Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 18

message: The post-season analysis report on Hurricane Katrina is finally out and there are a few changes. 
First, Katrina never made landfall as a Category 4 (That's a bunch of BS in my opinion), but instead hit Buras, Louisiana as a strong Cat 3 with 110 knot winds (roughly equal to 125 mph). 
Also,It  hit Buras with a minimum pressure of 920 mbars instead of 918 mbars.
It then made landfall at the MS/LA border with 105 knot (120 mph) winds and a minimum pressure of 928 mbars.
-Fableheroesguild 18:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Link?  I don't see it on their list of released reports. --tomf688{talk} 19:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see it either, and I doubt it was a Category 3. If anything, it was stronger, more like 130-135 knots at Buras and 120 knots at the MS/LA line. I have no idea where they are making their estimates from. CrazyC83 19:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The number that blows that all away: wind gust of at least 110 mph (95 knots - instrument broke) at the Jones County EOC in Laurel, MS, more than 100 miles inland and 5 hours after final landfall. If the sustained winds were, say, 80 knots (90 mph - strong Cat 1) at that point (to assume the strongest winds were not recorded), the decay chart suggests that Katrina was around 135 knots (155 mph) at landfall - high-end Category 4. I personally would mark it down at 130 knots (150 mph) at Buras landfall, as a slight compromise. The Pearlington landfall I would mark at 120 knots (140 mph). CrazyC83 20:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing those charts are designed based on a smaller hurricane.  In fact the whole SSS claims to predict storm surge, but fails to take into account size.  Refer back to our discussion at Talk:Hurricane Wilma#894.2F155. Jdorje 10:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Katrina report 

message: Not sure where to bring this up, but the new colors for the SS Scale are very colorblindness-unfriendly. I can't easily tell the difference between the most of the colors and can't tell the difference at all between TD and TS. - Cuivienen 01:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why were they changed in the first place? --CFIF 03:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  See discussion at Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics#Overcoloration - we can still change them. --AySz88^-^ 03:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa, I agreed that the original colors were very bright, but I also mentioned that I hated the easter egg colors. Those new colors are just sickening and cannot stay. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 20:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Colors 

message: Couldn't find one on a quick google. Several news sources say that Adrian could become Arlene. "If Hurricane Adrian crosses Central America without breaking up, it would become reclassified as an Atlantic storm and be called Arlene.
"We'd say the first one disappeared and then another one formed," Martin Nelson, a lead forecaster at the National Hurricane Center west of Miami, told the Orlando Sentinel. "It really would be two different systems." Sun-Sentinel and "Only if the system should maintain tropical cyclone status throughout its passage over land would it retain the name Adrian in the Atlantic basin". NHC discussion on Adrian, which obviously didn't happen.
But nothing that tells me Arlene formed from the remnants of Adrian. A forum post says it didn't, but that's not citable. "Passage over land disrupted the circulation and caused the system to become disorganized; once it emerged into the NW Caribbean, it became entrained in the upper-level trough and never redeveloped. Nevertheless, it became the precursor for what has shaped up to be an active season.
Early June brought about the season's first tropical storm, Arlene, from a tropical wave in the western Caribbean on June 8th."  --MeekSaffron (Jaffa,Tree!) 09:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, what is this post supposed to be about? Where does it say that Adrian became Arlene? bob rulz 10:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Arlene could have developed from the remnants of Hurricane Adrian, the first storm of the 2005 Pacific hurricane season. [Citation needed]" I'm gonna remove that. --Golbez 10:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh...who put that in there? bob rulz 10:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. --MeekSaffron (Jaffa,Tree!) 20:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needing citation for Adrian -> Arlene 

message: Under the purpose of translating this articel to danish i have discovered a minor fail in the article (or just som unclearness). Under the section "Mid-season-outlook" it is stated that Dr. Gray followed suit whit NHCs update. It appears to me this is the first time NHC is mentioned in the article, and im therefore in doubt whether its NOAA og NHC there is issuing the forecast, or whether there is referenced to NOAA forecast there is mentioned just before... Hope someone either will take the troble to explain a stupid dane or make the sentence more precise. Thanks Jonatanj 14:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The NHC (National Hurricane Center) is a subdivision of NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association); they're the same thing in this article. joturner 14:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know, but is it to the reader not better to use the same name or make this thing clear? Jonatanj 14:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's true which is why I'm glad someone changed it. I was thinking of doing it myself earlier, but it seems like NOAA and NHC have both been used quite a few times in this article. joturner 20:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  For consistency, I substituted NHC with NOAA.  No more problems. :) --tomf688{talk} 20:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should have just spelled out National Hurricane Center instead of putting NOAA in there. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 02:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor fail

message: Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma and Emily all have infrared pictures, while the rest have optical pictures. Is there a reason? Are the four abovementioned storms given infrared pictures due to their strength? Or could no others be found? Merely looking for continuity mroe than anything else, I'm unsure if such an agreement has previously been reached. -- Sarsaparilla39 00:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, but I personally hate infrared satellite pictures. When possible, it should be visible, which show a truer form of the storm. Hurricanehink 01:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like seeing different pictures.  Satellite pictures over and over again get boring; some variety is good. Jdorje 01:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I also like having a variety of pictures shown. Visible is only a "truer form" in that it's what you can actually see. However, infrared will show you more of the actual structure of the storm. Also, my personal favorite imagery for viewing hurricanes is color-enhanced water vapor imagery, which produces some amazing images for hurricanes. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 07:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infrared-Optical Pictures 

message: Why is the formation time of Zeta given with "c." (circa) in the timeline? Other storms give formation times without that abbreviation. Previous practice appears to be to give the time of the first public advisory as the formation time, without qualification by "c." --Cam 16:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason why the time is given with the circa notation is because the exact time that Zeta formed has not yet been determined and/or confirmed.  -- Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 16:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What form will this determination or confirmation take? --Cam 16:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The final storm report. It will be released some time befroe the next hurricane season begins, probably before March. - Cuivienen 15:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! --Cam 17:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zeta formation time 

message: Fixed references to 'this year' as, although Zeta is active, the season has officially ended. Feel free to revert those if you feel it's not appropriate, yet, but please leave the merging of discussion of devastation. Happy new year! :)--Dan (Talk)|@ 16:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'This year' references 

message: Is it me, or does Zeta, in that pic, look a bit too organised and circular for a tropical storm? XYaAsehShalomX 16:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No more than Harvey did Jamie C 17:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To me it doesn't look too organized in the picture, as it definitely wouldn't qualify as a minimal hurricane or even a strong tropical storm, in my opinion.  -- Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 17:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo of Zeta 

message: The article currently says:
2005 also set a new record for most storms forming in November, with 3 storms (Gamma, Delta and Epsilon); the old record was shared by six years, most recently 2001.
Didn't 2001 have 3 in November? ( Hurricane Michelle becoming a tropical storm on Nov 1, N & O ) crandles 20:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also have we got different records to mention such as most storms forming after 30 September, and after 31 October? crandles 20:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is correct re:2001 and Michelle - it became a tropical storm on November 1. CrazyC83 22:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of November Storms

message: Why does main article: Tropical Storm Zeta in the Tropical Storm Zeta section link to it's own article (this one)? 218.214.23.223 04:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circular reference 

message: RE: Timeline -- Quote: "For continuation of Zeta, see Timeline of the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season."  I find this inappropriate.  For Zeta is a 2005 storm and should only be refered to as a sidenote on the 2006 page.  Recommendations? Hopquick 04:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Put it on both pages, for convenience of users? --AySz88^-^ 05:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, there's nothing new to mention about Zeta yet. Strengthening and weakening could be added on both pages when it comes up. - Cuivienen 05:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2005 or 2006