8	Delta	143	9	Ophelia	70
10	Jose	45	11	Tammy	30	12	Gamma	18
13	Arlene	11.8	14	Bret	9	15	Alpha	5
16	Gert	5	17	Beta	Severe	18	Maria	Unknown

HurricaneCraze32 17:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

These tables would be more suited to the statistics article, or possibly a revised list.--Nilfanion 20:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Storm list has to go or get revised badly.Oh and any word on Beta damage?HurricaneCraze32 21:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

There's really no need for the winds on that list, or the storm number, or even really the rank number (people can count). Frankly, it's ugly. Just use the style on List of retired Atlantic hurricanes. No news on Beta's damages, and we probably won't get anything more than "severe". —Cuiviénen, Monday, 1 May 2006 @ 22:20 UTC

On Beta's damage I am going to hold out hope that when the WMO publishes the session report there is something useful.--Nilfanion 22:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, try this page: User:Cuivienen/List of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms. The total number of direct deaths for the season is 1,842. The total number of indirect deaths varies by what you count. —Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 2 May 2006 @ 01:21 UTC

And it is featured now. Congrats, and thanks to everyone who has contributed to this article. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Those tables should include the 0-death and 0-damage storms as well below... CrazyC83 02:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As long as the text in each section comments that many storms caused no damages or no deaths, I don't think they need to be included. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 4 May 2006 @ 13:58 UTC

Templates at top of talk page

Is it normal for there to be this many? It does take some scrolling to actually get to the discussions, especially on smaller screen resolutions.--WolFox (★Talk★) ^Contribs 18:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

A lot of things happened in this season so it's going to be longer than normal, that's just how 2005 was! ~ Silence_Knight

Everyone's done so much at this place-many peer reviews+ rank+Wikiproject tag-no choice.HurricaneCraze32 19:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually noticed this a while ago and tried a test in my sandbox ("TalK:2K6AHS Archives Test")...what do you guys think? It's sloppy right now but it might work. -- RattleMan 23:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Umm... now it is an FA... is the "Good Article" superseded? --Nilfanion 23:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

FAC comments

Good work with the FAC; sorry I wasn't around to help out. I have a couple of comments about the FAC discussion (linked at the top).

• U.S. hurricane damages, when listed as "adjusted for inflation" by the NHC, are actually adjusted using GDP deflation which multiplies by the relative per-capita GDPs of the nation at those years. Thus, the request for an analysis of storm damages adjusted for GDP is already done (assuming you mean per-capita GDP: I think that's what the NHC uses). Of course this won't help when comparing damages in other nations.
• Saying reliable records go back to 1965 is overly simplistic. I would argue reliable (by today's standards) records only go back about 5 years. Some 2005 storms like Vince and Subtrop 1 may not have been recognized decades ago, even with the help of satellite records. The NHC only started naming subtropical storms ~3 years ago; in 1992 they knew so little about hurricanes they were fully 25 mph off in the estimation of andrew's strength. That said, the HRD's re-analysis is extremely comprehensive, and fairly reliable records go all the way back to 1851 (ironically the period from 1965-1990 may have the least accurate records, since the re-analysis has not covered that period yet).
• I agree we have to do a better job giving a short definition of semi-technical terms (landfall, extratropical storm, subtropical ridge) embedded in the articles they are used in.

— jdorje (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Chart i made

Here you are.

Top fatalities of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season
Rank	Hurricane	Fatalities
1	Hurricane Stan	1620+ (80-100)
2	Hurricane Katrina	1602+
3	Hurricane Rita	119
4	Hurricane Dennis	89
5	Hurricane Wilma	62
6	Tropical Storm Alpha	43
7	Tropical Storm Gamma	41
Main article: 2005 Atlantic hurricane season

Will this work the impact sections of those 7 articles and the main HurricaneCraze32

I don't see the need for it. Sorry, but it's fairly redundant. Hurricanehink 15:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well at least brighten things up-or how about the other 2 which i fixed.HurricaneCraze32 19:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Spanish storms

I found some really useful information (in PDF format) for Hurricane Vince (2005) and Tropical Storm Delta (2005) on the Spanish INM site: Vince and Delta. I can't utilise it however - the lack of knowledge of Spanish is a real nuisance.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Good thing I'm a Spanish native speaker. :) I'll see what I can add. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Qué guay (<-- si eres de España), Titoxd. Yo sé un poco. I translated a little bit already; that's all I have time for (credit myself and Google Translate)—

Considerations on Hurricane Vince: His effects on the Iberian Peninsula.

This work has the objective of briefly analyzing a single atmospheric situation associated to the first hurricane that has formed in an Atlantic zone near the Iberian peninsula. Some of the effects will be described briefly of when this system, already very weak, penetrated the southwestern peninsula.

—BazookaJoe 21:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No, soy de México, y se escribe güey. :P The Vince report is very heavy on the Storm history but does't really have much info on Impact; however, the Delta report has very nice windspeed tables, and it says that 10-minute sustained windspeeds at Izaña were 50.4 m/s, or 112 mph. That makes it a Category 3 hurricane, so does someone else consider this a bit... interesting? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ummm... SSHS is defined in terms of sea level windspeeds. The astronomical observatory is at Izaña - its 2400 meters above sea level, that is a big difference...--Nilfanion (talk) 22:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, missed that. I saw the "10 meters above the surface" bit, but I didn't consider that the surface was not at sea level. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL, it's great to know spanish. Someone could create a section entitled "Potential for Hurricane status". The National Hurricane Center mentioned the possibility with the banding eye and a ship report of 70 mph on the weaker side of the hurricane. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi-Hola I am from Mexico so I obviously know Spanish, I can translate, etc... just tell me if you need something ;) Memicho 20:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Unnamed Subtropical Storm article

How come this storm doesn't have an article? ~Silence_Knight

Not enough info. We are treating it like a tropical depressions, which don't get articles either. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Besides, what would we call it? CrazyC83 21:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Unamed Subtropical Storm (2005).HurricaneCraze32 13:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Category 1 Record

I took a list for the past 55 years, 2005 should hold record for most category 1's.

2005=7 (Cindy,Nate,Ophelia,Phillippe,Stan,Vince and Epsilon)
2004=2 (Gaston and Lisa)
2003=3 (Claudette,Danny and Erika)
2002=1 (Kyle)
2001=3 (Gabrielle,Noel and Olga)
2000=4 (Debby,Florence,Gordon and Joyce)
1999=0
1998=3 (Ivan,Lisa and Nicole)
1997=2 (Bill and Danny)
1996=3 (Cesar,Dolly and Marco)
1995=3 (Allison,Noel and Tanya)
1994=2 (Chris and Gordon)
1993=2 (Floyd and Harvey)
1992=1 (Charley)
1991=1 (Eight)
1990=5 (Bertha,Josephine,Klaus,Lili and Nana)
1989=4 (Chantal,Erin,Felix and Jerry)
1988=1 (Debby)
1987=2 (Arlene and Floyd)
1986=3 (Bonnie, Charley and Frances)
1985=4 (Bob,Claudette,Danny and Juan)
1984=3 (Hortense,Klaus and Lili)
1983=2 (Barry and Chantal)
1982=1 (Alberto)
1981=3 (Dennis,Emily and Katrina)
1980=4 (Charley,Frances,Georges and Karl)
1979=3 (Bob,Gloria and Henry)
1978=2 (Cora and Kendra)
1977=4 (Babe,Clara,Dorothy and Evelyn)
1976=3 (Candice,Gloria and Holly)
1975=2 (Blanche and Faye)
1974=1 (Gertrude)
1973=3 (Alice,Brenda and Fran)
1972=2 (Agnes and Dawn)
1971=4 (Two,Beth,Fern and Irene)
1970=2 (Alma,Ten)
1969=6 (Blanche,Gerda,Holly,Ten,Seventeen and Martha)
1968=4 (Abby,Brenda,Dolly and Gladys)
1967=4 (Arlene,Doria, Fern and Heidi)
1966=4 (Becky,Celia,Dorothy and Lois)
1965=2 (Anna and Elena)
1964=0
1963=2 (Cindy and Debrah)
1962=0
1961=1 (Jenny)
1960=2 (Abby and Cleo)
1959=5 (Three,Cindy,Debra,Flora and Judith)
1958=2 (Fifi and Janice)
1957=1 (Frieda)
1956=2 (Anna and Flossy)
1955=1 (Gladys)
1954=3 (Alice[1],Florence,Alice[2])
1953=1 (Gail)
1952=2 (Dog and Easy)
1951=2 (Item and Jig)
1950=1 (Love)

Well?HurricaneCraze32 13:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

What about before then, especially in 1933? Icelandic Hurricane #12 14:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Suprisingly, only 2 cat. 1's in '33. Icelandic Hurricane #12 14:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

33-2, 1887-5.HurricaneCraze32 23:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Forecast verification

The NHC has released its forecast verification for the 2005 seasons here (PDF). The figures at the end are interesting, the graph on page 49; which shows the intensity verifcation for non-landfalls says it all with the official 120 hour forecasts being completely unskilled. Its worth noting that in general 2005 was easier to predict in terms of track and harder in terms of intensity (the number of cat 5's is a major factor there). Katrina was the "average" storm in terms of the forecast quality.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Global warming

What about the theory that this record season was caused/influenced by global warming? Brutannica 06:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Per the Tropical cyclone article, unlikely. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You might want to check your own source. The article states that while the number of hurricanes was probably not influenced by global warming, the intensity was. This season set records not only in number of hurricanes, but in number of strong ones and amount of damage caused. Dbinder (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that global warming is an issue for tropical cyclones in general rather than any one season in particular; as that artile states, no one individual event can be attributed to global warming, only trends. It is best discussed in the tropical cyclone article, as above. —Cuiviénen on Wednesday, 7 June 2006 at 23:59 UTC

Bravo !

This article really shaped up very well! I frequently read this article during the season, and it became quite messy due to the high storm frequency. While this departs slightly from the format of other season articles, this was done properly due to the nature of the season. So hats off to all the contributors who turned this from a short novel to a feature article! —Twigboy 14:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article in its present form is neither better than it was before or worthy of featured article status. bob rulz 02:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Quit complaining! There is hardly any pages on this site that have gone under so much work. Enjoy. Bravo everyone!Hopquick 21:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIV, please. NSLE _(T+C) at 05:32 UTC (2006-06-03)

Hurricane Stan

Why is hurricane Stan missing from the brief list of most destructive hurricanes in the beginning of the article, then described as being one of the two worst of the season a few sentences later. If there is a reason, it should be made clearer. 67.51.147.201 14:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Global Warming?

Why isn't there anything about global warming in this article? That is what's causing all these climate changes.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aaadreri (talk • contribs) 19:30, Jun 1, 2006 (UTC).

Global warming may or may not be responsible for an increase in tropical cyclone strength/activity, as is mentioned on tropical cyclone. However, it doesn't have anything to do with any specific storm or season; remember the 1933 Atlantic hurricane season is the second most active.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

one year here, one there, is not serious analysis. a graph of every recent year with data available would be a start.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.76.99.106 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC).

Which is exactly my point here. A graph of multiple years implies not a topic for one year.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And don't forget that 1997 was one of the least active seasons on record, and that was only 9 years ago. Has there been that much global warming in 9 years? Needs more proof. --tomf688 (talk - email) 01:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

again, I don't think citing one here there(97) and here(05), is a sign of any serious analysis. it'd be a start to make graphs of all available relevant data for all recent years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.76.99.106 (talk • contribs) .

First of all, please sign your posts. Second of all, that all depends on how far back "Recent" is. This much I can tell you - hurricane cycles tend to run about 40 years. You have 40 years of increased activity, then 40 years of quiet. I would wager that the period between the mid-60s and 2003 was the quiet period. Sure, there were massive storms in there - Andrew, Mitch, Gilbert, Allen. But they were mostly isolated incidents; note that Andrew was one of only 7 storms in 1992, and the only major one. Mitch was one of only three major storms in 1998, Gilbert was one of only three major storms in 1988 (and one of only 5 hurricanes, out of 12 storms total). Allen was one of only two major storms in 1980, out of only 11 named storms. So even the years with tremendously powerful storms were otherwise extremely quiet.

What did this cause? Development. My mother grew up in Miami and Ft. Lauderdale in the 50s and early 60s, and she remembers hurricanes striking almost (in her child's eye) every week. It happened a lot, is what I'm saying. But then it stopped. Fun fact: Do you know how many major hurricanes struck Florida between 1979 (David) and 1992 (Andrew), a span of 13 years? ZERO. So, ever since then, Florida has had *massive* development. Same with the gulf coast - after Camille, they had a long period of relative quiet as well.

Between 1992 (Andrew) and 2004, do you know how many major storms struck Florida? Zero. Again. Andrew was a fluke.

And then the storms came again. In 2004, three major storms struck Florida. In 2005, we had four category 5 storms, and though none struck Florida (I use Florida as an example for two reasons - it's a common target, and it's very easy to see on a map whether a storm hit it), it was still more than we've ever had.

Two years are no evidence for global warming when you can look back on the previous 40 years and see no increase whatsoever. So I would say the 40 year cycle started last year. Enjoy your ride. --Golbez 16:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Good points, but don't forget Opal (1995). It made landfall on the FL panhandle as a Cat. 3. --Spiffy sperry 14:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

And you forgot Wilma - Cat 3 in FL?--Nilfanion (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's a good question for analysis - how many major hurricanes have there been in each year of the past 45 years? --Golbez 16:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Check out Accumulated cyclone energy - the next to last column in the table ("MH") gives the answer, although it's not sorted by year. --Spiffy sperry 14:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

There have been some excellent studies of this sort ofthing done over the years. As best most researchers can tell, a primary driver in Atlantic tropical cyslone activity is something called the "multi-decadal oscillation" which drives sea-surface temperatures up and down over a period of decades. Since 1995, we have been in an "active" phase of the oscillation. In the 70's, 80's and early 90's, we were in a quiet phase. There is no good reason be believe that in another decade things will not have quieted down again. However, global warming may influence how quiet the "quiet" phase is. Also, one extremely overactive season does not prove a global warming signature, no matter what you want to believe. IMO, there are plenty of sound indicators of global warming around at this time. There is no need to grasp at straws to make the point that climate change is real and that it is a problem. --EMS | Talk 16:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Error

"ties for the number of storms forming during October with 1950, as seven storms (Stan, Unnamed Subtropical Storm, Tammy, Vince, Wilma, Alpha and Beta) formed during that period."

is an error-only 6 storms formed in October 1950.(How,Item,Jig,King,12 and Love).HurricaneCraze32 19:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You're correct. It seems that on April 11, you updated the list to include the unnamed storm, but didn't change the text from "tied" to "broken". By the way, the above quote is on the stats page. --Spiffy sperry 14:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

A new trend in tropical and global climate?

2005 will go down as the year of Hurricanes: 38 named tropical cyclones and 26 hurricanes, along with the very disasterous Katrina, and strong ones Rita and Wilma. 18 of these storms made landfall, 3 subtropical types went onto Europe where unusual hot summers took place and 6 postseasonal storms to have Greek letters, after NOAA ran out of names. This seems scary alright and what it could mean is global climate change, if not a temporary warming trend is a sign of what's to come. The 2006 hurricane season just started two months ago and currently, Tropical storm Chris is over the Bahamas about to become a hurricane and the storm heads west to Cuba, but what if Florida won't be as lucky? The article stayed on the topic of hurricanes, but should there be a small discussion included on whether global warming or sudden changes in ocean temperature is going to make the 2005 season to repeat itself forever? The risk of Atlantic hurricanes is higher, more stronger and frequency rates with a prolonged duration of the hurricane season, and let me add the U.S. Gulf and Atlantic coasts are more populated than in the past, so look out for more fatalities and damage costs. Meteorologists believe this may be the year when a category 3+ hurricane will strike the Northeast, with New York city a direct hit and New Englanders are due for a Wilma-like "perfect storm". I wonder that'll impact the southwest U.S.(see Eastern Pacific Hurricanes) where a tropical storm appears over the deserts or So. cal. Coast now and then, but the cold California current has warmed this past decade and the likelihood of a stray hurricane to land on California is unheard of. Then I have to admit we're entering a new "hot age" and we may have to prepare as much we can for more category 5 Katrinas slam onto the New York-New England region, or subtropicals with Greek letters on New Years' day. --Mike D 26 06:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's more of an argument for tropical cyclone, which does talk a little bit about this. However, it is also a bit of a stretch to say the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season will repeat itself, because the 2006 season looks normal so far. Titoxd^(?!?) 07:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Damage and Death Total As of Now

My calculations come out to 107.4 to 115.4 Billion (calculated 2 diffrent ways).3907 (2240 direct) deaths currently. Shall i edit that in?HurricaneCraze32 16:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No. WP:NOR. NSLE 17:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

How's that supposed help me?HurricaneCraze32 18:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Giving the damages to 4 sig figs is too much anyway. The damage of Katrina isn't certain to the nearest billion so giving it to that level of accuracy is misleadingly precise.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Unused Greek Names

Should we not put theese on as unused ? 87.74.89.61 15:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I say no, because they were not on any original list; they were a backup. Letters A to W (except Q & U) are provided before the season has started, but the Greek letters were introduced as an emergency procedure once the original list was exhausted. Pobbie Rarr 21:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

New poster

This was on NOAA's Images [1]- Its a poster of the 15 hurricanes of 2005-can it go anywhere?MitchazeniaBob Barker's Retiring... 22:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Too low-res IMO. – Chacor 05:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)