Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 17

message: That the NHC/WMO is going to abandon the use of Greek letters by next year. Anything to back that up? --CFIF 23:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a quick search on Google News, but did not find anything.  --tomf688{talk} 14:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: They should have a 7th list in this situation. The names would be human names, but they would be of ambigous gender; Avery, Bobbie, Courtney, Dale, etc. This way it would keep the male/female pattern, yet not have unknown Greek names. No one will likely listen to this, but I think it could work. You wouldn't run into the problem of retiring a greek letter, as you could just have a human name. Hurricanehink 00:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A 7th list sounds a bit aggressive to me. We don't even know how badly we'll need it. I just say add 'Y' and 'Z' names to the list. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: From a greek (and english) standpoint this isn't much of a problem.  But trying to get anyone in the native spanish speaking world to pronounce a theta, TH, correctly is a bit difficult.  Since Central America and the Spanish-speaking Caribbean are a definite target, it would be adviseable to reconsider.  Plus would anyone pronounce hurricane Psi correctly (no, the P is not silent), or Hurricane Xi vs. Chi?  Would we have been better off with our alphabet: Aee, Bee, Cee, Dee, E, eff, Gee, aycH, Ai, Jay, Kay...? Hopquick 14:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heard from local newscast 

message: Should be revise Delta's article?  The NHC November report stated that it became a subtropical storm on the 22 before turning into a tropical storm on the 23rd.  So should be revise it? tdwuhs
:I'm a bit wary towards that season summary.  Let's wait until the official report for that particular storm comes out, since it will likely be much more thorough. --tomf688{talk} 14:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delta Editing? 

message: From here:
:Rather than opening with a bland statement of the dates of the season, can you engage the readers more effectively by characterising the season—was it a particularly bad one? Was it unusual in other ways? (I'd like to know right at the start why you chose this particular season, and I'd like to be able to place the Pacific hurricanes in the larger context. Some big statements would capture our attention at the start: major climatic phenomenon for a number of countries in Central and North America??? Maybe introduce the scale before you cite a Category 5 storm. Many readers won't be familiar with these categories. I wonder whether there are some graphical representations of the number of storms and their severity for each season, for example. That might be good after the lead, before we focus on this particular season.
I find that the way every TC season article is introduced with the dates does not make for interesting reading.  In a sense this is a question of interesting writing versus good reference writing; however, to qualify as a featured article (for instance) both need to be satisfied.  I wanted to use the 2004 AHS for a featured article in the Portal:Tropical Cyclones (see here), and although it's my belief that the article summary should just be copied directly to use for the featured-article summary, this paragraph is just too tedious to include (so I skipped it and took the second paragraph).  Now, my suggestion is that - for all single-season articles - this dating paragraph be moved down into the newly-created first section of the article, which can be called "Season dates" or something to that effect. Jdorje 05:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I had gone ahead and swapped the paragraphs - I didn't see any reason not to - but E. Brown reverted it with "this belongs at the beginning, it's always been formatted that way". :/ (I suppose he hadn't seen this yet.) --AySz88^-^ 06:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well...he's right, it is a standard that that paragraph goes first...look at all 150+ AHS articles and you'll find it's that way.  If it is to be changed we must come to a consensus first. Jdorje 07:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed fully. I reverted it for the reasons Tom has just stated. And because it looked sloppy. There was no transition between the two paragraphs the way you guys re-ordered them. Jdorje, I am a full advocate for 2004AHS as a featured article in the tropical cyclones portal. That article is so well formatted. The information is well stated. Word economy is good, so there's less chatter. One or two more pics could hurt. And not I DO NOT mean ten or twelve. I mean one or two. Then buff up the references section and it will be perfect. I think this article should have been modeled on 2004, but apparently others thought differently. Sigh -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 07:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *doesn't remember stating anything* :) I do agree, though, that the intro paragraphs are a bit technical and uninteresting.  Considering how loooong these articles are, they need a good intro to keep people's attention. --tomf688{talk} 13:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The boring part is brief. It gets interesting pretty quickly, that's my take on it. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 00:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But for a featured article (a WP:FA, not a TC portal featured article) there shouldn't be a boring part at all.  I still say this rote-and-repetitive listing of dates does not belong in the summary, but should be put in the first section (not the way AySz88 did it, but actually in a new subsection). Jdorje 19:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Just because it's long and uninteresting to some should not be limiting factors. It's the quality of the article, not the quantity or the subject, being judged. Just look at the list of featured articles in the link you gave. How many of those subjects do you find fascinating? DNA repair, several Latin names I can't spell or pronounce...come on! It's the quality, not the subject. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly: it's the quality, not the subject.  The subject here is already interesting; we just need to make sure the quality of the article is such that it stays interesting.  Giving trivial information in the introduction does not make for interesting reading. And the specific "official" dates at which the season starts and stops is indeed trivial: for older hurricane seasons I suspect it's not even accurate to put it in, since there were no official dates at that time.  Everyone intuitively knows that the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season occurred during 2005; we don't have to spend a paragraph explaining it - at least not in the introduction. Jdorje 01:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season article summaries 

message: The Hurricane Epsilon storm track (Image:Epsilon 2005 track.png) hasn't been updated since 2 December 9PM UTC. The time is now 09:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurricane Epsilon picture 

message: If you look closely at the NHC giant wall  board, it shows Tropical Storm Cindy upgraded to 75 mph, hence Hurricane Cindy. It also shows Wilma upgraded to 185 mph. (It hasn't changed Emily yet; they must still be debating if it is going to be restrengthened). CrazyC83 17:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. It could just be tenative, but I'm glad Cindy and Wilma were upped. I'm personally a little disappointed that Emily was not a Cat. 5, but you can't win every time. Good find. Hurricanehink 17:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, those are probably tentative. They are probably still debating them (including Emily - I am sure some in the NHC are saying it should be 160, others 155). Emily's central pressure of 929mb may be holding them back, although Category 5 storms with pressures in the 930s are not unheard of. They should be noted in brief on their articles, but no major renaming should be done until they become official (i.e. Tropical Storm Cindy references should remain such, not changed to Hurricane Cindy, until officially released). CrazyC83 17:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, these are quite tentative and we shouldn't take this as solid proof until the post season reports and best track are out, regardless of this particular map's educated lean. The NHC are experts but not infallible. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The sad thing is that they already have Zeta on the board. You think the staffers there are a *tiny* bit gunshy?Naraht 14:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think I remember seeing Zeta on the board from way back, so they weren't that far off. --AySz88^-^ 19:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NHC giant picture 

message: I notice in the records section that the records for the most storms forming within the season before the end of a month (e.g. October or September). Shouldn't it also be noted that although 2005 may have had the most storms forming before the end of September (17) it does not hold the record for the most storms during September (which would be 8 in 2002)?72.27.29.45 18:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 14. Officially storms that form up till December 31 are part of the season, so, yeah. NSLE (讨论+extra CVU) 00:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Records

message: Tried to create a timeline on the basis of hurricane season 2005. Many other seasons can be added. The black lines in color bars indicate the landfall. Please comment if this way of depicting the hurricanes is worth. --Saharadesertfox 00:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do NOT change this template as it strecthes the screen. Leave it as a link. NSLE (讨论+extra CVU) 00:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I like it, but it isn't terribly informative as it stands. If it were changed to show varying intensities then it might be more useful and perhaps worthy of inclusion in the article. - Cuivienen 00:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, beware that the colors might change on you sometime soon.... --AySz88^-^ 01:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  No Problem, will add TD and TS and the varying of intensities during the storm. Can anybody help on where to get the data of the varying during the storms. Thanx --Saharadesertfox 09:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about adding tropical storms to the template? Thelb4 08:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with both Cuivienen and Thelb. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline Atlantic Hurricanes 

message: Now that the storm pictures have been put in a box, the writing is squashed. I have tried to put it in a table, but to no success. Could I have some help at the bottom of my sandbox? Thelb4 20:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now the Current Storm Status and Recent Timeline text are running into the rest of the text. It looks worse than before, plus the image is gone. Thanks whoever did that! Why not try to keep it the same as the rest of the article? Good kitty 05:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: right|150px I see no problem. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 05:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you're looking at a cached version of the page.  It had lots of whitespace in IE, but that's fixed now I think. --AySz88^-^ 06:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't use IE, so the revision after me was messed up. The screenshot posted here is crossing between two sections, btw. Also the image that replaced the previous one was horrible! Good kitty 15:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I dont know why people keep changing Epsilon's image back to that ugly one with the orange lines. The original one was 10x better. Weatherman90 01:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Always use one at maximum intensity, or at least try to use one. That is at max intensity. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 01:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? There is no such rule, because if there was, half the images wouldn't be up there. Besides, the one I put up WAS at maximum intensity. If you spent half as long looking at it as you did messing it up, you would've known that. Please stop putting the ugly images up there. You are forgetting the whole point that this is an encyclopedia, and people want to see the nicest images possible. Good kitty 02:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maximum intensity = 4 Dec 2005, 11 am AST = 85mph/979mbar. Secondly - WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Please read those two - you are coming very close to violating these policies with that message. Your pic is from the 6th of December - two days AFTER max intensity. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 02:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the date aquired. It says December 4th. December 6th is the date they posted it. Again, there is no such rule about the images, and you should not make up ones. Good kitty 02:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Moved to Good kitty's talk. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 02:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epsilon boxes 

message: Lee's report has come out. SargeAbernathy 15:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No real surprises from Lonely Lee. Just a moment in the spotlight for him (finally, he was stuck in Katrina's shadows the whole time) with Epsilon gone just in time for the report... CrazyC83 17:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the NHC was kind enough to actually "up" Lee to a whole TWO data points as a Tropical Storm. The Great Zo 08:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lee 

message: You should put the accumulated cyclone energy of all the 2005 storms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.221.14.48 (talk • contribs) .
:We had it, but it was moved to 2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 21:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Which was unfortunate, but the majority had their way. 70.177.68.209 04:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accumulated Cyclone Energy 

message: Should this article be mentioned here? Among other things, it says that, "Ocean temperatures recorded in the northern hemisphere Atlantic Ocean have also been the hottest on record." - Cuivienen 02:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would look for more confirmation of that, and some understanding of the context.  In 2005 the Carribean got hot early and stayed hot, with that heat spreading to the north as the year went on.  That is why so many storms formed in or near the Carribean (which in turn explains why so many of them impacted North America).  However, the rest of the north Atlanic seemed to me to be relatively cool.  This is quite unlike the situation in 1995, when the ocean 2/3 of the way to Africa got hot.  (The 1995 situation also caused storms to form way out in the Atlantic and to usually start north before they got near land.)  Now towards the end of the year, the North Atlantic became warmer than it should be, and has stayed that way (which is why we had Vince, Delta, and Epsilon).  However, since the bulk of the ocean was cooler than expected for much of the year, I am surprised that a record temperatures for 2005 are being claimed here.  Then again, this is a newspaper report, not a scolarly article. --EMS | Talk 02:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? I'll tell you why. We're entering a new age of heightened activity. We've been in a lull period since the early 1970's. The last active cycle began in 1933 and ended in 1969. That inactive cycle ended in 1995 after lasting 25 years. 2003-2005 have confirmed that the ocean currents have warmed in accordinance with its 30-year cycle. Say what you want about global warming, it has little to do with it. There was an active cycle that lasted from 1875-1900, the first, the 1933-1969 period, and now what should be the third; 1995-2025 period. Expect a significant amount of activity during that period. It'll be a bumpy ride over the next 20 years, that's for sure. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 07:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Relax, no one is accusing global warming of anything! Warmer waters this year don't necessarily mean warmer waters every year. - Cuivienen 23:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, the supposed relationship between the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season and global warming has been nominated as the #1 science story this year by the Discover magazine. TIME also had this story on their cover, and a bunch of anti-Bush politicians have rushed to accuse him of somehow causing monsters such as Katrina. 200.124.35.243 14:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, apparently he now controls those hurricanes and is using them to kill black people everywhere. The rascal! (end sarcasm) -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why So Active... 

message: Surprise, surprise. The Epsilon report is out, unexpectedly came out this fast. I guess they took notes on the run while making difficult decisions on other storms? 
Also, in the Speculation folder, I created a new game... CrazyC83 18:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite changes in the intensity from the original track, Epsilon's ACE remains about the same, 13.3625. Just so no one else bothers calculating it. - Cuivienen 00:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Surprise indeed. Another interesting thing is revealed in the report. It appears that Epsilon was not as amazing as originally thought. The storm remained south of the strongest shear. That explains its complete defiance of something that in fact wasn't there. It did experiance moderate shear and cool water throughout its life however. Its longevity in December was amazing as well. Epsilon never weakened to a tropical storm until it began dissipating as origianlly thought. There was only one peak intensity and one period of weakening. The track has changed little, however. Our man James Franklin seemed pretty nonchalant about this very unusual and very rebelious tropical cyclone. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 00:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epsilon report