Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about 2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics. 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 1 | Archive 2 |
Creating template version of large table
I am now working on a template-driven version of the large table. The templates are listed in category:tropical cyclone statistics templates. Please note that this effort is under contruction. I am announcing it partially to forestall anyone else doing the same type of thing in parallel with me. I hope to complete the package over the weekend. The test page is user:ems57fcva/sandbox/TC table.
This has two advantages that I can see:
- It will make it easy to constuct other tables of this type.
- It will permit experimentation with coloration, formatting, etc.
Please let me finish re-implementing the table in the new form. I will try one color reduction (removing it from the deaths and damage columns). After I am done, others can have at it.
AySz88 - I am not sure what to think of your new pallette. It is somewhat less harsh, but in the end there still is a lot of color in the table, and I think that this is the issue for others.
To everyone: I believe that at least one primary column and one landfall column should be colored for intensity. I can see that the current format looks like a riot of color at first, but without it finding the individual storms would get harder. --EMS | Talk 05:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that a "riot of color" means too many colors with high saturation; I could have misunderstood. I had hoped the change would allow the colors to lie across the whole row while not causing users to feel overwhelmed, since the new colors were designed to be more intuitive and softer.
- Just to be clear, the palette change wasn't meant to be just for this table, but for everything (i.e. infoboxes, maps, etc.), since the old one has lots of flaws (black on red is hard to read, the eye gets too attracted to the bright blues, etc.). --AySz88^-^ 06:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- There may be value to the new pallette in regards to readability, so I don't want to cmopletely knock it. However, since I am not used to the new colors, the modified table looked like a riot of color to me. Overall, I think some experimentation is needed here. After all, I built the table to suit myself. It is now up to others to figure out how to make it really work if it does not suit them, and I am willing to support that. --EMS | Talk 16:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Template creation complete
The creation of the templates is done. The re-creation of the table is still in progress at user:ems57fcva/sandbox/TC table. If someone wants to help me with this, my advice is to start at the Delta (unless Epsilon transitions back to being extratropical soon), and work back while I contine to work forwards. As soon as this is done, the revised table can be transferred over to this article, and people can begin to play around with color and formatting schemes involving it. --EMS | Talk 05:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Try removing the color from everywhere except the Category and Landfall sections and see how it looks. - Cuivienen 03:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- The catX shouldn't have to be in the template name; you can easily add a cat=cat1 parameter to each template. Jdorje 03:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, I guess that's what you do...the other templates are just helpers. Well then, the next thing is to make sure you use the color templates (see {{storm colour cat5}}) for the colors. Jdorje 03:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- The helper templates should be in a sub-category. Jdorje 03:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
First of all, the transfer to the template-driven form in now complete. So changes to the templates will be reflect in the table as a whole. So Cuivienen, you can try the change yourself, and let's see what people think. BTW - The templates that you need to change are {{TC stats cyclone}} and {{TC stats landfall}}. --EMS | Talk 03:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- BTW - You should use bgcolor=#{{TC stats neutral color}} if you do try to reduce the extent of coloration. (Please remember that white is the category 1 hurricane color.) --EMS | Talk 04:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
To Jdorje: I assure you that I am using the color templates. However, I needed to also control the text color (as text in the red category 5 areas is more easily seen when it is white). That is why I created the cell-format set of helper templates. I assure you that the they do reference the storm colour templates. As for placing the helper templates into a subcategory: You can do that if it means that much to you. My goal in the category was to have a place where the whole set is listed. Please realize that the documentation for the set is located in {{TC stats table start}}, and that probably is a better thing to read to understand this setup (as I tried to document in the category text). --EMS | Talk 03:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Number of storms 2
Cuivienen keeps wanting to put Epsilon as a hurricane under an additional row in this table for December. This raises a number of issues in my opinion, and so I have reverted the table back. The big issue is that the description of the table states that it "gives the number of storms by month of formation and storm category". Epsilon formed in November, but did not become a hurricane until December. If the table is to be something different, then
- The text should change to reflect that, and
- There should be an agreed upon policy/description of how occurances of a storm forming in one month and continuing into the next month (with or without getting stronger in the following month) should be handled.
If this format is successful and is carried forward, this issue will need to be addressed coherently. Epsilon may be the only occurance for this year, but in other years there may be several storms that fit this bill.
Possibilities for what to do are:
- Keep the table as-is.
- Revise it to be for the month of strongest intensity.
- Count the storm in both months based on the maximal strength in each month, with appropriate notes added to the affected counts (so that people can understand why the totals do not match up)
- Count the storm in the second month only when it gains a greater intensity. Once again, notes will be needed.
Personally, I am not a fan of double-counting storms. It will only create confusion. I can live with the second option, but do not like it much. An out may be to list in parentheses the numbers of storms which formed in the previous month and remained active in the listed month. So the December hurricane count would be "(1)" instead of "1" or "0". Similarly, the tropical depressions counts for September and October would be "1(1)" for Lee as a TD (in Sept. after forming on Aug.) and for TD 19 (in Oct. after forming in Sept.). A set of descriptive notes would still be needed, but at least the numbers outside of parentheses would add up. In any case, I wonder what others think about this issue. --EMS | Talk 04:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- The main problem with putting Epsilon as a hurricane in November is that it is false. As convenient as it may be to put Epsilon in November, it was NOT a hurricane in November. - Cuivienen 19:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- Epsilon formed in November, not December. That is the rule for classifying tropical cylones by month used by the NHC, and I see no reason not to use it here. That is not to say that I am totally unsympathetic to your viewpoint, but both times that you have editted that table to reflect that viewpoint I have been left with an table that was niether self-consistent nor consistent with its own description. This is not about Epsilon in my opinion, but instead about any storm that forms in one month and remains active past the end of the month. Please note that both Lee and TD 19 did the same, for example. I want to have a rule for handling this case with a consensus behind it. Just saying "Oh Epsilon became a hurricane in December" does not cut the mustard for me.
- I gave 4 options for what to do in terms of the rule above, and just below them named an "out" that can be used in conjunction with the either of the last two options. So please stop protesting the obvious and tell me what rule you would like to use. --EMS | Talk 21:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- The real problem is not that Epsilon sppaned more than one month, it is that Epsilon was never a hurricane during November. TD19 and Lee both reached their peak strengths during their first month while Epsilon did not. To put Epsilon as a hurricane under November is quite simply factually false. If Lee had reached hurricane strength during September I would say that it should be listed as tropical storm under August but a hurricane under September. The style I used for editing did not overcount the number of storms because Epsilon was not listed as anything but a hurricane during December. I feel that the most correct possible solution was the one that I put into place when Epsilon first strengthened into a hurricane and that you have persistently reverted that makes an explicit note that Epsilon did not reach hurricane strength until December but formed during November. If you had cared to actually look at the table instead of reverting instantly you might have seen that. - Cuivienen 02:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- I did see it. I also saw the storm of category or greater part of the table not being consistent with it. I also saw totals that no longer could add up properly and required some thinking about the note. I also saw a table that no longer functioned as documented. Stop harping on Epsilon. Look at previous storm season, where this same issue would also exist for some storms. What do you propose the rule to be? What if a storm is category 1 in the first month and category 2 in the second one? What if a storm is a category 5 hurricane in one month but only a dying depression in the next one? What information do you want to give to the readers in general? Why? Currently, there is a very direct rule for specifying which month a storm is listed under, and such that it is listed only once. It may not be the best rule, but it is a solid, understandable rule none-the-less. Epsilon is a storm that formed in November and then became a hurricane. There is nothing false about its placement. Instead it is dictated by the rule under which the table exists. I can accept a change in the rule. I cannot, and will not, accept the making of arbitrary exceptions. --EMS | Talk 05:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Cuivienen - I think I have figured out what to, or at least to have the table operate in both modes. I won't describe it here since I also need to describe it in the article. Let me know what you think. --EMS | Talk 02:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
This isn't going to work
I tried to set up the modified table, with the numbers for the other way (when they are not the same as for the first way) in parentheses. This is what I ended up with:
| Month | # Storms of class | # Storms at least of class | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D | S | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | D | S | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| June | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| July | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | |
| August | 1 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| September | 1 (2) | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 6 (7) | 5 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | |
| October | 1 (2) | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 7 (8) | 6 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | |
| November | 0 | 2 (3) | 1 (0) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 1 (0) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| December | 0 | 0 | 0 (1) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 (1) | 0 (1) | 0 (1) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Season | 3 | 13 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 29 | 26 | 14 | 8 | 7 | 5 | 3 | |
Man. Is this ugly. Maybe a parallel table, without season totals, could be done. However, this chimera is not going to work. --EMS | Talk 03:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- Would it help if you left-aligned the numbers instead of right-aligned? Or am I missing some bigger problem? --AySz88^-^ 03:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- I took a look at it. That way is better, but the table overall is still a strange jumble with the second numbers in some places. I think that the real problem is that I am trying to kill two bird with one stone, and what dies in the usefulness of the table. So thanks for the suggestion, but this still is not going to work. --EMS | Talk 05:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Stan's Death Toll
Despite the fact that the other 1,000+ deaths from Stan have been said to be indirect, they are still death attributed to Stan. Of the 119 deaths attributed to Rita, only 6 were direct, yet all 119 have been counted toward the seasonal death toll. Similarly, all 1,153+ deaths from Stan should be counted towards to seasonal toll in order to maintain consistency. - Cuivienen 19:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- That weather pattern seems associated with Stan to me, but I'm not an expert. Honestly, I think the NHC is splitting hairs here anyway. It was a very wet storm in a moisture filled environment. If you look at the sat imagry, it's hard to tell which clouds are part of Stan and which are not. So I'd say the whole thing was Stan. Call me lazy, but I'm not sure it matters. That's just me. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 21:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- Whoops, I hadn't realized that the NHC was only counting "direct" deaths. I guess I agree, though I'll give some time before reverting back. --AySz88^-^ 21:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- The NHC has always only counted direct deaths in their official numbers. For example, they will always maintain Rita's official death toll as 6, not 119. Those other 1,000+ deaths counted as Stan-related sure look like they were related to me, I can't see how it would have been so bad otherwise... CrazyC83 18:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- It's not entirely clear from the end-of-season summary but it sounds like they are saying the 1000+ deaths are not due to stan at all, but to unrelated rainfall that happened in the same time and place. Jdorje 22:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- My reading of this is that the NHC is saying that most of the deaths were due to rainfall from a storm which was near Stan but not a part of it. If that rainfall was not generated by Stan, then those deaths are not a part of Stan's death toll. I think that we need to look at the issue more carefully, but my sense of this is that Stan's death toll as given by the NHC is the one we want to use. [I can see the deaths of the people in the bus fire while leaving Houston as being properly counted as indirect deaths. I cannot see counting deaths due to rains that (at least in theory) would have pounded Central American anyway even if Stan had not formed.] --EMS | Talk 02:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree.. that Stan seems highly responsible for the weather pattern. If stan was not present, that blotch of moisture would not have been sucked north [toward stan's lower pressure]. Then again, I have not studied all of meterology. SiriusAlphaCMa 09:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Reduced color extent
I have reduced the color extent in the big statistics table, so that people can see it and evaluate it. Feedback appreciated. I personally prefer it the other way, but will abide by the consensus to retain or revert this. --EMS | Talk 17:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Looks good, much less overwhelming. I like it. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- Strongly Agree :) I think it looks much better now TimL 08:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Strongly Disagree. Looks a little too kiddish to me. --24.83.116.120 03:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
When I made that previous post, the old colors were still in place. I hate these new colors with a red hot passion. Agreed with the anon now. I will not stop bitching until those colors are reverted. I hate them that much. I Vehemently Disagree with the color switch. Agree with the table format. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 20:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I am going to switch the table format back for now since the color switches are ongoing. As I indicated earlier, I prefer the saturation. However, I also think that the use of less glaring colors also helps. Besides, Wikipedia is a place where some experimentation can be done. --EMS | Talk 05:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Accumlated Cyclone Energy Rating for 10+
What i'm saying is that since the link of the ACE Rating has for storms 10+ has the 2nd decimal. The table here doesn't. So why not just add it. And also add the rating to the notable storms, Cindy,Dennis,Emily,Katrina,Ophelia,Rita,Stan,Wilma,Alpha,Beta and Gamma. For the table in statistics:
Wilma:38.62 Ophelia:16.30 Epsilon:13.42 Rita:25.19 Katrina:19.81 Dennis:18.38 Irene:12.71 Maria:13.91 Emily:32.00
And for the other storms:(adding a 3rd decimal)
Stan:2.355 Alpha: .5275 Beta: 6.59 Gamma:1.045 Cindy: 1.295
What do you guys think? User:HurricaneCraze32
- Disapprove - You are adding data but not information. --EMS | Talk 17:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Zeta's ACE Calcs
| Adv. | Date | Time | Maximum Sustained Winds (kt) | ACE (104 kt2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1* | 30 Dec | 12 pm EST | 45 | 0.2025 |
| 2 | 4 pm EST | 45 | 0.2025 | |
| 3 | 10 pm EST | 45 | 0.2025 | |
| 4 | 31 Dec | 4 am EST | 50 | 0.25 |
| 5 | 10 am EST | 50 | 0.25 | |
| 6 | 4 pm EST | 45 | 0.2025 | |
| 7 | 10 pm EST | 45 | 0.2025 | |
| 8 | 1 Jan | 4 am EST | 45 | 0.2025 |
| 9 | 10 am EST | 45 | 0.2025 | |
| 10 | 4 pm EST | 45 | 0.2025 | |
| 11 | 10 pm EST | 45 | 0.2025 | |
| 12 | 2 Jan | 4 am EST | 45 | 0.2025 |
| 13 | 10 am EST | 45 | 0.2025 | |
| 14 | 4 pm EST | 45 | 0.2025 | |
| 15 | 10 pm EST | 50 | 0.25 | |
| 16 | 3 Jan | 4 am EST | 55 | 0.3025 |
| 17 | 10 am EST | 55 | 0.3025 | |
| 18 | 4 pm EST | 55 | 0.3025 | |
| 19 | 10 pm EST | 55 | 0.3025 | |
| 20 | 4 Jan | 4 am EST | 55 | 0.3025 |
| 21 | 10 am EST | 50 | 0.25 | |
| 22 | 4 pm EST | 45 | 0.2025 | |
| 23 | 10 pm EST | 35 | 0.1225 | |
| 24 | 5 Jan | 4 am EST | - | - |
| 25 | 10 am EST | 35 | 0.1225 | |
| 26 | 4 pm EST | 35 | 0.1225 | |
| 27 | 10 pm EST | 35 | 0.1225 | |
| 28 | 6 Jan | 4 am EST | 35 | 0.1225 |
| 29 | 10 am EST | - | - | |
| 30 | 4 pm EST | - | - | |
| Total | 5.7575 |
*See Momoko's comment below.
Note that the advisory links will not work until the advisory is issued. Please update the ACE section of the article after updating these calculations. --Ajm81 19:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The first advisory does not count as it wasn't issued at a 6 hour interval. --Ajm81 19:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- According to the second discussion, the best track may change to include a point or two prior to the operational advisories. --AySz88^-^ 21:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, but we should wait for the best track/report to be out before adding those. At this time we could only guess what they would be. --Ajm81 21:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Okay then. --Ajm81 08:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- If Zeta crosses into 2006, do the ACE calculations for that part count for 2005 or 2006? CrazyC83 23:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- 2005. Based on best track data and 1954's ACE, Alice2's ACE counted toward 1954. --Ajm81 00:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
SINCE ZETA IS A RELATIVELY SHALLOW TROPICAL CYCLONE LIKE ITS PREDECESSORS DELTA AND EPSILON... THE SHIPS SHEAR CALCULATIONS ARE ALSO PROBABLY TOO HIGH WITH ZETA. SINCE THE 300 MB FLOW IS FORECAST BY ALL THE GLOBAL MODELS TO BE WESTERLY AT ONLY 15-20 KT FOR AT LEAST THE NEXT 36 HOURS... THEN LESS SHEAR SHOULD RESULT IN LESS WEAKENING THAN FORECAST BY THE SHIPS MODEL. IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT ZETA COULD EVEN SURVIVE BEYOND 72 HOURS.
So what are the chances of Zeta's ACE being enough to push 2005 ACE past the 1950 record? Are post season upgrades to intensity used to adjust ACE? I had been assessing the chance of an ACE record as unlikely or very unlikely since Oct 22 [1] but it looks very close to a 50% chance now. crandles 11:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- If we see some ACE increases from Cindy (almost certain), Emily (likely) and Wilma (almost certain) and if Zeta sustains itself a day or two into 2006, 2005 might surpass 1950. It's a real tossup right now. - Cuivienen 20:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- A single increase from 150 to 160 knots (which matches what we saw in the AP photo of the board at the NHC offices i.e. Wilma at 185 mph) produces an increase of 3.1 10
43 kt2 of ACE.Right now, with the season at 240, just that one increase from 150 knots to 160 knots would take us to about tie the record at 1950's 243 1043 kt2 ACE.--AySz88^-^
- A single increase from 150 to 160 knots (which matches what we saw in the AP photo of the board at the NHC offices i.e. Wilma at 185 mph) produces an increase of 3.1 10
- Whose maths is out? I make that .31 104 kt2 crandles 00:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- It's only .31. Emily's boost from 135 to 140 kt would increase it by 0.14 and Cindy's from 60 to 65 kt would increase it by 0.06. That's only 0.5, but, if Zeta persists and if other storms get little boosts as well (Ophelia seems likely to be maintained as a hurricane more often than it actually was), we may still get the extra 2.9 or so needed. - Cuivienen 03:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oh bah, I screwed it up by a factor of ten. Sorry... >.< --AySz88^-^ 03:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- I was using the best track data for 1950 from here http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/1950/index.html to work out it's ACE for myself as I wanted to know whether it was actually 243 or a rounded up 242 and the figure I came up with for the year was actually 244 not 243. Feel free to check the figures if you feel like it, it only took me an hour. I won't change anything but it was suggested somehere above about using best track for all years available. Sapient Homo 15:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- By using the best track data from the final reports released so far and rounding to 3 s.f.
- I have just double checked my own figures and I am a bit embarrassed because I made some errors. 1950's ACE is 243 after all being rounded up to 3 s.f. from 242.875. That means that we need only another 2.090 from Zeta and updated best tracks for 2005 to have the greatest ACE. Note to self I should always double check before posting things... Sapient Homo 16:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, I got 242.92 for 1950. --Ajm81 00:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't round up... Sapient Homo 11:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't either. --Ajm81 20:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sapient Homo, either you round to 3 s.f. or you don't. You can't round 1950 to 243, then have 2005 beat it by going to 243.01. If you decide to round to 3 s.f. then 2005 must get to 244 to beat 1950. The better way of comparing is to go as far as both figures are deemed accurate, so if 242.875 is considered accurate then keep all the s.f.s and 2005 needs only to get to 242.876 to take the record. PK9 20:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Season ACE, Arlene-Epsilon = 238.87
- Zeta as of 7 pm PST, 1/1/06 = 2.32
- Season ACE as of 7 pm PST = 241.19
- 1950 ACE = 242.92
- To go = 1.73 (Storm would have to last for 9 more updates/2.25 days at current intensity)
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.181.79.72 (talk • contribs) .
An update for everyone:
- Season ACE - Arlene-Epsilon = 238.87
- Zeta as of 4 pm EST, 1/2/06 = 2.93
- Season Ace as of 4 pm EST = 241.80
- 1950 ACE = 242.92
- To Go = 1.12 (Zeta would have to last for 6 more updates at current intensity)
Weatherman90 14:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
For my calculations I have been keeping all significant figures. 1950's ACE is 242.92 if I do not round the storm totals before summing, and 242.93 if I do. For 2005, the total is 244.6824 without rounding and 242.656 with rounding. (As of 4 pm EST January 6) --Ajm81 22:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Another Update:
- Season ACE for Arlene to Epsilon = 238.866
- T.S. Zeta as of 10 pm EST, 1/2/06 = 3.785
- Season ACE as of 10 pm EST = 242.651
- 1950 ACE = 242.92
- Just 0.269 ACE to go! (Zeta would have to last just ONE more advisory at current intensity)
Well, looks like we beat the 1950 record, just another record to add to 2005's belt. Weatherman90 15:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Small correction, with rounding the total pre zeta is 238.866 instead of 238.87. Also, Weatherman, can you just update one of those instead of posting a new one each time? --Ajm81 08:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Why would you care about the total with rounding? All the un-rounded numbers should be added and then only rounded at the end... Jdorje 08:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- That's what I was thinking as well. --Ajm81 08:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- The 10 am EST Public Advisory says the wind speed is 65 mph, meaning the ACE for that period should go up to .4025 for that row. Also, I thought at the 10 pm EST Public Advisory, the winds were 60 mph, but I am not putting that up because I might be wrong. Lionheart Omega 17:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- ACE is based on wind speed in kt, not mph. The current Forecast/Advisory gives a wind speed of 55 kt, so the ACE contribution is .3025 like the previous period. I haven't updated the chart, because I'm not prepared to re-total it. --DavidK93 18:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, had a mental block. Lionheart Omega 21:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like the 2005 season just took another record! :) Mwl 20:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed! A month ago, this seemed impossible. But apparently no record is too great for the 2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season
Weatherman90 20:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Now if only it becomes a major hurricane... --Perfection 04:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Won't happen, we would be "lucky" to get a Cat 1 out of this. --Ajm81 08:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Interesting how [3] only lists the 2005 portion of Zeta. I'd guess that the rest will be added when Zeta dissipates. --Ajm81 21:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- The 2006 Portion of Zeta may be put into the 2006 ACE total. Lionheart Omega 22:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Seems that way, since [4] explicitly splits zeta up, only counting the 2005 part for 2005. The referred article in BAMS doesn't give any clear solution for this issue. Time to change the article? Thijsdetweede 16:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Problem is this has has Alice counting to 1954... unless my math was that far off. I don't see how Alice would count and Zeta would not. --Ajm81 18:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- It has been 50 years since they have had to deal with this issue. I think that there is some confusion because of that. --EMS | Talk 19:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Zeta's final Discussion [5] confirms that this is a record. --Ajm81 20:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
IN ADDITION...ZETA RESULTED IN THE 2005 SEASON HAVING THE LARGEST ACCUMULATED CYCLONE ENERGY...OR ACE... SURPASSING THE 1950 SEASON.
- The ACE page on the NHC website [6] has put up the 2006 component. Trouble is that combining the values for 2005 and 2006 gives 4.95 rather than 5.76 for the total... Any reason for the (fairly large) disrepancy? I think they ignored the first advisory and may have left the 31/12/05 10pm advisory out too for the first part. That accounts for 0.41 of the difference, but I can't see where the other 0.4 went.... Nashikawa 23:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- If we follow ATCF data, the difference will be even larger. The ACE would be as high as 5.88 because Zeta was upgraded to a tropical storm at 0600UTC January 5. In most cases, the ATCF data are closer to the best track data than operational data. Anyway, let's wait for the report. Momoko
Assessment comment
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
| Double-check statistics, add references, and then it might be in shape for GAN. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 10:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC) |
Last edited at 10:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)