Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season
Please remember to sign your comments using "~~~~"! (This request includes anonymous users.) Please try to keep off-topic discussion and speculation unrelated to the upkeep of the article, 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, to a minimum. If you must put speculation here, please visit the subpage /Speculation and write it there.
Archives: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9
For discussion of events specific to June 2005, see /June.
For discussion of events specific to July 2005, see /July.
For discussion of events in August 2005 (apart from Hurricane Katrina), see /August.
For discussions of events during Hurricane Katrina, see /Katrina.
For discussion of events specific to September 2005, see /September.
For discussion of events specific to October 2005, see /October.
For discussions on records set during the 2005 season, see /Records.
For speculative discussions on the 2005 season, see /Speculation.
For informal betting pools during the 2005 season, see /betting pools.
October
Week 3
24L.Wilma
Wilma and Alpha, dare I say it?
2 new areas to watch. From the TWO: A BROAD SURFACE LOW PRESSURE SYSTEM HAS REMAINED NEARLY STATIONARY ABOUT 150 MILES SOUTHEAST OF JAMAICA. SHOWER AND THUNDERSTORM ACTIVITY HAS BECOME SLIGHTLY BETTER ORGANIZED... AND UPPER-LEVEL WINDS HAVE BECOME MARGINALLY FAVORABLE FOR ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO OCCUR. HOWEVER... UPPER-LEVEL WINDS ARE EXPECTED BECOME SOMEWHAT MORE FAVORABLE OVER THE CENTRAL AND WESTERN CARIBBEAN SEA DURING THE NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS AS THE SYSTEM MEANDERS NEAR JAMAICA.
A LARGE TROPICAL WAVE... ACCOMPANIED BY A BROAD LOW SURFACE LOW PRESSURE SYSTEM... IS LOCATED ABOUT 500 MILES SOUTHWEST OF THE CAPE VERDE ISLANDS. THIS SYSTEM HAS SOME POTENTIAL FOR SOME SLOW DEVELOPMENT TO OCCUR DURING THE NEXT DAY OR TWO AS IT MOVES WEST-NORTHWESTWARD AT 10 TO 15 MPH.
Which one will get the prize, or will neither develop. Interesting times ahead... Hurricanehink 11:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- Lets not jump the gun, they are not even invests yet. --Holderca1 15:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- True, but the potential is there. They will likely become invests shortly, as Recon is checking out the Caribbean one out in the coming days.
- Any more topical depressions lurking about?
98L.INVEST
Backup Navy site now has the Caribbean/Jamaican disturbance tagged as 98L. -- RattleMan 18:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- So does the primary. That link you provided is well out of date, links to when Cindy and Dennis were active. --Holderca1 19:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- When I checked the primary Navy site, it said there was a "Hardware failure" and that they would "get it back up as soon as possible", but it looks like it's fixed now. You only see Cindy and Dennis if you click "All" rather than "Active". You must have an outdated cache or something... -- RattleMan 19:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- I checked the primary out again a second ago, and got this: Forbidden | You don't have permission to access /tc_pages/tc_home.html on this server. | Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. -- RattleMan 19:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- Can't be an outdated cache, that is the first time I have ever been to the "backup" site. It has active highlighted and I click active and still only shows Cindy and Dennis. It seems both sites are having issues. --Holderca1 19:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Looks like it's getting it's act together. Let't hope Wilma doesn't have the power whatever she hits to knock it back to the stone age. tdwuhs
- I smell a very odd pattern... First category 4/5 Emily... then after another 5 named storms we had cat 5 Katrina... then after another 5 named storms we had category 5 Rita... and now 5 named storms have already passed since then... Will Wilma be the next cat 5? scary... RoswellAtup
- 5 names after Rita would actually be Beta (23rd named storm). Emily was the 5th named storm, Katrina the 11th and Rita the 17th. Wilma would be the 21st if it develops. CrazyC83 03:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- I doubt it. I don't think we'll have any more of those since it's October. --Revolución (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- It's still possible. Mitch and Hattie were both Cat 5 in October. It could also be in the range of Dennis and Emily. --69.86.16.61 02:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- If it hits the Caribbean, look out! That body of water is still extremely warm and hasn't really been touched since Emily, so it is just fuel waiting for the fire...That would seem unthinkable - four Category 5 storms this season (assuming Emily is upgraded)? Also Hattie and Mitch were both Category 5 in the last week of October, and Lenny was just below that in mid-November! CrazyC83 03:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- It's still possible. Mitch and Hattie were both Cat 5 in October. It could also be in the range of Dennis and Emily. --69.86.16.61 02:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
The GFDL model confirms our fears...takes this blob to 910 mb and 145 knots en route to Central America - looks like another Mitch (God forbid!)... CrazyC83 04:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- That is scary! RoswellAtup
- The models said that about another invest this season that didn't develop, or was weak. The West Pacific had ten Category 5s in 1997. The Atlantic probably won't even come close for another 100,000 years. Isa, Nestor, Rosie, Winnie, Oliwa, Ginger, Ivan, Joan, Keith, Paka. Bing was nearly a 5. The most storms of super typhoon intensity (130 kt Cat. 4 and up) in the Atlantic (crossing the designation systems here) is four (this year). The West Pacific had 11 that season. This Atlantic season is pitiful compared to that. My point is that it could have been much worse this season than it actually was. I shudder to think about what would happen if the Atlantic got as active as the West Pacific. All coastlines south of Nova Scotia would seise to exist. I still think there's hope that Jamaica's mountains will destroy the system before it develops. That said, we said the same thing about the disturbance that became Stan. You saw how that turned out.
- The bit about the other invest that didn't develop...exactly what I was thinking. That was 92L in the September Archive: "Look at the GFDL computer model. Category 5 hurricane Nate by next week! [7] CrazyC83 20:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)" But really, that was right off Africa and at a low lattitude. This one has favorable conditions; ~85ºF SSTs, low shear... -- RattleMan 05:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
From the NHC:
SATELLITE IMAGES AND SURFACE OBSERVATIONS INDICATE THAT A TROPICAL DEPRESSION APPEARS TO BE DEVELOPING IN THE WESTERN CARIBBEAN SEA JUST WEST OF JAMAICA.AN AIR FORCE RECONNAISSANCE PLANE IS SCHEDULED TO BE IN THE AREA THIS AFTERNOON TO DETERMINE IF A TROPICAL DEPRESSION HAS FORMED. THIS SYSTEM IS ACCOMPANIED BY A LARGE AREA OF SQUALLS WHICH IS ALREADY AFFECTING JAMAICA AND THE ADJACENT WATERS. ALL INDICATIONS ARE THAT THIS SYSTEM WILL MOVE VERY SLOWLY TOWARD THE WEST OVER THE WARM WATERS BEWTEEN JAMAICA AND THE CAYMAN ISLANDS DURING THE NEXT FEW DAYS...AND COULD BECOME A TROPICAL STORM OR EVEN A HURRICANE.
Looks like we might have Wilma soon. tdwuhs
- We gotta get Tropical Depression Twenty-Four first.
Tropical Depression 24
We now have tropical depression 24... RoswellAtup
Yes we do and Grand Cayman could be in trouble. NHC says the 2005 hurricane list could be completely exhauseted by Sunday. Wow, this is incredible.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 20:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- This could be REALLY bad for Central America, already reeling from Stan - can they take a much, much stronger storm? We could be looking at a Category 4 or 5 hurricane by midweek! CrazyC83 23:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Don't put too much stock in the GFDL prediction. GFS doesn't even bring 24 to hurricane strength. The NHC forecast calls for the storm to turn away from Central America (and towards us :( ).
- You do that "IT COULD BE THE BIG ONE!" thing for almost every single storm. You never know when it's real or not. Mike H (Talking is hot) 00:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- I blame the computer model intensity forecasts; I mean, why not just adjust the numbers downwards permanently within the models? I think the models have overshot developing systems all the time; it feels like every storm that even had a chance to get to category 2 was forecast to Cat 4+ by either the SHIPS or the GFDL models early on. Maybe they had a 2005 factor thrown in or something. (Is there an article on these models somewhere?) AySz88^-^ 02:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- Even a Category 1 hurricane could be devastating in Guatemala right now, which still hasn't recovered from Stan. The fact is, even those forecasts that don't take Wilma to Cat 5 do take it to a Cat 2 or 3 before landfall. The Caribbean is both warm and low-shear and will remain so, so even Cat 5 for Wilma is not out of the question. --69.86.16.61 02:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
ATD24-N should be taken very seriously. It will likely reach cat 1 hurricane status in 72 hours, and still be over open, warm, water. Stirling Newberry - Bopnews 02:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
The good news is that the POES SSTS map shows that temps are in the 27-29 deg. C range in the path of this thing... not 30+ like we saw for Katrina and Rita. I don't think these lower SSTS's are going to let this thing get to CAT 3 any time soon... and CAT 4 - 5 may be out of the question. And with autumn cold fronts pushing in from the northwest over the mainland US, this thing will hopefully get shoved out to the northeast pretty fast. Of course, this is part of that big trough that's been out in the western Atlantic for a long time... it was just too far south to get cleaned out by the last advancing front. --Mm35173 03:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- Sigh...new NHC track turns it more toward me in SW FL...I don't like that, and hearing that this may turn NE faster than the original NHC track isn't all that good either... - Bladeswin 03:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- AySz88, you're kind of right about the models, however I do remember a time when the models were forecasting Katrina to make landfall near St. Marks, Florida as a Category 2 storm.
- Well, there's always the selective memory thing; no one ever pays attention when the models spit out something low early on! (Slightly offtopic, would it be useful to have an article somewhere about the hurricane models and their reliability?) AySz88^-^ 17:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- Possibly. There may not be much information on that though.
- Could it be the storm that dr. gray was talking about that would become a major hurricane status? RoswellAtup
- Sigh, looks like another Florida hurricane on the horizon. Any other time I would agree with that assessment as far as SST goes, but Vince reached Cat 1 stregth over 23-24 deg C water, so I won't take anything for granted. Could the panhandle get it's third major hurricane in 13 months? That's way too many in my book. --Holderca1 13:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- It could hit the West Coast of FL also, right around where I live, depending on how much of a turn it takes. No one needs a hurricane, but it looks that it will hit somewhere. --CFIF 13:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- It could do damn near anything at this point. Right now, the NHC forcast puts it between Panama City and St. Marks.
Right now, I see three possible scenarios out of this storm.
1) Maintains a straight trajectory, and slams into Central America or the Yucatan (and possibly a second landfall in northern Mexico or Texas), similar to Emily.
2) Recurving late and moving north towards western Cuba and eventually the Florida Panhandle, similar to Dennis, or (in an unlikely scenario) sweeping through the Yucatan Channel en route for the central Gulf Coast (likely as a monster), although it has to be lined up perfectly for such to happen.
3) Recurving early, moving north-northeast towards eastern Cuba and into the Florida Straits, brushing southeast Florida and then either heading out to sea or swinging back towards the US East Coast.
CrazyC83 17:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- Scenario 2 seem the most likely, that's what the NHC is predicting.
NHC 5pm 5-day track bumps it a little to the west between Cuba and the Yucatan, and into the Gulf of Mexico. Yikes! —BazookaJoe 20:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- That would have it following the Gulf Loop Current and Eddy Vortex. Only two hurricanes have done that so far this year... One guess which two. I suppose at this point the best thing that could (reasonably) happen is that it strike the Florida Panhandle as a Cat 2. --69.86.16.61 20:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- No, bad! West is the wrong way. No offense to Florida, but another hurricane might make southeast Louisiana uninhabitable for years. Dry air is inhibiting development slightly, that's the reason it's not Wilma yet, but NHC says that won't last long. At least there's not much left to destroy in Louisiana and Mississippi.
- I agree. Florida can deal with a weak hurricane. Even a Cat 1 in Louisiana or Mississippi at this point would be catastrophic, and it would be no less disastrous if it didn't turn and instead hit Guatemala. --69.86.16.61 03:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- It's also worth mentioning that a lot of Pensacola hasn't even bothered to start rebuilding after Ivan. With what we've got, what's the point? Mike H (Talking is hot) 21:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- The only good scenario right now, it seems, is quick dissipation. One other possibility I am thinking is that it crosses central Cuba while moving north-northeast, slips past the Florida Strait (brushing the extreme southeast) while over the Bahamas, and either going out to sea (with a northeast turn) or coming up to the Eastern Seaboard (with no turn). CrazyC83 00:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hmmm, it looks like it is not getting any better... i don't think this one will become wilma... RoswellAtup
- Can you stop for once just stop making these damn comments
you idiot?! Why would you want this to strengthen, deliberately using "better" as if strengthening were a good thing. Look at Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Stan, caused massive death and you are wishing for more? --Revolución (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Can you stop for once just stop making these damn comments
- Revolución, please, be civil and no personal attacks. -- NSLE | Talk 01:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Maybe it looks like TD24 is trying to bide its time out there...it knows that it wants to follow in the shoes of Katrina and Rita, but is waiting for an opportunity? Maybe we'll get lucky and it will dissipate before it gets the chance? I think it will either dissipate unnamed or become a major hurricane - there isn't a middle ground here. CrazyC83 02:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- The NHC says SOME VERY DEEP CONVECTION HAS ERUPTED NEAR AND ESPECIALLY TO THE SOUTH OF THE CIRCULATION CENTER TONIGHT... That's not good. Basically, it's reorganizing to be a much more potent but compact system. Also, every single forecast now names it Wilma by noon tomorrow so not naming at this point seems highly unlikely. It's also shifted further west, just brushing the Yucatan on the center of the projection. Of course, THE UNCERTAINTY IN THIS TRACK FORECAST IS FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT. --69.86.16.61 03:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Considering what the Yucatán has already received from Emily and Stan, the current forecast track cannot be good... -- NSLE | Talk 07:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Tropical Storm Wilma
It is now tropical storm wilma RoswellAtup
Welcome Wilma, almost a month ahead of the old record for 1933! -- NSLE | Talk 08:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- We are the record, now. After all, one more hurricane (and one less tropical storm) than 1933 means that 2005 is officially the most active Atlantic hurricane season on record. --69.86.16.61 11:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- No, that technically isn't correct. The most active season says nothing about the strength of the storms, just the quantity. There are other measurements for number and intensity, like ACE, most hurricanes in a season, ect...--Holderca1 11:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Latest model runs are shifting left - this is not good news. Stirling Newberry - Bopnews 12:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- At this point, it is going to affect land. So any shifting of the forecast in any direction is not good news. --Holderca1 12:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
This storm does not warrant an article split yet, please refrain from creating one until it does. As far as we know it could make landfall in Honduras as a weak tropical storm. --Holderca1 15:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Wow, Wilma in the middle of October. This is going to be a bad day for somebody, the question is who? NHC now says that it will scrape the Yucatan Peninsula just short of a major hurricane and head up toward the Mississippi and Alabama coasts. The discussion said that confidence in this prediction is low and the track could shift to the right back towards Florida. All depends on that high over Rita's landfall area. No offense to Florida, but they can take a Category 1 or even a small Category 2 without much heartbreak, Honduras however would be in deep kimshe with even a Category 1. The Yucatan is even tougher that Florida (look how they weathered Emily) so not much worried about them. I'm mostly concerned about our precious gas off that coast. There's not much left to destroy in southeast Louisiana and the Mississippi, however another hurricane hit could make New Orleans uninhabitable for years. We've got a lot of places on the Gulf coast still licking their wounds (Punta Gorda, Gulf Shores/Pensacola, New Orleans, Port Arthur). The Gulf coast has been hit by 14 hurricanes in the past ten years, we don't need 15.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 15:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Please don't let it hit here! We definitely don't need another storm here! (I live in southeast Louisiana!!!) PenguinCDF 16:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- If it hits Tampa, the results could be catastrophic; we learned from a possible threat from Charley last year that Tampa simply is not ready for a sizable hurricane making landfall in the Bay. Mike H (Talking is hot) 19:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Judging from the latest NHC advisory, it seems like Wilma may make a beeline for Florida once it turns around. That aint good, no matter who it hits. I'm keepin an eye on this one. - Bladeswin 22:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Now it looks like the NHC is predicting his one could be a Category 3! Yikes! Another major hurricane? What will the Gulf Coast of the US and Mexico look like after this season? tdwuhs
- NHC is forecasting it to weaken after it leaves the Yucatan. Wind shear is expected to increase as it moves through the Gulf. It could be down to a Category 1 before landfall occurs (where ever that is).
I hope it would be the last storm of the season. RoswellAtup
- I'd actually like to see an Alpha at least as long as it's a fish-spinner. --69.86.16.61 03:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- If, hopefully not, another storm does arise I would like to use the rest of the Alphabet. Q, U, X, Y,Z. Quincy, Uma, Xerxes, Yasmin, Zack
- From the original list: Arlene, Bret, Cindy, Dennis, Emily, Floyd, Gert, Harvey, Irene, Jose, Katrina, Lenny, Maria, Nate, Ophelia, Philippe, Rita, Stan, Tammy, Vince, Wilma... all have reached hurricane status except for Tammy! Provided that Wilma will become a hurricane on tuesday. Should the WMO revamp this list? RoswellAtup
- I have no clue what you are saying here. --Golbez 05:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- At some point in the history of this list, all names except Tammy, Wilma (so far), Franklin and Lee have reached hurricane strength in a hurricane season (not necessarily 2005). Not that that means anything. There has never been a destructive Hurricane Bret, for example. --69.86.16.61 11:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- 1993's Hurricane Bret merged with some extratropical system and killed over 150 in Venezuela, and 1999's Bret was a Category 4 hurricane that made landfall in a desolete part of South Texas... CrazyC83 14:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- One was extratropical (would you call Tammy destructive? I don't think so) and the other, while strong, was not destructive. The case rests. --69.86.16.61 21:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- The same can be said for pretty much all the lists, so not really sure where this is going. Also, Franklin and Lee have never reached hurricane strength, this is the first year they have been used.--Holderca1 13:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- They oughta retire the whole list, because if the naming system were to start in 1900... the 1933 season and the 1969 season will use this particular list... is it cursed or something? bad joke there... (",) RoswellAtup
Article split
The seperate article keeps getting revived. The worst part about it is that it is just a copy and past of the main article. No surprise considering there is not much on the storm yet. Does any one have any valid reasons why this storm should have its own article at this point in time? I think the earliest we have started an article was with Rita when it was a 70 mph tropical storm hours away from the Keys. Wilma is moving so slowly that it is not forecast to even reach the Yucatan until Friday or Saturday. --Holderca1 18:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Preventing a separate article might be unavoidable, but there really shouldn't be one unless Wilma becomes a notable storm. Even though Wilma looks like it could become a very serious storm, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --tomf688{talk} 18:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- It is too early! It's not even a hurricane, we should wait until then at least. --Revolución (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Well, maybe when confidence in the predictions becomes stronger.Again, Rita was still a Tropical Storm when we made an article, and this *may* still be a Tropical Storm when it hits the Yucatan. --168.229.26.217 20:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- While I agree that a Wilma article will eventually be required based on the forecast. Based on that forecast it won't be affecting land until Friday. So the earliest that we will need an article is probably late Wednesday or Thursday since there will be little (if any) additional information that will be in the split article that won't be in the main article until that time. --Holderca1 20:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- A article now is ridiculous. It's only notablity is that it's the 21st storm of the season, that's it. Not a justification for an article.
I am in the path of this storm, living in La Ceiba in Honduras. People are worried here and in the Bay Islands. There have been (word of mouth) reports of evacuations of the river area, which is a poor area. How will it be determined when/if this storm gets an article of its own? It looks like it will hit here quite quicklySqueakBox 23:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- It should only get a separate article when there is more to write about. It should NOT get a separate article because we think (or even know) someday there will be more to write about. Having a separate article doesn't help in keeping more up-to-date information about the storm or in getting information to people quickly: in fact it hurts, since (1) the exact same information (currently word-for-word identical) must be shown in each and (2) since the {{HurricaneWarning}} warning is left off people might think that wikipedia is a crystal ball (whereas we all know only the NHC and WMO are crystal balls). Jdorje 02:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- It should have a separate article, because there won't be any Wilmas any time soon (2011? No way we get that coincidence). Also, it is expected to intensify, so maybe it is now the time to have the {{seemain}} in the season article. Titoxd(?!?) 03:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- There won't be a Philippe any time soon either. I don't see anyone writing an article for that, it even reached hurricane strength. Just because it is the only time a name has been used is not a good reason for its own article. That is already mentioned on the main article anyway. The latest projection almost makes it look like Wilma will never make landfall. --Holderca1 03:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- It's still a bit too early, although the thought of a separate article should be held. It will likely be necessary within 48-72 hours... CrazyC83 14:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Now Wilma is a cat. 1 hurricane and should become a major one within 24 hours! It's heading for Florida but that could change also. This is a new record season. New information is comming all the time, I think it would be time to start up a separate Wilma artcile very soon. Stry 16:15, 18 October 2005 UTC
- What I find amazing is that nobody that has been asking for a seperate article has added much to the Wilma section in the main article. Are you holding out valuable information for the seperate article? If you are simply just going to do a copy and paste to the new article, it doesn't warrant a seperate article. --Holderca1 18:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Now Wilma is a cat. 1 hurricane and should become a major one within 24 hours! It's heading for Florida but that could change also. This is a new record season. New information is comming all the time, I think it would be time to start up a separate Wilma artcile very soon. Stry 16:15, 18 October 2005 UTC
- It's still a bit too early, although the thought of a separate article should be held. It will likely be necessary within 48-72 hours... CrazyC83 14:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- There won't be a Philippe any time soon either. I don't see anyone writing an article for that, it even reached hurricane strength. Just because it is the only time a name has been used is not a good reason for its own article. That is already mentioned on the main article anyway. The latest projection almost makes it look like Wilma will never make landfall. --Holderca1 03:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- It should have a separate article, because there won't be any Wilmas any time soon (2011? No way we get that coincidence). Also, it is expected to intensify, so maybe it is now the time to have the {{seemain}} in the season article. Titoxd(?!?) 03:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Tito. I HATE that template with hot-blooded passion. That is the most annoying template. For one, it blends with the article, it needs to stand out, like the link we have set up now. Two, it is damned hard to change. It screws up the spacing. I just hate it. I went on a crusade several weeks ago to remove it from the hurricane articles. That template either needs to be changed or removed. The way it is now, it just looks like every other link in the article, it is added to storms of notability and therefore it needs to look...notable.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - my dropsonde 21:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not a fan of the {{seemain}} template either, because of all its hidden comments it ruins articles I'm trying to translate. So I agree with you on that one. However, the point is now moot, the article is split. Titoxd(?!?) 05:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- I am thinking of starting it up, it is undergoing rapid intensification...anyone agree or disagree? CrazyC83 00:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Is there that much more information available? Is there any news out of Mexico, Cuba, or Florida on preparation? --Holderca1 01:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. 10 have died in Haiti mudslides, 10,000 are prepared to evacuate in Honduras, 5,200 have already evacuated in Cuba where 255 homes have been damaged, and Florida Keys will evacuate Thursday (80,000 people) ... SargeAbernathy 01:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Hurricane Wilma
As of the 11 am advisory, now a Cat 1. --Holderca1 14:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Could someone explain the reason that we are not able to have a seperate article for Hurricane Wilma - it is a current event and people who are not experts on hurricanes would be interested in it... I tried putting a current event tag on the redirect but that didn't work so an article entitled 'Hurricane Wilma' will not appear in current events.
- I have never known anyone to browse current events using a category. It's a current event not yet worthy of its own article. --Golbez 18:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Sending a Recon aircraft to Wilma now - any bets that it will be a Category 2 by 5:00 pm? I'm thinking by tomorrow afternoon, we'll have a Category 4 hurricane on our hands... CrazyC83 19:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- I am also expecting the warnings for Honduras to be dropped as it seems highly unlikely that tropical storm force winds will hit. --Holderca1 19:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- The 5 PM Discussion at the NHC site says they expect it to peak at Category 4 (115 kt).Would weaken considerably afterward though.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 21:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Could still be a two when it hits the Everglades (or wherever it ends up hitting). High forward speed in a sparsely populated area: if it does that then we may not have that much to worry about.
- What the NHC is saying right now looks like a weak Cat 3 at landfall, not a Cat 2. Also, high forward speed can be a bad thing over low-lying areas in SW Florida as it greatly increases storm surge. --69.86.16.61 22:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
My personal prediction - no Florida landfall (brushes about 60 miles to the southeast, but some effects felt in SE Florida) but rapid intensification to a Category 5 before making landfall in Cuba as such. Then she'll maintain a north-northeast track before making landfall in the mid-Atlantic as a Category 2 or 3 storm. CrazyC83 22:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Not totally out of the realm of possibility, a couple models are actually predicting no landfall by going through the Yucatan Channel then curving to go through the Florida Straits.--Holderca1 22:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'm sticking with the NHC forecast. They're the experts.
I think the 8 pm intensity update is more than they were bargaining for in the 5 pm Discussion.Category 2 now...3 tonight?--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 23:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
From the 8pm advisory:
"WILMA UNDERGOING RAPID INTENSIFICATION"
Uh-oh, that's always bad. Always. This could potentially suck.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - my dropsonde 00:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Yep, this looks like Wilma is outdoing the estimates considerably. Just at the 5 pm advisory they were saying that it could be a Category 3 by Thursday. Now they're saying that it could be a Cat 3 tonight. After only three hours. This is BAD. --69.86.16.61 00:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- The real story here is the pressure drops. 970 at 5:00 and 954 at 7:30 (by way of recon report). I don't even need to caption that one - all of us here understand. The Great Zo 00:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- The forecast had it at 70 kt at 5:00 and said it would reach 90 kt by 5 AM Wednesday and 100 kt (Cat 3) at 5 PM Wednesday.But passing 85 kt in the first three hours of the 12 in which it was forecast to go from 70 to 90 was probably NOT anticipated.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 00:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Do I have a right to be worried that this will be as strong as Katrina? I may be jumping the gun here, but it is posible, right? --Freiberg 00:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I like to look at the NHC's Wind Chart and see how the hurricane is doing compared to what they predicted. The one I am looking at now was updated at 11:00 AM EDT, and the upper 10% line called for wind speeds of 100 MPH in 12 hours. Well, it hasn't been 12 hours yet, and it's already hit that mark. I remember watching Katrina and Rita consistently running with the upper 10% probability. If this is doing the same, you can only know what'll happen. —BazookaJoe 01:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Which is why I usually make my predictions well above the NHC line if the storm is coming into a deep-strengthening situation...for some reason we have all done better than the NHC on catching the potential for rapid intensification...I'm thinking by this time tomorrow, we'll have yet another Category 5 monster on our hands... CrazyC83 01:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- With 110 mph winds 12 hours after that wind speed forecast was made, Wilma has exceeded even the upper 10% line. Wilma will almost certainly be Category 4 by this time tomorrow, possibly Category 5. Three Category 5s in one season, though... It would be just too much. --69.86.16.61 02:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, it is nearing that time to make a separate article for Wilma. It is undergoing rapid intensification, 10 victims have died in haiti due to mudslides, 255 homes damaged in Cuba where 5,200 have been evacuated, nearly ten thousand in Honduras prepared for evacuations, and 80,000 in the Florida Keys prepared to evacuate. SargeAbernathy 01:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
We could very well have a CAT5 on our hands in the coming day or two, as Rita and Katrina were not at first suspected of reaching that mark either. However, is it just me, or does this season's hurricanes appear to have winds not exactly proportional to what we should expect with the pressure. At 897 mb, Rita had 175 mph winds, while the 908 mb(I believe)Camille had 190 mph winds. Hell, Andrew had 122 mb as a 165 mph CAT5 and Katrina was a CAT4 for a while at a lower pressure. At first when Katrina had the 140 mb pressure and 115 mph winds, I was alarmed, but the winds did eventually catch up to 145 mph or so hours afterwards. I tend to think this could be because the systems were far bigger than Andrew and Camille. The NHC in my opinion tries not to put CAT5's as a prediction because of panic and in case it does not ever reach that, but this season has been very odd. Wilma is RAPIDLY intensifying and probabbly will be CAT3 by 11 PM or 2 AM advisory. Can you imagine 6 retired storms in one season? Although I am skeptical about the NHC retiring too many storm names, they might just overlook Emily that would have been retired had this been any other season. Watch out...CAT5 Wilma may soon be, however, it WILL NOT reach the USA as that. The great kawa 03:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- The reason for the disproportionate windspeed is three-fold. One, after rapid deepening like this it takes time before the winds catch up with the pressure. Two, Andrew and Camille were very small hurricanes whereas all of the recent intense hurricanes have been rather large. And three, all surface wind measurements from before around 1995 are just guesses (see dropsonde). Jdorje 05:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with you, although I am sure they won't overlook any retired names, they'll retire 6, 7, 8, even 9 names if they have to (including Greek letters if necessary). CrazyC83 04:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Discussion #14,just posted by the NHC after Wilma's winds reached 110 mph,states:
- WILMA HAS DEVELOPED THE DREADED PINHOLE EYE.
- Is that the hurricane version of the "evil eye"?
- AND IT WOULD NOT BE A SURPRISE TO SEE IT REACH CATEGORY FIVE BEFORE IT BOTTOMS OUT.
- 125 Kt is the forecast peak intensity,though...higher than they thought a few hours ago but we'll see if that's as far as it goes.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 02:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Rita and Katrina, watch out, it seems. Please let Wilma die off somehow... -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 02:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Pinhole eye... remind you of Hurricane Gilbert? Let's hope it only bottoms out in the 900's mb. —BazookaJoe 02:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- We should always be careful in trying to phrase things coz someone with a very short fuse will surely react.
945 mb, when Katrina was at 940 mb it went up to 145 mph winds!!! This is getting serious, by this time tomorrow the chances of a CAT4 are probably over 90%! Even the Weather Channel is saying it may peak at CAT5 intensity, as did FOXNews, and accuweather.com. Just wait, by the 5 am advisory we may even have a CAT4, especially juging from the STILL plummeting pressure! The great kawa 03:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Unbelievable!!! We have a major CAT5 on our hands with a pressure of 901 mb and wind speeds near 180 mph as just reported by The Weather Channel at 12:53 EDT. This has to be the quickest drop in pressure ever recorded in the Atlantic Basin at least. This is unprecedented. This may beat Rita as most powerful of season. God speed to the Talk page!!!!!!! None of us could have imagined this. The great kawa 04:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Major Hurricane Wilma
Vortex data message just indicated pressure of 901 MB, max flight level winds of 162 knots, and a closed eye of 4 NM. I honestly think that my brain was just ripped out and smashed to the floor. The Great Zo 04:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Yikes! Three CAT 5's!? Oh, my! I can't believe this, its just to surreal. User:tdwuhs
- Major Hurricane Wilma, skipping Cat 3 intensity. We have a rare 1 o'clock update, and there's set to be an intermediate 2am one as well... -- NSLE
(Communicate!) <Contribs> 05:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- I screwed up about last windspeed, it is CAT4 hurricane w/ max sustained winds of 150mph, nontheless impressive! Plus it was priceless to see the look on Warren Madden's (Weather Channel) face after this thing exploded.
- WILMA IS NOW A VERY STRONG CATEGORY FOUR HURRICANE AND COULD BECOME A CATEGORY FIVE TODAY. from the NHC. Yikes. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 05:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- I don't wish this storm on anybody (I live in southeast Louisiana, enough said)... but let it hit anywhere but here!!! Fred must've really ticked off Wilma, because she's just exploded and ready to go "Bamm Bamm" on whomever she comes across! </obligatory Flintstones reference> PenguinCDF 05:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'm speechless... at cat4 it is 901 mb??? unbelievable! those pressures in that category are only attained in the West Pacific... how far will it fall down more? It can probably outpace Rita's record of 897. RoswellAtup
- Are? You? Joking? That's just—! This is—! My "brain just ripped out and smashed to the floor" indeed! This is incredible! This is more than incredible! Oh, why does the English language fail me now! —BazookaJoe 05:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- The Atlantic sure has gone insane!!! and we thought 2004 was that bad. RoswellAtup
Wilma at Category 5
- UPDATE
- DATA FROM A RECONNAISSANCE AIRCRAFT INDICATE THAT HURRICANE WILMA
HAS BECOME AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS CATEGORY FIVE HURRICANE ON THE SAFFIR-SIMPSON HURRICANE SCALE. THE RECONNAISSANCE PLANE MEASURED 175 MPH WINDS AND ESTIMATED A MINIMUM PRESSURE OF 892 MB. THIS IS THE LOWEST PRESSURE OBSERVED IN 2005 AND IS EQUIVALENT TO THE MINIMUM PRESSURE OF THE 1935 LABOR DAY HURRICANE IN THE FLORIDA KEYS.
- Holy ---------------ing --------------- shit this is insane. Nobody thought we'd beat Katrina. Katrina was already one of the most intense. Then came Rita. Now look at Wilma! Holy shit! We jinxed it. E. Brown said "let's just hope that bob rulz's prediction stands." But omfg this is unnatural. bob rulz 06:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Here's some various records it's achieved
- 28th ever Cat-5 storm in the Atlantic
- tie-2nd lowest pressure ever in the Atlantic
- 1st strongest storm in the Atlantic in 2005
- 3rd-latest Cat-5 in the Atlantic (Rita was 5th-latest)
- First occurrence of three Cat-5 storms in the same season
- First occurrence of five Cat-5 storms within three seasons
- 2005 now holds the record for three of the six strongest Atlantic storms ever
- The Great Zo 06:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Here's some various records it's achieved
- Poink! Now category 5! the third one this season... this doesn't normally happen, we even have more category 5s than in the western pacific this year! how freaky can you get? This one is so scary... will NHC issue another special advisory to update hurricane Wilma's intensity? RoswellAtup
- Is it just me or does the NHC refuse to raise the wind speeds of any hurricane beyond 175 mph. Is this just a coincidence or are the winds really 175 mph? Mitch, Allen, and Camille (and others) all had higher wind speeds but far higher pressures, and they all are rather old nowadays. Is it new technology or am I paranoid that the NHC puts the line at 175 mph?
- Yeah, I noticed that discrepancy too... nonetheless, Wilma's pressure has dropped to 884... the lowest ever in the Atlantic, but it's winds are still 150 kts. I also agree that the NHC is perhaps concealing the real wind measurements... just a hunch though RoswellAtup
- Holy everloving crap! The Weather Channel claims that they have the 5AM advisory in in advance, and say that it puts the pressure at 884 mb! --Patteroast 08:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Looks like we have Gilbert's big sister!!! I thought that Wilma "could" become a CAT5 hurricane, but to beat Gilbert! Hell, I didn't think it would be the Labor Day Storm. And what's up with the winds, shouldn't they be higher? And as for a name, I propose WTF Wilma b/c it went from a mere CAT1 w/ 80 mph winds to a the most intense Atlantic hurricane on record (pending calibration)!!! The great kawa 09:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- From tropical storm to Category 5 in only 16 hours? Incredible! But that 884 millibar reading is unbelievable, and, like the Labor Day hurricane of 1935, Wilma has an insanely small eye for such a powerful storm, only about five miles in diameter (for comparison, the Labor Day hurricane's eye was about eight miles wide and 1992's Andrew's eye was about 12 miles wide upon Florida landfall). B.Wind 11:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Holy crap, and dropped 100 mb in pressure in 24 hours, I have never seen intensification like this. I thought this was October. --Holderca1 11:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- I went to bed last night knowing about a Tropical Storm Wilma... I woke up in the UK this morning hearing Category 4, and found Category 5 by the time I was at college... I can not think of words to describe my amazement when I heard this morning, my jaw dropped through the floor... - JVG 11:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Who added that data that 2005 is the first time to have most consecutive named storms reaching hurricanes at 6? I'll have you know that 1950 had 7 consecutive hurricanes from ABLE to GEORGE... then why did he claim that the record is beaten in this year? RoswellAtup
I remember reading years ago,I think in William Safire's "On Language" column,that Category 4 and Category 5 hurricanes (I thought...except that the highest category on this list had not yet been recorded in reality) had been allocated the descriptive adjectives "incredible" and "inconceivable" (Safire went on to point at the difference,something you can imagine but not believe is true,compared to something you can't even imagine).This season evokes the Princess Bride movie..."Inconceivable!"..."You keep using that word...I don't think it means what you think it means!" 175 mph storm devastates New Orleans,and is third most intense storm of the season.Inconceivable?
(Memo to the Greek fraternity/sorority...PLEASE don't any of you make Katrina fourth most intense!!)--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 13:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- You know, with those fraternities and sororities working together, they just might have the combined power to do so - a bunch of Category 2's or 3's may make a Category 5... CrazyC83 14:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- What a storm does over open waters and what it makes landfall are two entirely different things. Thank God that none of these monsters have made landfall at peak intensity or New Orleans would be the Bay of Pontchartrain now. --Holderca1 14:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
What are the records for rate of intensification? From 11 pm to 1 am, the pressure dropped 44 mb, a remarkable 22 mb/hr. From 5 pm to 5 am, it dropped 86 mb, for an average rate of 7.2 mb/hr over a 12 hour period. --Holderca1 13:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Calibrated recon data as of the 8:00 AM advisory gives a pressure of 882 MB. Etch that number into your brain - that sure as hell better be a record for a long, long time.
- Oddly, the next recon mission isn't scheduled until early this afternoon. The Great Zo 13:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- (Maybe it'll take that long to find a willing recon crew?)The two little milestones it's just short of are 180 mph (breaking the windspeed tie with Katrina and Rita) and becoming the first Atlantic storm under 26 InHg.I wonder if the 11 AM advisory will record either,or if theoretical limits and eyewall replacement cycles mean we've seen the strongest this storm will be.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 13:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- What storm are you refering to that dropped below 26? Also, I think the pressure has peaked but I don't think the winds have. I wouldn't be surprised to see the next advisory with 190 mph winds. That wind speed and that pressure just don't make sense as it is right now. --Holderca1 13:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- It hasn't dropped below 26 but at 26.05 is very very close,which is why I said it was just short of becoming the first to do it.I hope nobody's out in a boat or ship under those winds!--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 14:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, I misread what you wrote, I thought you said another storm had dropped below 26. Without a recon mission until this afternoon. We may never know if it did or not. --Holderca1 14:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
This is just amazing!!! I go to bed with a 945 mb Category 2 (although questionable - probably much stronger at 11:00 pm last night), and wake up with this!!! Although I do think this will bob up and down, Super Typhoon Tip had better be scared - she'll have more than one chance at dropping into the 860s! CrazyC83 14:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- The fact that no storm this year had an advisory intensity of over 175 MPH (150 knots) is a very good observation and certainly a good question to be asking. I've love to know the answers as well. Even Mitch, which was a recent storm, was declared up to 155 knots, despite having a pressure of "only" 905 MB.
- A second thing I've been pondering is that when Katrina and Rita formed, they peaked out despite still being in basically good intensification conditions... and so I wondered what kind of structural differences it would take to deepen a storm beyond those two. I looked up some Gilbert images and found evidence of that "pinhole eye", which isn't even as dramatic (or small) as Wilma's. I think I found my answer - somehow, these twice-in-history sub-890 hurricanes manage to maintain an eye of incredibly small size. The Great Zo 14:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- The Labor Day hurricane of 1935 reached 892 mb despite only peaking at 160 mph (although that was probably underestimated). I'd say this could easily be a 190 mph or even 200 mph storm...it's like a mammoth F3 tornado out there! CrazyC83 14:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- That was 1935, I don't think the technology existed to even measure wind speeds approaching 200 mph without equipment breaking. --Holderca1 14:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Still 175 mph and 882 mb at 11 am advisory. --Holderca1 14:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Only statistical change was that hurricane force winds are now extending further out from the center,hard to tell if that means it's getting more diffuse and about to weaken for eyewall replacement,or just extending the same power more widely.Turns out the "incredible"/"inconceivable" difference I mentioned above was between F5 and F6 tornadoes (memo to Wilma:please don't spawn any of either near my Florida relatives!)--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 14:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- I think the NHC don't want to change the strength without another investigation. Estimates don't work very well at such high intensities. Also, the extension of hurricane force winds is an expected development - 50 miles is more average for a powerful hurricane; 15 miles seemed like it was from when Wilma was a Cat 1/2. --143.228.129.13 15:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Unbelievable. I'm speechless. --Revolución (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Everyone talks about the elusive 890's millibar club, well Wilma could (I don't think it will, but I didn't think this would beat Gilbert either) join the top secret 870's club, and hang out with Tip and Chaba. This is unreal, though I am very skeptical about maximum sustained winds remaing at 175 mph, that seems to be the point where the NHC refuses to go any further. Would Camille have peaked at 175 mph had she formed this season? The great kawa 17:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- It won't on this run, it went back to 900mb and 165 mph (although still a Category 5 monster). It must be starting an eyewall cycle, but it might come back down again. CrazyC83 18:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
The craziest thing is that while Katrina and Rita became intense storms in the Gulf, this storm hasn't even entered the Gulf yet! --Revolución (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- They actually believe that the Gulf would weaken Wilma,since the waters it's over now are warmer.If the Loop Current is still there,they don't expect Wilma to get that far north.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 18:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Whoa, what happened, big change in the models since the last NHC discussion. Half of them now project it to hit the Yucatan then move back into the Caribbean and meander there. [1] --Holderca1 19:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
![[1]](http://www.sfwmd.gov/org/omd/ops/weather/plots/storm_24.gif){kind=link}
- That would spare Florida, but it would be completely catastrophic for southern Mexico and Central America, already devastated by Hurricane Stan, and this is much, much worse...this would be a repeat of Hurricane Mitch, and we know how that turned out... CrazyC83 19:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- I just turned on the Weather Channel and they're still listing winds at 165 mph, but pressure at 892!!! It's undergoing eyewall replacement and may restrengthen during the next 12-24 hours.
The great kawa 20:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- NHC says winds down to 160,but the recon aircraft's 892 mb means that the previous 900 estimate may have been wrong.Now will it get stronger again or has it peaked?--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 21:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Rofl, I love Franklin. From the 5pm discussion:
AGREEMENT AMONG THE TRACK GUIDANCE MODELS...WHICH HAD BEEN VERY GOOD OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF DAYS...HAS COMPLETELY COLLAPSED TODAY. THE 06Z RUNS OF THE GFS...GFDL...AND NOGAPS MODELS ACCELERATED WILMA RAPIDLY TOWARD NEW ENGLAND UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF A LARGE LOW PRESSURE SYSTEM IN THE GREAT LAKES REGION. ALL THREE OF THESE MODELS HAVE BACKED OFF OF THIS SOLUTION...WITH THE GFDL SHOWING AN EXTREME CHANGE...WITH ITS 5-DAY POSITION SHIFTING A MERE 1650 NMI FROM ITS PREVIOUS POSITION IN MAINE TO THE WESTERN TIP OF CUBA.
--Golbez 21:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
The discussion also says that it's expected to go down to 135 kt during eyewall replacement and then back up to 145 (not all the way to peak).So if it revisits its full earlier strength,it's been underestimated again.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 21:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- The 11 PM discussion repeats this forecast...it's now down to 135 kt/155 mph (top end of cat 4) and not expected to get past 145 kt again...all alternate scenarios suggest weaker possibilities.So it may have peaked.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 03:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- Don't count on it. Once it's finished with the Yucatan, it will probably intensify again. Devahn58 03:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- It's 9:16 AM on Thursday morning and I'm just staring at the satellite loop, and thinking to myself... uhhh... it's GOING to curve... right? Maybe? Uh... (can you tell I'm a bit concerned for the well-being of the track forecast?) The Great Zo 13:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- The beasts of this season seem to be one-upping each other: Katrina stronger than Ivan, Rita stronger than Katrina, Wilma stronger than Rita. At this rate, Hurricane Beta's going to have an 869 mb pressure. Wilma-882 mb, Rita-897 mb, Katrina-902 mb. God! This is insane. When hurricanes compete, you lose. This season seems more like a Western Pacific season than an Atlantic season.
- You could do that with just this season's storms - Emily stronger than Dennis, Katrina stronger than Emily, Rita stronger than Katrina, Wilma stronger than Rita. And ANY of them would have been an exceptionally strong storm for any season. --168.229.26.50 14:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Wilma landfall
Yet another amazing thing: Wilma and Gilbert, the two strongest Atlantic hurricanes ever recorded (though admittedly records only go back a few decades at best) might end up making landfall in the exact same ___location. Jdorje 04:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- Well, even if they do make a same first landfall ___location, their second landfall locations would be fairly different -Tcwd (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
ACE calcs
Noticed someone had updated the ACE numbers for Wilma, the calculations were off a bit. Posting a table below with the numbers for each advisory. The incorrect numbers that were posted were higher than the actual numbers so I suspect that the individual either included intermediate advisories or used wind speeds in mph. These calcs use wind speeds in knots from the full advisories. --Holderca1 15:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
| Date | Time | Maximum Sustained Winds (kt) | ACE (104 kt2) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 17 Oct | 5 am EDT | 35 | 0.1225 |
| 11 am EDT | 40 | 0.16 | |
| 5 pm EDT | 45 | 0.2025 | |
| 11 pm EDT | 55 | 0.3025 | |
| 18 Oct | 5 am EDT | 60 | 0.36 |
| 11 am EDT | 65 | 0.4225 | |
| 5 pm EDT | 70 | 0.49 | |
| 11 pm EDT | 95 | 0.9025 | |
| 19 Oct | 5 am EDT | 150 | 2.25 |
| 11 am EDT | 150 | 2.25 | |
| 5 pm EDT | 140 | 1.96 | |
| 11 pm EDT | 135 | 1.8225 | |
| 20 Oct | 5 am EDT | 130 | 1.69 |
| 11 am EDT | 125 | 1.5625 | |
| 5 pm EDT | 130 | 1.69 | |
| 11 pm EDT | 130 | 1.69 | |
| 21 Oct | 5 am EDT | ||
| 11 am EDT | |||
| 5 pm EDT | |||
| 11 pm EDT | |||
| Total | 17.8775 |
Record Pressure Fall
Guys, the World Record for most rapid intensification is supposedly Super Typhoon Forrest right? The pressure in Forrest fell 92 mb in 22-23 hours (975 mb at 23Z on Sept 21 to 883 mb at 11Z on the 22nd). Wilma went from a 980 mb tropical storm at 12Z on the 18th, to an 882 mb Category 5 hurricane at 12Z on the 19th. By my calculations, that is a pressure fall of 98 mb in roughly 24 hours. That sounds like a new world record to me.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - my dropsonde 01:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Nothing else?
If it weren't for the potentially-devastating Wilma, all would be quite tranquil right now...how long will it last? It might be a little while before we officially go Greek...there isn't even another invest out there! (Of course, it may be hard to spot with all eyes on Wilma) CrazyC83 22:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- It's October. September and the peak of the season are over; we won't always be monitoring something any more. --69.86.16.61 22:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Geeze, there's a huge hurricane getting ready to devastate anything in its way, and you're saying it's "tranquil"... --Revolución (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Calm down, Revolución. That's not what he said. —BazookaJoe 01:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Maybe all the other potential invests are trying to help out Wilma? This isn't necessarily a good thing though...it would give the water a chance to rebuild and the eastern Caribbean is still ripe for a fourth (or fifth if Emily is upgraded) Category 5 hurricane...with all the monsters this year, could we see the first ever November Category 5 hurricane? If Emily could reach it (if it is upgraded) in July, what's to say it can't be done in November? CrazyC83 15:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
"Earliest" Hurricane Statistics
The Project
Note - much of the discussion and update-notifications from my project were moved to Archive 6. The Great Zo 23:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
After a lot of hard work, I finished the statistical research I had been working on, regarding various "earliest" records in regards to the Atlantic hurricane season. The project can be found here: http://pipsey.net:8080/~thegreatzo/hurricanes.html . Hopefully you can learn a thing or two from it; I sure know I learned a lot while I was digging through 150+ years of hurricane data to find all of this stuff out. The only incomplete portion is the Category-4 portion, which I will finish up eventually. Enjoy! The Great Zo 9 July 2005 07:29 (UTC)
- Good work on the research. It's very cool for us "hurricane freaks". :) bob rulz 08:20, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Fantastic work on the records. People don't have a clue about the difficulty of the operation. 147.70.242.21 20:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
July 25
July 25 - site has undergone a major update. I now have lists made for the 9th and 10th storms. It is very interesting to note that, at this point on the list, there are three years that are FAR ahead of everything else - 1933, 1936, and 1995. It is also interesting to note that 2005 is WAY ahead of the curve for even those three extremes! Additionally, who would have thought that, in the crazy year of 1995, one of the more inconsequential storms (Jerry) would hold the record for fastest-tenth-storm ever?
As the other part of the major update, I added some simple numerical graphics behind each table to make it a heck of a lot easier to find stuff while scrolling through. The site was beginning to be a mess of indistinguishable tables, and this helps that immensely. LINK TO THE SITE The Great Zo 05:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
July 27 - I created a spinoff page which is linked from the main site. This new research page focuses on a few data sets exclusive to Category 5 storms (of which there are 25). The Great Zo 07:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Looking at that list, Ethel is the one that strikes me. 981 mb and a Category 5??? That seems unrealistic and more typical of a Category 1 hurricane! I know that it jumped quickly from a Cat 1 to 5 back to 1 within 24 hours, I wonder if it really was a Cat 5 or if there was an error in reporting? CrazyC83 00:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Ethel was a weird storm. The Monthly Weather Review on it is ambiguous, but it aparently did undergo a record intensification period. The pressure reading of 981 millibars was taken from it as a strong Category 1. No pressure readings exist from it as a Category 5.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 00:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- Bingo. As noted below the chart, "It should be obvious that some of these storms likely had lower pressure readings than those that are printed here, but that proper observations or estimations could not be made for those times." Nowhere else is that more evident than with Ethel. The 981 MB reading was taken from a time when it was far weaker. The Great Zo 01:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
October 2
Moved down "the curve" again... saw someone already updated it with Stan's not-so-ahead-of-pace reading. :)
- 1st Storm - 41 days behind
- 2nd Storm - 33 days behind
- 3rd Storm - 23 days behind
- 4th Storm - 2 days ahead
- 5th Storm - 11 days ahead
- 6th Storm - 13 days ahead
- 7th Storm - 14 days ahead
- 8th Storm - 12 days ahead
- 9th Storm - 13 days ahead
- 10th Storm - 1 day ahead
- 11th Storm - 4 days ahead
- 12th Storm - 2 days behind
- 13th Storm - 6 days ahead
- 14th Storm - 4 days ahead
- 15th Storm - 9 days ahead
- 16th Storm - 9 days ahead
- 17th Storm - 10 days ahead
- 18th Storm - 1 day behind
- 19th Storm - 20 days ahead
- 20th storm - 17 days ahead
- 21st storm - 29 days ahead
The site has been updated to reflect Stan as 2nd place... but out of only four seasons to make it to 18 storms, needless to say that's still very impressive. Hurricane Research Site The Great Zo 17:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- When does Tammy have to develop now? (It will have to be out of TD21) CrazyC83 15:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Tammy has until October 25... which is likely plenty of time. The Great Zo 17:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- In fact, we may already have Tammy's baby picture, there is a mid level cyclonic disturbance over the mid-atlantic. Stirling Newberry - Bopnews 18:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Tammy will most likely come from 92L. -- RattleMan 22:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed she has. And 20 days up on 1933. This is like watching Barry Bonds chase Ruth's slugging percentage record - every day you realize that the only thing comparable is from the great depression. Stirling Newberry - Bopnews 12:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Tammy will most likely come from 92L. -- RattleMan 22:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Site has been updated for Tammy on October 5, 2005, at 11:30Z (darn those odd-timed special advisories!) Congratulations... we're now in a three-way tie for the second most active season on record! The Great Zo 14:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, bring out the champagne.
- I'll pop the proverbial (and sarcastic) cork when we hit Alpha ;D The Great Zo 03:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
The 'targets' for Vince and Wilma are 26 Oct. 0900Z and and 15 Nov. 1500Z. (Zo's site seems to have gone missing at the moment)--Keith Edkins 15:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- After that, we're in uncharted territory...have you planned the new charts for latest in each category (based on last advisory at that strength) and latest last storm (based on time of dissipation or becoming extratropical)? CrazyC83 15:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- Workin' on the site problem as we speak - as I use a friend's server who basically just set the thing up in his basement, it's subject to occasional glitch-ups and outages (the one before this one was caused by his cat kicking over his router, for example). As for working on more projects such as those, I do feel those are great ideas - but it's not something I want to do during the school year. I just don't have the time right now, but sure would like to work on that kind of stuff eventually! The Great Zo 19:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- Vince is on. We have over a month to tie the record in a "speedy" fashion. The Great Zo 14:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
October 17
We've got Wilma. -- NSLE | Talk 08:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- We are officially tied with 1933 for the most active season on record. Congratulations. (Ho ray ho ray)
- E. Brown, why did you edit out my correction to "the curve" earlier, and completely remove the October 17 section I created? I double and triple checked the math - Wilma is 29 days ahead, not 30. If you want to claim 30, please at least back it up instead of simply removing my post. The Great Zo 21:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- I concur with 29. Oct 17 and Nov 15 are exactly 4 weeks and 1 day apart. 29 days. --Holderca1 13:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Zo, I don't remember ever removing your post. I don't think I ever saw the post. This is the only edit of mine of this section that I could find [2]. Look on the history and you'll find that I'm not lying. You should also notice that when I made this edit, the October 17 section was not there and the number of days ahead was already listed at 30. I did not remove your post and I don't know what led you to belive that I did.
- Yup, got it all cleared up. Thanks. It got reverted at some point after I removed two sections to the archive to clear up the main page a bit, and confused the heck out of me. The Great Zo 00:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
After the incredible 2:30 AM update from the NHC, I've tentatively updated my Cat-5 research page to include new data on Wilma... and I'll clean it up and make sure it's all correct tomorrow morning after actual advisories are out. LINK -The Great Zo 06:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Updated it. Wilma Cat-5 as of 09Z on Oct 19. 1st place overall for pressure. The Great Zo 16:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Gaps
I wish people would stop archiving this section.
Here are the gaps we've had without any storms. Total time as of Oct. 15: 46 days, 13 hours. The season is at this point 4 1/2 months old, and only 6 1/2 weeks remain. --Golbez 08:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC), amended by CrazyC83 23:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Season started: June 1 0400Z (I'm assuming at midnight eastern)
- TD 1 formed: June 8 2100Z.
- A gap of 8 days, 17 hours.
- HPC stops monitoring Arlene on June 13 2100Z.
- TD 2 formed: June 28 2200Z.
- A gap of 15 days, 1 hour.
- Bret dissipates on June 30 0300Z.
- TD 3 formed: July 3 2100Z.
- A gap of 3 days, 18 hours.
- Emily dissipates on July 21 1500Z.
- TD 6 formed: July 21 2100Z.
- A gap of 6 hours.
- Franklin went extratropical on July 29 2100Z.
- TD 8 formed: Aug 2 2100Z
- A gap of 4 days.
- Irene went extratropical on August 18 1500Z.
- TD 11 formed: Aug 22 1600Z
- A gap of 4 days, 1 hour.
- Jose dissipated on August 23 1500Z.
- TD12 formed: Aug 23 1835Z.
- A gap of three hours 35 minutes, rounded up to four hours.
- HPC stops monitoring Rita on Sept 26 0900Z.
- TD19 formed: Sep 30 2100Z.
- A gap of 4 days, 12 hours.
- NHC stops monitoring Stan on Oct 5 0900Z.
- Tammy formed: Oct 5 1130Z
- A gap of two and a half hours, rounded down to two hours (as the call was likely made previously).
- HPC stops monitoring Tammy on Oct 6 2100Z.
- STD22 formed: Oct 8 1500Z.
- A gap of 1 day, 18 hours.
- STD22 dissipated on Oct 9 0300Z.
- Vince formed: Oct 9 1500Z.
- A gap of 12 hours.
- NHC stops monitoring Vince on Oct 11 0900Z.
- TD24 formed: Oct 15 2100Z.
- A gap of 4 days, 12 hours.
ACE Table
As the table is now, it adds a lot of white space in the middle of the article. I really like the full table in that link, puts the whole season in tabular format and is easier to get info on all the storms rather than reading through every storm's section. --Holderca1 23:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- I've reorganized the table to leave much less white space, but someone better than I at formatting should probably fiddle around with it to make the table less visually crowded. --69.86.16.61 04:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- I've been doing updates after each advisory today, and the table being sorted the way it is makes it really obnoxious to update, because Wilma keeps moving up the list. Could we (1) make this a simple, HTML ordered list in a div float:right, or (2) sort it ascending chronologically instead of descending ACE value? --Mm35173 15:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
User:Holderca1 changed Wilma's ACE index for 1500 UTC 19 Oct, but I think I was right. Here's my Excel (Mm35173 15:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)):
| Adivsory | Wind (kt) | Energy (kt^2)/10000 |
| 7 | 35 | 0.1225 |
| 8 | 40 | 0.16 |
| 9 | 45 | 0.2025 |
| 10 | 55 | 0.3025 |
| 11 | 60 | 0.36 |
| 12 | 65 | 0.4225 |
| 13 | 70 | 0.49 |
| 14 | 95 | 0.9025 |
| 15 | 130 | 1.69 |
| 16 | 150 | 2.25 |
| 17 | 150 | 2.25 |
| Total | - | 9.1525 |
See my table above in the Wilma section, you shouldn't have include advisory 15, it was a special advisory issued at 1 am. --Holderca1 15:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. Sorry. I wish they would have numbered that 14A. --Mm35173 15:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
In the ACE section it reads "The ACE values for the 2005 season are deceptively low compared to the season's actual activity since only two long-lasting Cape Verde hurricanes, Irene and Emily, formed, a much lower number than in an average season". After having just read the pages on Cape Verde hurricanes, it seems that 2 cape verde hurricanes is the average, and for last few years there have been 2 a year, so two would be normal, not below average as quoted here. Or am I missing something or misreading ir or being stupid? --
Wilma PIC
How do you think of the Wilma photo that i taken from a NOAA public ___domain. How'd you think? If you have a better image, just replace it. :) Irfanfaiz | Message Me - 2.21PM (GMT +8)
- We should wait for Wilma to hit maximum intensity, then use the pic from when it was at its strongest. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 06:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Any picture is better than no picture. Until a better one is taken it should stay. Jdorje 07:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- All right then. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 07:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Times
We are not on EST or EDT because we are not all in the US, and nor is this an article about the US. Please can we keep to international time, SqueakBox 18:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- We have actually always included both, it seems whoever did the 2 pm (1800) update deleted the latter. It is good to have both for those in the effected area, most people are not familiar with UTC and can relate to a local time, and the UTC time is included for everyone else. --Holderca1 18:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Fine to have 2 times but you are wrong to think people in Latin America and the Caribbean would understand US time, because we don't, SqueakBox 18:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I am not following you, it's not US time, time zones go from pole to pole. Are you saying that Central America only uses international time and has no local time? --Holderca1 18:45, 18 Oct
- We don't have UTC-4 or EDT time here so it isn't commonly used. We are on Central Standard Time Zone but people are not familiar with that. People will be actually be more familiar with GMT (papers etc), but when I used that ages ago I was informed it is called UTC, so I would say that this is what poeple are familiar with here in Central America. Local time is just local time and isn't called anything normally, as there is no daylight saving, SqueakBox 18:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, so what exactly is the point here? We have always included both local and UTC and will continue to always use both. I am not seeing what the problem is. --Holderca1 19:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
BTW we should be using km too as miles ios US centred and this storm is merely predicted to go to the US, and even if so it doesn't make the US more important, SqueakBox 19:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Well, that is due a majority of the storms affecting the U.S., but if you feel like changing every instance in the article, that is quite tedious work. --Holderca1 19:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Don't know about them all, but maybe Stan at some point. The one I am interested in right now is Wilma and I would rather spend the time I have adding to that. I am still hoping won't get a separate article but that uis up to the Hurricane, SqueakBox 19:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- The article uses whatever times the National Hurricane Center uses. The National Hurricane Center uses whatever time zone the storm is located in and UTC as well, and will switch to Central time when the storm actually enters into the central time zone. Furthermore, if you have read the article you linked above, you will see the U.S. uses central standard time as well. --tomf688{talk} 21:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
The The National Hurricane Center is national to the US. The Hurricane is closest to Cayman islands which are at UTC-5, according to wikipedia, not at EST, though UTC-5 is EST. It is not located at EDT. Obviously I know the US uses CST as well, but what is standard in the US is not standard outside the US, which peiople seem to be foprgetting, SqueakBox 21:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- No, actually it's not, the NHC is part of the U.S. government, yes, but it is responsible for the entire Atlantic basin whether the storm is a threat to the U.S. or not. They are one of the World Meteorological Organization's Regional Specialized Meteorological Centers (RSMCs). So the advisories issued by the NHC are official for the entire north Atlantic coast just as the Japan Meteorogical Agency issues advisories on typhoons for the entire northwest Pacific Ocean. --Holderca1 22:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
What about El Instituto Meteorológico de Guatemala? SqueakBox 00:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- The articles on induvidual hurricanes are going to have wind speed measurments in both miles per hour and kilometers per hour. The wind speed complaint now addressed, I don't see what the time zone arguement is about. Central Time in Honduras is no different than central time in the US. I have been to many countries abroad and they use the same time zones that the US does. I do know of a handful of countrys that operate on a different system, like Australia, Greenland and some places in Asia, but I'm pretty sure North America is all uniform.
- Yeah, I am lost on it as well, did a little research, most of North America (as well as other parts of the world) observes Daylight Savings Time. Cuba, Mexico, and the Cayman Islands use it. This is not a U.S. only thing, it actually started in Europe before the U.S ever used it. North American countries that observe Daylight Savings Time: Canada, United States, Mexico, Cuba, Cayman Islands, and Haiti. It should be noted that none of the Lesser Antilles observes DST, but advisories for storms in that area are issued in Atlantic Standard Time. --Holderca1 22:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
The problem arose because I did not have a clue what EDT meant. It's not a time zone in Central America, Mexico otr the Caribbean, and it was confusing. While a lot of people know what EST is very few outside the States and Canada have ever heard of EDT. I know Mexico uses daylight saving but still doesn't extend anything like that far east. Wikipedia says Cuba may be under EST at the moment but is confused itself on the issue, SqueakBox 22:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Cuba, Haiti and the Cayman Islands are on EDT right now, so I wouldn't say no one in the Caribbean uses it. The Yucatan is on CDT right now, when the hurricane enters the Central time zone, the advisories will be issued in CDT. From Havana issued Sept 30, states "Meanwhile -- so as to increase the generation capacity -- Daylight Savings Time will be extended until October 2005..." --Holderca1 22:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
BTW none of Central Anmerica has daylight saving, SqueakBox 22:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Well you can't make everyone happy, that is why the UTC time is listed. --Holderca1 22:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Please source that Cayman are on UDT. According to wikipedia they are on EST, SqueakBox 00:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- SqueakBox, STOP REVERTING! I'm getting slightly agitated here. Daylight Savings is not a US only thing. Nicaragua and El Salvador have NOT issued warnings. El Salvador is nowhere close to the danger area. The storm is turning away from Central America, winds in Nicaragua never got above 10 mph (16 kph). No danger here, not even from surf, not beyond the usual at least. Now enough!
Can you source the time in the Caymans please, rather than reverting to US East coast time without sourcing your claim. Your further claim that it is not going to affect CA is not backed up by anything. Stop only trusting US sources, it is the metereological organisation, abnd it is US centred, which in the context of an article like this can be very offensive, SqueakBox 00:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Cayman is on EST. See [3]
Please can it now be changed as the storm is clearly not in EDT, SqueakBox 00:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- I say stick to the NHC forecasts. If they release it at 8EDT (mind you, 8 EDT = 7 EST), then so be it. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 00:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Why? The storm is not in EDT, it is not a known term outside thje US and Canada, and sticking to NHS will only result in a US centred article, which is not acceptable for an international encyclopeedia dealing with an assuredly non US centred topic. You cannot source that it is the most legitimate source, I an sure, SqueakBox 00:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- I hate trolls *cough* squeak *cough*. If you are saying the NHC is less-able to forecast the storm than your local meteorological agency, then you are simply wrong. I'm sorry, but they have equipment at their disposal that no other nation in the western hemisphere has invested in. What they say is what goes in this article. The end. --tomf688{talk} 00:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Since the article includes UTC, why isn't this all moot anyway? UTC certainly isn't "U.S.-centric".... AySz88^-^ 01:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The simple answer to that AySz88, is that I wanted UTC time but compromised to dealing with American zone time. Apparently the other side feels less able to compromise, even though from what I can gather the nearest place on EDT tiome is Miami, which hopefully it will not even approach before dying a death whereas it is already over the Caymans, which are confirmed on EST time, SqueakBox 01:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- We are using UTC, we always have and always will. You are the one trying to monopolize both time formats. Cuba is on EDT, I have said that several times and posted a source. --Holderca1 01:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Geez, if you don't know what EDT is, then click on the Wiki link, it will go to the EDT page and say it is UTC-4. Your anti-American attitude is getting very tiresome. The NHC operates under the World Meteorological Orginization. They may be a part of and funded by the US government, but they issue advisories for everyone. How many weather satelites or recon aircraft does the El Instituto Meteorológico de Guatemala have at their disposal. They are not recognized by the WMO as the authority in the region, the NHC is. End of story. --Holderca1 01:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I am not anti-American at all. I am just not American, which is something very different, nor do I even know the States. To try to counter US centrism in this or any non US wikipedia article cannot be considered anti-americanism, and I find it offensive that you suggest that my behaviour could be construed as such. This is an international encyclopedia, and people outside the US are also actually affected by this hurricane. SqueakBox 01:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
BTW it was me who linked, originally there was no way to know what EDT meant, SqueakBox 01:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- I saw that we stick to the NHC, especially since they ARE the officially-appointed RSMC. You guys also ought to note that I'm not American; I'm Singaporean living in Singapore. My feeling tells me to stick with whatever the NHC is giving. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 01:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Also we have to use legitimate sources in encyclopedia article creation, not official ones. Big difference, though I dispute your claim that the NHC are the official source of info for Central American countries. The NHC is probably the primary source, but that is something different. And I am not contradicting any of the NHC reports either or anything they say in my stance, (ie if the NHC said the wind is 7- miles an hour and the Honduran one said 120 I would stick with the NHC too, but what we are dealing with is something very different, ie the fact that where the storm is is in EST time, officially, SqueakBox 01:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- You said you wanted UTC time, but UTC time is already in the article - what else do you want? (FYI, Cuba also uses EDT UTC-4 during Daylight Savings, so Miami is not the closest place which uses EDT (actually, it would be Key West whether or not Cuba observed EDT).) AySz88^-^ 01:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
All I want is articles that can be easily understood by an international and not merely a US audience. The NHC make no statements about time zones whatsoever and to imply that they do is odd. I am not contradicyting or disputing any statements made by the NHC. They are a metereological centre, nothing to do with time zones, so there is no reason at all to use the NMA clock. Trying to impose international standards on articles that are US centred (or any other country centred), and to make articles intelligible to an international audience is not trolling but defending wikipedia integrity, SqueakBox 04:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- It is trolling when it already has UTC on it. What do you want? Do you want to list local time for every time zone in the world? We put down the time that is issued on the public advisories. We don't pick the times. Daylight savings time is not a U.S. centered concept. It was started in Europe in Germany and the UK. If you don't know what time EDT is, then the UTC time is there for you to figure out what your local time is. Damn, I can't wait for two more weeks and the entire planet will be on standard time. I will say it again, because obviously you have not picked it up from the numerous other posts on this waste of space topic, there is nothing U.S. centered about the time. There are a lot more people in North America that are on Daylight Savings Time than that are on Standard Time. If anything, you are the one that is trying to make it centered around you, you had been changing it to CST, if I remember is your time zone. We will continue to put the time the advisory has listed on it, and the UTC time for that. --Holderca1 12:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Just call it Local time people! Local time. Local time is what matters - not EDT, not EST, not CEST - as long as it doesnt happen at those places, even if its the same timezone.
- Hmm, not sure how that would work, local time for who? Cuba is on EDT and the Yucatan is on CDT. --Holderca1 21:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Folks, the articles have both the time listed by the National Hurricane Center (local) and GMT (UTC). It's time to stop beating this poor, dead horse and give it a decent burial. B.Wind 22:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Warnings
Please don't add speculative warnings about evacuating Florida (merely one of many places threatened). This is an encyclopedia and such warnings are not appropriate, SqueakBox 21:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- I believed that was removed several hours ago. --Holderca1 21:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Huh? You just replaced them [4] I guess accidentally? We could have warnings for everywhere otherwise, so best just to report official warnings from everywhere and nothing else, SqueakBox 21:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
It wasn't an accident. It is from the advisory. Every place in the projected path are either under a watch/warning or advised to keep an eye on the storm. Nothing biased towards the U.S. --Holderca1 21:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
It was written like a warning and not like an encyclopedic entry about a warning, SqueakBox 21:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- It was an advisory telling all people in the forecast path and cone of uncertainty to pay attention to this thing. So in a sense, it was a warning, just not a designated one with pre-set precautionary measures. Like if I were to warn you about a traffic accident ahead or something.
alignment
sorry for bringing this up again, but I tried it (before it was quickly reverted) and it actually looks better. But some people are strange in that they just want this ugly "all pictures on the right" layout. [5] --Revolución (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- I would be the one who reverted it. It might be just me, but it doesn't look right. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 01:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Looks good to me; perhaps keep all the major hurricanes' pictures on the left? AySz88^-^ 01:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with NSLE I like then at the right.
- I meant that they don't look right on the left. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 08:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Of course not. They look left on the left. --Mm35173 13:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
How about in the middle? ;-) --Holderca1 13:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- "Who's on first?" "Who is on first." "That's what I said, Who's on first?" "Who is on first!" "Stop mocking me!" "I wasn't mocking you." "Yes you were mocking me." "You wasn't mocking you." "I said you were mocking me!" "You was not mocking you!!" :D! I LOVE that skit. This sounds like a very ADD version of that. They actually look right on the right. ;D. That is absolutely hysterical XD.
Wtf?
From the CNN article on Wilma:
"Wilma is the third Category 5 storm this year...The center said it did not know if that was a record because it does not track the number of Category 5 hurricanes in a season."[6]
Are you saying that we have more comprehensive records on Wikipedia than at the NHC and that nobody at the NHC every actually bothered to figure it out? bob rulz 15:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- That's interesting, you would think they would spend the entire 5 minutes it would take to figure that out. Not like we have that many Cat 5s. --Holderca1 15:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- I think it was a case where CNN was talking to a staffer at NHC who wasn't prepared to answer that particular question and replied with a general 'Hell if I know' reply. Donovan Ravenhull 17:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
They are probably reluctant to use records, suggesting that some may have slipped out of their hands and went unrecorded before satellites were developed. CrazyC83 17:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
The NHC is either a.) too lazy to care b.) too busy (quite likely) or c.)too stupid to not know that simple answer right off the top of their head. I'm leaning on that one because after watching Max Mayfield, the director at the NHC, give his little speech he mentioned that Wilma had "one of the lowest pressures" ever recorded in the Atlantic basin. Come on, he should know that's pretty much a given, it has been calibrated, but we'll have to wait for post-season analysis.
- Quite honestly records are of little importance. They have a Cat 5 to monitor. Why waste time to see if any records have been broken. --Holderca1 23:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
"Betting pools"
There are now four betting pools on this talk page. WP:NOT a chat room or a message board. It even says at the very top of the page to keep off-topic discussion to a minimum. I figured I'd leave a note here before I just wiped it out entirely, you know, to give someone a chance to copy it over to their user or talk page and maybe continue it there. Mike H (Talking is hot) 23:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- Personally, the only betting pool that I feel is not relevant to the article is the replacement names one.
- My whole point is that the talk pages are for discussing edits on the article page and making compromises on them, etc. This wouldn't be a problem normally, except this is a heavily-edited article and the talk pages can balloon like they are now. WP:NOT aside, it's really cluttering the talk page and making it longer than need be. I still think it should be moved to someone else's user or talk page. Mike H (Talking is hot) 00:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
If you click on edit for the whole page, it says "This page is 163 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." enough said... --Revolución (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't mind the betting pools but I am getting increasingly irritated at the people who come here to ask questions like "how should we make the "storm names" table when we get to Greek letters?" " What if we get past Omega" and these speculation discussions ultimately take up more than half of the discussion on the page. --Revolución (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed, Revolution, but there's not much we can do about that.
- up there with the archives there is now a link to a page where I think all this speculation should be archived and posted. It will give these people some area they can discuss it without cluttering up this page. --Revolución (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- If we have a consensus we can move the Informal Betting Pools to that subpage, though it's probably not necessary. I suspect after Wilma is archived the page will be considerably shorter. --Revolución (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Eh, lighten up a bit. It's not like we are going to run out of internet. We need something to keep us sane writing an article where thousands of people are dying. I moved all the /betting_pools to their own page. --Holderca1 01:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)