Talk:Tropical Storm Zeta (2005)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Shape

I saw a satellite imagery of the storm and looks like it has got many thin cloud rays at northern part of the storm. Strange.

Zeta is now over

Zeta is over now. In the 2005 atlantic hurricane season section says that Zeta is still active and now si over.

Back to season page

This page seriously doesn't add much at all to what was originally in the main article. I think it should be redirected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.119.236.216 (talk • contribs)

The main article already has too much detail - we need to trim that and move the details here. See Wikipedia:Summary style. --AySz88^-^ 16:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I am working on articles for all the other storms. Only three (Harvey, Tammy and TD22) are not yet done; I hope to get them done tonight. CrazyC83 23:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Year

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This page does not need a year disambiguation. It is currently policy to not add year dismabiguation unless another storm with the same name has also existed. This policy is also in place with Hurricane Ophelia, Hurricane Beta, Tropical Storm Gamma and Hurricane Epsilon. - Cuivienen 06:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

That means that, if they get articles, everything from Lee down does not need a year modifier either... CrazyC83 12:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, not quite.... Delta, for example, still needs the year and disambiguation. (I made the same mistake.) --AySz88^-^ 19:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

That's correct and so does Alpha. In 2006, everything up to Nadine, except for Kirk, will need a year modifier, unless the storm is influential enough to warrant retirement (in which case it takes the main article). Joyce, Leslie, Michael and Nadine will need disambiguation pages (or special on-page links if they are important enough to warrant retirement; i.e. Andrew and Isabel) created as they will be used for the second time. Numbered tropical depressions should ALWAYS have a year modifier, as they are constantly repeated every year (although often only as a temporary name). CrazyC83 23:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Should we include the 2005 Statistics page in the links on the bottom? because it has relevant info (ACE) --Perfection 06:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I would say yes, personally. If someone fluent in English from, say, Japan is reading this page; they might not know how the statistics as well as a Florida citizen.Kobra 09:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Patience Is a Virtue

What happened to waiting for the report? We just had to create an article right now huh? It just had to be right this red-hot second? Where we stand now, we have minimal and incomplete information. That's why I suggested that we wait for the report and other people seemed to agree. But noooo, we just had to have a piece-of-crap article now instead of having a better, fatter, fuller article after the report comes out. Patience is a virtue people. Have patience. This is ridiculous. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 19:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh, what's wrong with changing the article after the Tropical Cyclone Report comes out? Thsi isn't worse than giving the main page only a section on 2005AHS to link to. --AySz88^-^ 19:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Because it puts information out there that may not be true. It was previously thought that Epsilon briefly weakened to a tropical storm. Turns out this is not the case. Zeta's "record" about being the latest storm in the Atlantic was posted but wasn't true. Mis-information is a bad thing. About linking to a section, maybe not, but it's as bad. Creating an article that just tells us what we just read in the main article serves no purpose. You should wait until enough information is there to justify an article before creating it. Here's a start. In the recent discussion, NHC seems again baffled at this storm's persistance. They stated a need to become more learned in the intensity habits of mid-latitude tropical cyclones following the slew of perplexing storms this season (Vince, Epsilon and Zeta) [1]. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 23:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Why was it named Zeta?

Was it just named Zeta because the odds of another named storm forming before Jan 1st were virtually nil? Wonder what they would have named that storm had it developed, already being at the end of the Greek alphabet --Fxer 09:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Er... Z might be the last letter in the Latin alphabet, but in Greek, Zeta is rather early, the sixth letter. The last letter is Omega. --Golbez 09:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well that will teach me not to jump over to Greek alphabet before I ask a question ;) --Fxer 09:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know how tropical storms would be named if, by chance, all the Greek alphabet letters were used in naming? Link9er 13:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Most likely if that happened they would end up just numbering them after Omega using the depression numbers (Hurricane Fourty-Six), but the chances of this happening are extremely low. (essentually every system coming off of Africa would need to develop into a tropical storm for this to happen, plus a few more elsewhere) There is no official naming sceme to be used after greek letters, and the NHC would have to come up with somthing if it looked like we were going to use them up. Enigmar 19:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It's been debated before on the speculation page of the 2005 season. I think the consensus was that this is a solution waiting for a problem to come up because it's very unlikely we'll ever get there. A couple of highlights of the discussion: 1) Numbering the hurricanes would go against the original purpose of naming (to reduce confusion). 2) It's not unprecedented for the NHC to make mid-season changes to the naming scheme (1985, Eastern Pacific). Thus, it's a pretty good guess that if a season got close to Omega, they'd scramble up a few names to use just in case. --PK9 20:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

ok guys. Zeta is the 6th letter in the greek alphabet. Yes I did study the greek alphabet. Problem solved.

Current Info

I think Zeta is developing an eye! [2]Weatherman90 00:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's something for the talk page not the main article. Jdorje 00:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed from the article. But you might be right - the latest rain thing ( at this monster-long link that might not work) seems to show an "eye-like feature" (as the NHC might call it). --AySz88^-^ 01:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It's strengthening too...Hurricane Zeta by morning, anyone? CrazyC83 03:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably not by morning. Maybe tomorrow evening if it keeps its convection up. —BazookaJoe 03:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that 50 kt was a low estimate and not a high one, I could easily see an increase of 15 kt by the 11 am advisory. - Cuivienen 04:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I've read some of the NHC discussions, and some are predicting Zeta to become a hurricane. This sounds like an exact replica of Epsilon: a rather small storm stagnates out in the ocean, culling strength like cotton candy around a stick, and... now I'm hungry. Anyways, AFAIK, the only reason Zeta might become a hurricane is because it's been avoiding the strong shear that tends to destroy tropical cyclones. --King of All the Franks 04:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Becoming a bit less organized from what I can tell Satellite Loop Weatherman90 04:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, look at that outflow expand! --AySz88^-^ 05:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

AySz88 is right; it almost looks like it's coming apart! --King of All the Franks 05:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, outflow is good for the storm. :p It means it has to be beating the shear. That particular color scheme isn't very good for seeing low clouds though, so it's hard to tell whether the convection's being pushed away from the low-level center (which is better for seeing shear). --AySz88^-^ 05:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ack! I thought outflow referred to the elongation of the storm (less circular bands of clouds), and was losing convection. So, the consensus is that we're not really sure what's going to happen? --King of All the Franks 06:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

With Zeta? Of course nobody knows what's happening. :p --AySz88^-^ 06:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you think the confusion about these "fish-spinners" is because they're not influenced by landforms? They just kind of mosey around. --King of All the Franks 06:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not really because it's a fish-spinner - interaction with land doesn't affect track as much as intensity...I think. It's probably mostly because it's January and people haven't really seen many of these kinds of storms. The water's too cold and everything - people seem to have stopped repeating the strangeness of the situation since it's been repeated twice already with Epsilon and Delta. Pretty much, Zeta's not supposed to be there at all. --AySz88^-^ 06:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

So there's, more or less, no comparable precedent which we can use to figure out why what has happened has happened. --King of All the Franks 06:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Out of interest, if Zeta does become a hurricane, would it be added to the number of hurricanes in the 2005 or 2006 season? It could be 2005 as the storm formed in 2005 and is named under the 2005 list but could also be 2006 as we are in 2006... I'm not sure. Does anyone know? - JVG 10:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The storm continues to be 2005 regardless of changes in its intensity. For that matter, it is almost certainly a hurricane already or very nearly, going by the satellite imagery, but we'll have to wait for the NHC to confirm in a few hours. Whig 11:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Btw, here is the current GFDL model. If that guidance is believable, Zeta could hit Category 2 in the next couple days. Whig 11:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Right now the NEC is giving a 1 in 3 chance of it becoming a hurricane, a 1 in 10 chance of it becoming stronger than Hurricane Alice, and a 1 in 30 chance of it becoming catagory 2 with the most likely peak in intensity happening about 24 hours from now.Enigmar 19:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

As i saw the curent GFDL model it even brings some Cat 3 winds, and with a very low pressure of 974 MB for a January storm, i really dont believe this will hapen, i believe it may reach Category 1 status and then weaken as the shear becomes stronger from the next system. Danieles15 21:50, 3 Jamuary 2006 (UTC)

(Please log in and sign using ~~~~ instead of manually inserting a wikilink to your user page... That ensures we know who you are. Thanks.) --AySz88^-^ 22:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

If Zeta is a cross-seasonal storm, then it belongs in the 2006 category as well as the 2005 category. Why's there a note not to add 2006 to the category list? Isn't any activity in 2006 part of the 2006 season (though not necessarily naming, as Zeta shows, even if Alice was named off the later list) 67.68.64.37 11:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Though cross-seasonal storm is rare in Atlantic, it is not unusual in Northwest Pacific. The usual practise there is to count everything ONLY to the "year of formation". I think Zeta should not be considered as part of the 2006 season. Momoko

Zeta looks like it is just about dead as of late... [3] 165.234.107.29 14:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You may be right. It seems to have passed its prime. --King of All the Franks 00:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Zeta is indeed not pulling through, probably won't last much longer. The convection to the north is really taking its toll on the system.

Image Protection

When are they going to take that off for Zeta? The current one is old, and I would like to put up a more recent one like this [4]. -Good kitty 06:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That's an old one too! Here is the latest: [5]. -- RattleMan 06:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll update it. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 06:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

For the main page, we want the most eye-candy-like picture right? :p --AySz88^-^ 06:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. i've reverted my change. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 06:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's a really good picture of Zeta: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/natural_hazards_v2.php3?img_id=13297

That is a good image. I wish they would take that off the front page so we could fix it. Or maybe upload that one in a new file. If it becomes a hurricane it will probably happen on the dark side of the planet, so any images we get will be blurry and of poor quality. Good kitty 21:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Is good but not that good. It would be better if they show an image of Zeta at it´s peak where it had an eye

It never had an eye Good kitty 17:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

1) Zeta never had an eye, and 2) in the image, Zeta is close or at its peak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.119.236.216 (talk • contribs) 18:10, January 4, 2006 (UTC)

Well, there was some subsidence and eye-like things with the rain-measuring satellites, but never anything obvious in the satellite pictures. --AySz88^-^ 04:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge 2006

Does this article really need a page? It survived a year, became a strong tropical storm in the middle of nowhere, and dissipated. The only "damage" it did was disrupt some rowing race. It had some oddities, but every storm does. Bsd987 22:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It's notable enough for an article, I think. Basically, why shouldn't it have an article? --AySz88^-^ 23:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Very unusually late forming storm. Wikipedia is not paper so it hardly harms anyone to have its own article Richard B 23:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Despite my strong mergism attitude, I believe this should stay. No on merge. Hurricanehink 23:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Y'all know me. You know I think that only the most notable storms should get articles, and the rest are fat and happy in their season articles. So I vote this one keep; longest-lasting January storm ever, two years, inherently notable if only for an accident of the Gregorian calendar. --Golbez 00:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am a little prejudice. I am trying to get us to follow the Julian Calendar in the world! No reason other than insanity. So to me, this isn't notable. BTW, I agree that all storms should have pages, but since that is considered sacrilige by many, I want to get rid of all the ones that shouldn't be there. I know, it sounds weird. But it is me. Bsd987 00:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep this article. NSLE _(T+C) 00:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

The consensus behind Hurricane Maria (2005) and Hurricane Ophelia (2005) sets the precent that this page have a year disambiguation. Despite my opposition to unnecessary year disambigs, I have therefore added it. - Cuivienen 05:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Todo

If this article is to remain (outside the creation of articles for all storms) it needs more than just a storm history. See Hurricane Epsilon for inspiration. Jdorje 02:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but big words from someone who keeps advocating articles on pitiful, do-nothing storms that have no potential of being developed beyond a storm history. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 19:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh, what? Did you read what I said? Did you notice the (outside the creation of articles for all storms) qualifier? Jdorje 20:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Or to put it another way: if we have articles on all storms, Zeta should have an article. If we do not (which seems likely without an edit war, since you peremptorily merge without discussion storm articles that have been created only after discussion), then Zeta needs more content to even have a chance at an article. Jdorje 20:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Surpass

Uh, Zeta surpassing Alice as the longest lived January storm?, both storms lasted about the same number of days (December 30-Jan 6), so I dont see why Zeta is the longest lasting storm in January. Storm05 18:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Alice collapsed in the morning, Zeta in the evening. It's a fine distinction. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 16:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Name change to ...(2005-2006)?

Shouldn't the name change to (2005-2006)? The storm did occur in both seasons... -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 00:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the year in title designates the year in-which it formed, e.g. Hurricane Gordon (1994) and Hurricane Gordon (2000). This differentiates it if another Zeta should come along. -- RattleMan 00:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

The second paragraph the word of it need to be reconsidered with phrase like couple of days, and wording like weaken, Zeta strengthened to its peak strength are indistinct and difficult to read. I copy edited the section on Impact. The next section on records need to clarified at the moment its difficult to read.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnangarra (talk • contribs)

I addressed those concerns and resubmitted, with these minor storms the difference between a B-class and an FA is the amount of copyediting.. and I'm relatively inexperienced at that.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Promoted GA

Congratulations to the editors, the adjustments made the article a lot easier to read.(i did one small one in the 2nd paragraph) Gnangarra 15:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Naming

Do I understand correctly that had this storm formed just three days later, on January 1, it would've been named Alberto, and officially considered the first storm of the 2006 season? Or would it still have been considered part of the 2005 season? The second seems more logicla to me, but what I've read seems to suggest that it woudl be the first scenario Nik42 07:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. If Zeta became a tropical storm on January 1, it would have been named Alberto, even if it became a TD prior to the end of the year. If it was a TD in 2005, but a TS in 2006, it would have been part of both seasons, but if it became a TD in 2006, then it would only be part of the 2006 season. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)