Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Dennis (the Menace?)

Since it is imminent that there will be land issues and there will be quite some to say, I think we should move the Dennis information to a new article, Hurricane Dennis (2005). (Not the main article yet, since that would be wait-and-see what it does in the Gulf - a Category 1 hurricane making landfall rarely gets retired unless it does strange things). Anyone agree? CrazyC83 6 July 2005 15:45 (UTC) (was 24.226.10.99)

I personally see no reason to make a (2005) article - if it still requires a year differentiator, then there's no reason to remove it from the year page and give it its own article. --Golbez July 6, 2005 15:49 (UTC)

I'm just thinking about the standard used last year, and that it won't interrupt the disambiguation page until Hurricane Dennis clearly becomes worthy of the main article (if he threatens as a major hurricane or appears likely to do great damage, then that is when the change should be done.

After all, what happens if Dennis hits Jamaica and Cuba as a strong tropical storm or Category 1 hurricane with moderate damage, but does NOT strength in the Gulf as expected and only makes landfall as a minimal hurricane? Two good examples of "jumping the gun" by the media were Bertha in 1996 and Bonnie in 1998 - both were quite threatening but weakened somewhat and neither were retired. Still, we should play a wait-and-see. CrazyC83 6 July 2005 15:57 (UTC)

Without tying us down to "criteria", I'll yield - a major hurricane in position to hit land should get a year-diffentiated article, and if it's clear it will be retired, move it to the main name article. However, this one is still a tropical storm, so ... also, we simply don't have enough information for a standalone article. Look how thin the narrative is. --Golbez July 6, 2005 16:03 (UTC)

Just to put it out there, how menacing is Dennis right now? It's still a tropical storm and we only have a vague idea of what he's going to do (nothing good, probably).

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 6 July 2005 17:33 (UTC)

We'll know how menacing he is soon - remember, Jeanne was but a tropical storm when it killed 3000 in Haiti. Also, Discussion 6 states that some models anticipate it reaching 121 kt, 139 mph. The official forecast of 100kt is acknowledged as a conservative figure. This is gonna be the first monster of the season and it's only early July. Gulf impact in 120 hours. --Golbez July 6, 2005 18:00 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a crystal ball. We can wait until we're reasonably sure it needs a page. -- Cyrius|✎ 6 July 2005 21:34 (UTC)

Jeanne was actually an 80 mph hurricane at landfall in the Dominican Republic. It also was very lethargic at that time, thanks to a weakening Ivan. Ivan blew apart the trough that was fueling Jeanne's stearing currents. This left Jeanne stranded on Hispaniola without a ride, much to the chagrin of a couple thousand Haitians. At this point, Dennis could do just about anything. But it's not like we can do much about it. We can pack up and leave town and that's about it.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 7 July 2005 01:14 (UTC)

OK, the Keys are being evacuated. The rule has typically (well, I've only been doing this for one season, but it was one dilly of a season) that storms only get articles if they are likely to be retired (Ivan, Jeanne, Frances, Charley), or if they are otherwise notable (Alex's northerly strengthening, Adrian's hit on Central America). I can't say right now Dennis is going to be a retired name - a lot of storms have hit the USA without being retired - but since we went four-for-four last year on hurricanes being retired, you can forgive me if I'm a bit punchy. Sure, it's a little self-centered to think about giving it its own article once America is in danger, but then again, it was going to cause lots of damage to Haiti and Jamaica, then this is about the time we'd give it its own article anyway. (Ivan deservedly got one earlier for beating the crap out of Grenada) Anyway, what I'm saying is - I think it's time we gave it its own article. All we're missing is a nice satellite image. --Golbez July 7, 2005 20:06 (UTC)

I was bold. --Golbez July 7, 2005 21:26 (UTC)

Can someone explain this?

From the article:

The season has gotten off to an unusually quick start, with two tropical storms forming in June and two in early July. The naming of Dennis on 5 July made it the earliest date on record for four named storms to have formed in the Atlantic basin. The previous record was held during the 1959 season, when Hurricane Cindy was first declared a Tropical Storm on 7 July (since 1959's third storm was unnamed, the fourth storm that year was given the "C" name).

What I don't understand is how the 1959 season is relevant? I mean, Cindy was not the fourth named storm, so how does it apply to "the earliest date on record for four named storms to have formed in the Atlantic basin"? --timc | Talk 8 July 2005 20:00 (UTC)

Naming conventions back then were different, and occasionally a storm would reach what we know as "named storm strength" (39 MPH or greater) and not be officially named. 1959 was such a case, where the first two storms were named Arlene and Beulah... but the third storm was only numbered (#3), even though it reached the proper wind speed threshold to become a Tropical Storm. Thus, the fourth storm to meet the criteria was given the C name - Cindy. Perhaps an edit to what you quoted would make it clearer, though... but I can't figure out how to word it. The Great Zo 8 July 2005 20:03 (UTC)

I think Timc is confused here. The Cindy we are refering to in that paragraph is Hurricane Cindy of 1959, not Tropical Storm Cindy of last week.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 8 July 2005 22:01 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't confused about that. I was confused about the existence of a "named storm" which did not have a name. Seems pretty odd to me. IANAM(eteorologist) --timc | Talk 11:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Should say "tropical storms" and not "named storms" due to the occasional unnamed storm, and the complete lack of naming in years past. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Tropical depressions

I'd say TDs should be given a place in the storms section, even if they don't become named storms (just for future reference). --tomf688^(talk) 21:48, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I like the format that was on the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season page, where we listed all tropical depressions that didn't develop into tropical storms at the bottom of the page, below all of the other storm summaries. bob rulz 22:29, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'm starting to worry that there won't be any that don't develop. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Just from memory, the last time that happened was 1996... and it's a rare event when it does occur. If I'm still feeling statistician-like a little later on perhaps I'll look it up. Will also shortly be updating that page I made to reflect Emily shattering the old fifth-storm record. The Great Zo 03:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Well junk, that's what happens when I don't do my research first! 1998 and 1996 were indeed the last two years it happened. However, I did try to go look it up and realized that from the early 1990's on back, there are no records of ANY Tropical Depressions at all. Anyone know a reason for that, or a place I can find full records - if they exist? The Great Zo 04:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Records do exist, they just aren't very good. The NHC site has some and some are listed in the Monthly Weather Review.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 21:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Checked through everything I could find on the NHC site... as well as Unisys, WUnderground, USA Today, the HURDAT re-analysis stuff, and assuredly a few others... and it looks like the data from depressions which did not strengthen into tropical storms is completely unavailable from 1994 on back. From 1995 to the present, that information is fairly readily available at a number of locations.

The Monthly Weather Review articles you spoke of did discuss the depressions that developed into storms, in each storm's section. Only in the recent years have those articles added an addendum to the end to discuss un-developing depressions. The Great Zo 22:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Check here: [1] I clicked on 1994 and got all the tropical depressions right off the bat. Looks like that prior to 1990, they only did the tropical depressions that affected land. You should be able to find all of them from 1990-1994 though.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 17:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Checked out the link, and I've seen that before too. Looks like 1991 and on is when they started listing depressions separetly. Not much I can do in terms of statistics, for this, since I've only got 14 years worth of data to work with before 2005. Two out of the 14 years featured all depressions turning into storms - but there's no way to get that stat from '90 on back. Thanks for the link! The Great Zo 03:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Question about the Naming List

The list for hurricane names on the National Hurricane Center website is as follows: Arlene Bret Cindy Dennis Emily Franklin Gert Harvey Irene Jose Katrina Lee Maria Nate Ophelia Philippe Rita Stan Tammy Vince Wilma

What will happen if the unlikely yet possible situation exists where the season surpasses Wilma? What names will they use for X, Y, and Z? why does it stop at Wilma while many of the other lists listed at here: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutnames.shtml stop at Z? Revolución 03:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

If the alphabetical list is exhausted, they start over at the top of the Greek Alphabet. The 22nd tropical cyclone would be Tropical Storm Alpha. Q, U, X, Y and Z are not used since there are not many names that start with those letters. CrazyC83 04:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Is there a source for this? -- Cyrius|✎ 05:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/tropics/tc_names.htm - one site I found, though it's mentioned on many. The Great Zo 16:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll believe it when I see it actually happen...er...uh oh. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, what few names there are that do begin with X, Y, and Z, are used for the Eastern Pacific list, which typically has more storms and DID exhaust its 24 name-long list in the 1992 season. However, they use only two names of these letters; you could consider those names to be their own list used every other year, with the other 21 names used every six years. --Golbez 04:44, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

They did exhaust it, but there were no more storms after the 'Z' name was issued, so they never had to come up with more names.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 21:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

"The season has gotten off to an unusually quick start"

Okay, this is definitely not NPOV (what constitutes "unusually quick": subjective observation!)? But I know I've heard this before, and it's probably right, so does anyone have a source we can cite for that observation? 141.222.46.43 14:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm surprised. This sentence compares the history of other Atlantic seasons and notes that the number of named storms has increased "unusually quick." How is that POV? Marginally, you could call this original research, but not POV. Awolf002 15:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The research I've done (which has, to this point, also been stated by the NHC) suggests that "unusually quick start" is certainly valid. While my research is "original research" which we can't use in its entirety in the article, my sources are cited and as long as a source like the NHC agrees as we go along, some of the things can be posted in the article. "Unusually quick" may sound subjective but it can be backed up by the facts of how quick the season has spawned 3, 4, 5 storms. The Great Zo 15:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Anyone smell troll? --Golbez 17:47, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's valid, hardly trolling IMO.

Maybe just a language change would help. Because the "season" has a fixed start date, saying the season started quickly is imprecise at best, and "unusually quick" is even more subjective-sounding -- not that we don't know what it means, but let's be more precise.

How about: "Hurricanes formed unusually early in the season..." or something similar? DavidH 17:58, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

How is "unusually quick" subjective observation? If 10 seasons in a row start with one storm in August, and one starts with five storms in July (not exact situation, just forming an example), how would it be remotely POV to call that "unusually quick"? It's an objective assessment - the season started quicker than usual, and it was very unusual how quickly it started. --Golbez 18:45, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I commented only on improving the wording for clarity and precision -- storms (hurricanes, major hurricanes, whatever) formed earlier in the season than is typical, not just "the season" started quick(ly). Not commenting on POV at all. Stats to back it up would be best. Comment on the suggested change? DavidH 19:03, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I guess we could sanitize all language, but I prefer a little flowery prose now and then. --Golbez 20:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Quite, it's a simple statistical observation based on 150 years of hurricane records. This season has not followed the usual pattern of storm formation. It is not usual. It is unusual. The way in which it has not followed the pattern is by having storms form earlier. It is quick. It is "unusually quick". -- Cyrius|✎ 19:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I get that it's unusual...but still we can try for precision. The season did not start "quick", any more than winter or spring can start quick(ly). The snow can come early in winter. The storms can form quickly in the early part of the season. It doesn't change the start (date) of the season. The wording seemed a bit confusing is all. NBD (no big deal) and thanks for the feedback. DavidH 23:48, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I think I see the problem. You're focused on the official start/end dates as "the season", where we're looking at when the storms actually form. Remember that the start/end dates are merely semi-arbitrary markers, and hold no actual sway over hurricanes, which cannot read calendars. No, June 1 did not start quickly. But describing the rapid development of several storms earlier than they normally do as the season starting quickly seems perfectly straightforward to me. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Finally! I get what was meant by the "season started quickly." It just sounded confusing for average readers. A quick start is kinda irrelevant too. By that measure, 1992 was a really dull season, all the way til Aug. 24 before the "A" storm hit. DavidH 06:20, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

And after A, it had a slow, uneventful death, which makes it an unusually late starting season; what's your point? It's irrelevant as far as individual storms go; Alex last year was a late start, and was nothing compared to Andrew, while no storm has been as intense as Dennis this early. What's wrong with mentioning such things? --Golbez 15:34, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

1992 was a really dull season, except for Andrew. It also started late. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

My point, just to discuss, like the page says. Wondering what everyone's particular interests are -- weather science, history, social aspects of hurricanes? Like to hear all perspectives. Thanks for the feedback and for all the contributions to storm articles. DavidH 19:45, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

How about a template?

I wondered if people think it would be a good idea to have a template for the foot of the seasons and storms articles? I imagine something like this (with the list of named storm articles completed of course!)--Keith Edkins 8 July 2005 09:41 (UTC)

Hmmm...sounds like an idea. However, I would definitely shorten the list of notable hurricanes and place only the most powerful and well-known hurricanes on there (Allen, Mitch, Audrey, Janet, Ivan, Andrew, Camille, Gilbert, etc), because otherwise the list would become way too long. bob rulz July 8, 2005 10:10 (UTC)

Is it possible to "bunch" the upper section of this into decades (with the exception of the current one). That would make it a bit nicer, I think. Awolf002 8 July 2005 14:16 (UTC)

How about a succession box, like this: (Note the current year would be bold and black on the actual page)CrazyC83 8 July 2005 17:57 (UTC)

The year box is terribly large for little added value, and the "notable named storms" will get just as overcrowded as the standalone article. The succession box uses more space for less information than the current setup, and the "notable storms" bit seems absolutely redundant in the article. I say leave it the way it is. -- Cyrius|✎ 8 July 2005 21:57 (UTC)

No. Please no. That's far too big, and it implies the years have anything to do with each other. It also has an arbitrary cutoff. The 5 year range box we have at the top of each season is sufficient, as is the List page. Please don't do this. We don't need a "succession box" at the bottom, either. Again, the 5 year range box performs both duties beautifully. --Golbez July 8, 2005 23:05 (UTC)