Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Redirect?

Should Hurricane Maria really redirect to the article page? There was a Tropical Storm Maria [1] in the 2000 Pacific typhoon season. Perhaps we could rename all of the Hurricane Blank disambiguation pages to Tropical Storm Blank since in the Northern Hemisphere tropical storm is used in all basins. Michelle T 16:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Ooh, we're back to 2000 typhoon season. I didn't know older seasons were being worked on, that's good. Just give it time and I'll get to it eventually. And that naming issue is worth discussing, that's a good point. --Golbez 16:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane Maria should redirect to 2005 Atlantic hurricane season - since it isn't a hurricane in the Western Pacific, and as a forgotten fish-spinner, it definitely isn't worthy of its own article (there is no Impact section to fill it up enough, and fish-spinners almost never get retired unless they sink ships and kill thousands). What could be done is Tropical Storm Maria could be a disambiguation... CrazyC83 16:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Personally I'm starting to lean towards having a linked disambig page, so yes, Hurricane would redirect to the dab as well. But this is a minor quibble at this moment. I'll look at it over the next few days. --Golbez 17:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. Redirect Hurricane Maria to Tropical Storm Maria, and make that a disambiguation page. There is no naming conflict because most if not all typhoons and hurricanes start out as tropical storms. Michelle T 17:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

But should this be global? i.e. if a name was only used in the Atlantic, then should the dab page be TS or H? --Golbez 17:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I would suppose it should be Tropical Storm Blank if was used in the Atlantic and/or the East/Central Pacific, unless all storms with that name became hurricanes. In that case, Hurricane Blank could be the disambig page. But in the future, it may be necessary to rename it. If it is used in basins with different terminologies, like Maria is, it should be Tropical Storm Blank because Tropical Storm is a global term, whereas Hurricane and Typhoon aren't. Michelle T 18:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

If there is only one possible interpretation of Hurricane Maria thus far, why redirect to the disambiguation page instead going directly to the most likely intended meaning? A person looking for Hurricane Maria certainly won't be looking for Pacific Tropical Storm Maria, although the other way around is possible. We could do one of those "x redirects here. For y_description, see y." notes. AySz88^-^ 21:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Tropical Storm x should be the global disambiguation page. Hurricane x should be the season redirect, the storm link for a single major storm (i.e. Rita) or the basin disambiguation page (that we have now). Here is an example:

Tropical Storm Noname - global disambiguation (if necessary), linking to the following:

Hurricane Noname - for Atlantic and Eastern Pacific storms
Typhoon Noname - for Western Pacific storms
Cyclone Noname - for Indian Ocean and South Pacific storms

Each of those second-level pages would do one of the following:

Disambiguate to multiple storms of that name
Link to the season (if only one, non-notable storm of that name)
Link to the individual storm (if only one notable storm)

CrazyC83 16:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

There's also an issue of names of storms for other basins. Maybe as many as half of the atlantic names are also used in the NW or SW Pacific, and this needs to be disambiguated somehow. My suggestion is that Tropical Cyclone Maria be the global disambiguation. Other articles (Tropical Storm Maria, Hurricane Maria, Typhoon Maria [2] etc.) can redirect wherever seems appropriate, but remember that if we redirect to a season article there's not much chance for a reader to find their way to the disambiguation. And I know that none of the Pacific articles exist yet...but eventually they will. Jdorje 16:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Oops, sorry CrazyC83 I didn't read what you wrote closely enough. I agree with you entirely. Tropical Storm redirects to Tropical Cyclone so either of those would be suitable prefixes for the global disambiguation. Those in the Atlantic probably would be more familiar with Tropical Storm (though people might try to correct it if all the storms involved are full hurricanes); dunno about those in other basins. Jdorje 16:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Another Greek question

If Greek names are indeed retired if they cause enough damage, besides in future years, what happens to the other basin, considering both the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific basins use Greek names? --NSLE | Talk 03:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe this falls under the category of "a solution waiting for a problem". This is a hurdle that they don't need to expend brain power solving until it becomes an issue. --Golbez 04:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The two basins are done independently of each other. It is not unprecedented for a name to be retired in one basin and still in use in the other (Hilda, for example, was retired from the Atlantic lists but is still in use for Pacific cyclones). B.Wind 04:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on the Greek alphabet mentions Phoenician equivalents - perhaps that could be a solution. KP 15:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, what is the likelihood of a retirement that late in the season? Do November and December hurricanes often get retired?? Devahn58 05:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane Lenny, one good example. -- NSLE | Talk 06:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane Mitch, despite the fact that it formed in October, also lasted into early November. bob rulz 06:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention one that should have but didn't, Hurricane Gordon in 1994... CrazyC83 22:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget Hurricane Michelle, named the first day of November, 2001.157.30.140.120 02:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The 1995 season had two October hurricanes two later got their names retired: Opal (which actually got its name in September) and Roxanne. B.Wind 05:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention that we may be in greek letters in October. --Holderca1 12:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Five storms would be the most active October on record, would it not? --69.86.16.61 13:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe so (the current record IIRC is 4 storms in October - 1995 and possibly a few other seasons). CrazyC83 15:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Am I missing something? The archive dataset appears to show 6 storms forming in October 1950 - How, Item, Jig, King, Love and an unnamed system well to the east. And in October 1870 (for what this reconstructed data is worth) it shows 6 storms forming which all became hurricanes!--Keith Edkins 21:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

My thought for the solution in case a Greek letter gets retired: first, use the four obsolete letters. Since this could be a once-in-a-lifetime event (or at least will be difficult to match - only 1887, 1933, 1969 and 1995 came close and except for 1995, they may have had one or more get away from them unnoticed), they should last a long time. CrazyC83 16:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Like you said this might be a once-in-a-lifetime event so why not just use the rest of the alphabet? Q, U, X, Y,and Z? Instead of Greek letters. For myself I think it would be nice to have a storm name Quinton, Yasmin or Zack then Alpha, Zeta or Omega. But that's my opinion. User:tdwuhs

I agree, but the Greek stuff is the system that we have set up now. That may change, but we stand where we stand.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 19:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Total Damages vs. Economic Impact

Hurricane Katrina DID NOT destroy $200 billion worth of property. That estimate was of economic impact. I brought it up in the Hurricane Katrina talk page and I'll bring it up here since most of the more rational people seem to hang out here (and I hope to God that they stay). I've lost count of how many times I've reverted that stuff. It's getting just slightly aggrivating. I'm not exactly sure what to do about it.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 02:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

So was Andrews 25 or so billion $'s in damage economic impact or property damage? Fableheroesguild 03:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Hold off until after the season when the NHC releases its official reports. Then make the changes and provide a link right next to it. Proceed to revert anyone who changes it back (I'll help out on that as well), and it will end up staying the way it should be. --tomf688^{talk} 03:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Fable, Andrew's (and everybody elses) is property damage. The total cost lists property damage and I believe it should stay that way. Tom, impatience is a terrible thing. :) Seriously, you bring up a rather good point.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 03:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Economic impact isn't counted. Insured property damage is, and that's what we go on, times two. --Golbez 04:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Roughly yes. I always create a range, starting at about 150-160% of insured damage and going up to 220% or so. However, major flood disasters (i.e. Katrina) will likely have a higher uninsured damage than storms with mostly wind damage (i.e. Charley) due to more likely infrastructure damage and more poorer properties affected. CrazyC83 15:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I heard a news report of $34.4B insured damages from Katrina...so what will that indicate?(Shouldn't this be on the List of notable tropical cyclones talk page,where last I knew no one had imported the 2004 "wealth-normalized" list from the NHC site to replace the 2003?--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 19:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

@Crazy: The NHC/TPC knows what they are doing; I'm sure they will account for the situation and give as accurate of numbers as possible.

@Anon: If we take the usual 2:1 ratio of insured v uninsured damage, it would indicate damages of around $70 bil. But, again, wait until the NHC/TPC releases its official report before taking numbers given by the often fallible news media. --tomf688^{talk} 19:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems we're all agreed. I stand firm that the Hurricane Katrina article should be changed and revert anyone who says otherwise without an official source.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 00:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I assume the primary reason they use property damage is since it's a more solid number than, say, economic damage, which can be influenced by other events/disasters and the line is harder to draw. Plus, it's the same system they've used in all the other storms, so, for consistency's sake, we have to keep it the same. --tomf688^{talk} 02:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Vince: Tropical Cyclone or Hurricane?

The article currently says farthest north and east a tropical cyclone has formed in this basin (per NHC). Should we call it a hurricane or cyclone, given that North Atlantic cyclones are hurricanes, and the NHC is giving advisories on a Hurricane and not a Cyclone? -- NSLE | Talk 07:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

NHC said this in their 2:05 PM Tropical Weather Discussion on October 9th:

"A PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION SUGGESTS THIS IS THE FARTHEST EAST AND NORTH A TROPICAL CYCLONE HAS EVER FORMED IN THE BASIN."

So I call it a tropical cyclone. What you had was a hurricane formed in the basin, which should have been "tropical storm" or something. Just what I think. -- RattleMan 07:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Tropical storms and hurricanes are both tropical cyclones. Jdorje 07:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Can we say "storm", though? Besides, if a hurricane is upgraded from a TS, has it not "formed" in the basin? -- NSLE | Talk 07:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that saying "tropical cyclone" makes it sound more broader and more special because nothing like this has ever happened before. -- RattleMan 07:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Tropical cyclone is the general name for the things called hurricanes in the Atlantic and typhoons in the NE Pacific. However, it doesn't imply any particular wind strength, just a closed surface circulation surronding a warm core, with lots of rain. So, call it either... though as it reached wind speeds sufficient for a hurricane, you'll be more precise if you call it a hurricane. Tompw 10:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

That I know, I was just wondering as I had changed the article to read something along the lines of "Vince is the farthest north and east a hurricane has ever formed", although indeed tropical cyclone is also correct. I still think we should use "hurricane", though. -- NSLE | Talk 10:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

What the NHC is saying is that this is the fartherest east and north that even so much as a tropical depression has formed. Never mind that it started out as a tropical storm and then became a hurricane. My suggestion if to write. "This is the fartherest north and east that any tropical cyclone (i.e., tropical depression, tropical storm, or hurricane) has formed".

BTW - I agree that the title of this storm is Hurricance Vince. --EMS | Talk 14:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we are completely missing the fact that tropical cyclone is the general term used to describe a warm-core cyclone with a closed circulation that has winds of at least 30 mph (25 mph in some people's books, I'm not completely opposed to that opinion). Vince technically qualifies for both records. Hurricane Vince is its official designation based on its estimated intensity.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 00:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that what you have summed up is the point being missed. However, this is the first that I have heard of there being a minimum lntensity for a topical cyclone. As a practical matter, the system cannot sustain iteself once the winds get too light, but officially I do not belive that there is any minimum at all. --EMS | Talk 02:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Nothing beyond a reasonable number (Absolute minimum 10 mph in my book, others may have a different opinion). Officially, you're probably correct. Wind speed is in fact one of the lesser factors in determining if a system is a tropical cyclone or not. Warm-core and closed circulation are the key things. Maintaining deep convection (the most damaging parts of the storm, the elements under the white mass you see on the sat imagery or central dense overcast), is also extremely important.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 03:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I sure as heck can't remember when, but I do know that I've seen 25 MPH advisories for active Tropical Depressions on very, very rare occasions. The Great Zo 13:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

This is like saying "Ford says this is the best car they've ever made, should we call it a 'Ford car' instead of a 'Ford sedan'???" I'm a little dismayed that so much virtual ink has been spent discussing such a non-issue. --Golbez 14:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)