Talk:Hurricane Wilma/Archive 1

message: It's not even "Hurricane Wilma" yet! Don't re-create this article until at least it becomes a hurricane please. --Revolución (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But there's still nothing to put in the article! All you would add to it is the storm history and forecast, which are already included in the main article.  Only when the storm article gets too large for the main article should it be split out.  So...if there's stuff you want to write about the storm...put it in the season article and make it longer. Jdorje 16:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Split

message: Can we get some sources for some of the info in the article?  More specifically, some of the Central American info.  --Holderca1 02:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well put them in the article. --Holderca1 02:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources?

message: What if an eventual future storm, alpha,... becomes very destructive? Will they start retiring Greek letters? What will they replace them with? Akiss 08:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I bet they won't be retired, since they're not real names.--Jyril 08:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it would be. See here for NHC responses to this question. --Rob 11:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: "Should the name Alpha ever be retired and another hurricane season runs the alphabet, the 22nd storm would then be named Beta." So retired letters will not be replaced. Well, if the trend of increasing numbers of devastating storms continues like this, the Greek alphabet will soon be completely retired.. and then we can start with the Chinese alphabet :) Akiss 11:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, then we'd never run out of characters. I thought that replacing retired Greek letters with their Phoenician equivalents was a good idea when someone posed it: Alpha -> Aleph, etc. --69.86.16.61 03:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retired Greek letters? :) 

message: Typhoon_Tip The most powerful Pacific storm was also the most massive. This one is far more compact. I also found a climatological record at http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/pcmin/climo.html, that shows the Atlantic basin having a capacity for 870mb.
:Tip couldn't hold its strength: it was too massive and too energetic.  It hit Japan as a minimal typhoon; the bulk of the 68 deaths were caused by the failure of a floodwall.  B.Wind 22:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparisons to Pacific's record holder 

message: I wonder how it must feel like to sit in the NHC building, predicting this "bad girl" maybe going right through their front yard. These people must be feeling real sick, right now. Awolf002 12:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly; and as I heard from local news reports this morning, the range of landfall is from the Florida Keys to the Tampa Bay Area, which concerns me. Living in Tampa, Florida, the last major hurricane that hit the area directly was in 1921, which was a whopping 84 years ago! Moreau36: 1420, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I know! I'm in Lakeland and this is not looking good. Awolf002 14:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NHC Miami in the bullseye? 

message: Can we document their response as the situation develops ?
:We will if and when the storm hits the United States, they can't respond until something happens.  They don't respond to the Cayman Islands or Cuba.  Also, there has to be something published somewhere for us to document it.  We can't speculate or create our own opinion on their response.  --Holderca1 17:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  FEMA 

message: Wikipedia's servers are hosted in Florida.  Where exactly?  If in the path of Wilma, we can expect them to go down.  Is mentioning this in the article appropriate? Simesa 18:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that is our call to make.  That would have to be made by Wikipedia in something they put on the main page.  Wouldn't be appropriate for this particular article.  --Holderca1 18:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Tampa, actually. The servers were evacuated when Charley moved in last year, if I recall. Trust me, if it comes to that this will be mentioned wiki-wide, we don't need to mention it specifically on this article. A lot of other things are in Tampa too, we shouldn't concentrate on the pedia. --Golbez 18:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Like me! I'm in Tampa! Mike H (Talking is hot) 19:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia

message: The 175mph wind speeds are not surface speeds, so that change should be reverted. I don't know why I changed it to 155, I thought I saw that somewhere but no official surface speed estimate has been given yet. --TimL
:It's a CAT 5 now... 175 mph winds... pressure down to an incredible 892 mb...  PenguinCDF 07:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Category 5 story picked up by AP Mike H (Talking is hot) 07:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cat 5

message: Who was the idiot that edited the main page with "shit" this and "shit" that...right at the top? Can someone re-edit it with the appropriate terms?
:: That would be 216.174.135.251 .I assume the person is just a worthless idiot.--HurricaneJeanne 16:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  See Wikipedia:Revert for dealing with that kind of junk in the future. Titoxd(?!?) 03:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: 165 mph = 265 km/h
:145 kts = 165 mph; 145 kts = 270 km/h --Holderca1 21:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the point of this?  That the conversion calculations are wrong?  145 kts=166.9 mph=268.5 km/h.    165mph = 265.5 km/h.  It's just a matter of rounding.  PK9 21:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea, that's all that was posted without explanation.  --Holderca1 22:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: mph = km/h

message: Have a look at the image on the Hurricane Mitch page... same time of year. 
It turned due South unexpectedly and devasated Honduras and Nicaragua... could Wilma do the same??
81.108.218.26 19:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not out of the question. If it moved more west than north, it would do just that. CrazyC83 20:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The possibility was mentioned in one of the advisories before the rapid intesification, IIRC. The NHC also said that prediction systems are much more sophisticated now than they were in 1998, however, so an unexpected turn that dramatic would be highly unlikely. Still possible, but I hope it doesn't happen. Guatemala would, after Stan, be the absolute worst place for a hurricane to make landfall right now, even worse than SE Louisiana. --69.86.16.61 03:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hurricane Mitch 1998

message: Instead of saying "Fatalities: 12 (so far)" which sounds ominous, how about "Fatalities to date: 12"?
:It would mess up with the template. The mention of (so far) is there to show that the number will likely rise as it makes further landfalls. CrazyC83 20:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not the person who originally posted the suggestion, but "the number will likely rise" is exactly what that person meant by "sounds ominous."  Personally, I don't think (so far) suggests that the number will rise.  It simply means the event is ongoing and thus it may change.  PK9 21:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Fatalities: 12 to date? 68.148.212.220 22:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ominous fatalities count 

message: Why does inHg keep getting added back in the article?  I don't know of any one that uses it any more.  It is an obsolete unit of measurement.  Everyone uses either mbar or hPa. --Holderca1 02:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, since no one has responded to this, I am assuming that no one can provide a valid reason as to why inHg are in the article.  I vote that they should be removed.  --Holderca1 11:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: See also the extensive showing of how mistaken Holdercal was in his or her conclusions, below in section #cleanup where Holdercal had also raised this issue. Inches of mercury do indeed belong here. Gene Nygaard 21:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not my mistake, its my local news that doesn't use inHg.  --Holderca1 22:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pressure

message: The fourth paragraph mentions a strong cold front causing temperatures to drop to "20°F (11°C)". Unfortunately, it seems that someone's goofed, because 20°F is -7°C, and 11°C is 52°F (rounded to 0dp). Would someone mind figuring out which of the two temperatures is correct and fixing the other? IceKarmaॐ 21:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The number is right. The 20°F fall would be equivalent to a drop of (20×5/9) °C. If the air temperature were 20°F, then you would be right, but in this case, the air temperature could be 90°F (32.2°C) dropping to 70°F (21.1°C). Titoxd(?!?) 21:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, the number is wrong, because the quoted conversion is wrong. The correct formula is, in this case, (20-32)×5/9, which evaluates to -6.7°C. See Fahrenheit for confirmation. IceKarmaॐ 21:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not dropping to 20°F, it's falling 20°F. Titoxd(?!?) 22:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  For further explanation: a degree Fahrenheit is 5/9 the size of a degree Celsius. They also start counting in different places, so if you're converting absolute temperatures from F to C, you have to subtract 32. But these are not absolute temperatures, they are differences. Indeed, a "drop of -6.7°C" makes no sense, and is the result of blindly applying a formula without accounting for what it means. If you need further confirmation, try converting some absolute temperatures that differ by 20°F into Celsius, and you will find that they differ by 11°C. RSpeer 22:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  A hurricane with temperatures of 20°F would be absurd.  "The Day After Tommorow," indeed. PK9 01:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That wouldn't be a tropical storm, but it would be one incredible extratropical menace - it would make the 1993 Blizzard look like a few flurries...it would be a Category 5 hurricane disguised as a blizzard. (The 1993 blizzard would most likely be a Category 3 if it was a hurricane based on its pressure in the 955-960 mb range) CrazyC83 03:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Let's put it this way; a fall of -7C = a GAIN of 7C. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 01:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temperatures in heading? 

message: This is probably minor compared to everything else.  However, people whose IP adresses are blocked from editing the article get a very bizarre message, or at least I did before I logged in.  It said something like "Those who are blocked from editing may not edit for 48 hours.  shit. shit. mwahahahahahahahaha. whitehouse.hotsex.com"  This is offensive, especially to innocent people who got blocked because they don't have an account and happen to have the same IP adress as some vandal.  Mred64 23:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems someone vandalized the block notice, what is the location of that page? --Holderca1 23:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The article history shows vandalism along those lines. You just happened to view it during the few minutes it was in that state. You and your IP are neither blocked from editing, or you wouldn't have been able to post this message. -Splashtalk 23:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what happened then. I was supposedly blocked, but then I logged in and could see it.  Did the vandalism get rid of the original article text, and someone just reverted it then?  Lemme check the history.  If the block notice was truly vandalized, I can't get back to it for some reason. 12.202.177.193 23:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was blanked to the message you describe in this diff. Jtkiefer reverted 1 minute later, so you just got unlucky. The block notice itself is in MediaWiki: space and cannot be edited by vandals (unless the vandal is an admin). Special:Ipblocklist does not list the IP address you just signed with as having been blocked. -Splashtalk 00:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the version I saw.  However, my computer doesn't use the same IP adress all the time for one reason or another (if it's possible).  Mred64 00:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Block Notice 

message: Are those really correct? From my knowledge, this is the first time EVER a Category 4 hurricane in the Atlantic had a sub-900 pressure at that time...my assumption now is that Wilma is going to recharge fast and be stronger than ever within 12 hours... CrazyC83 02:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, it is wind speed that determines intensity. Category 5 starts at 156 mph (really 160 mph because advisories are always in multiples of 5 mph). However, they usually correlate with each other. Usually a storm at 155 mph will have a pressure in the 920s or low 930s though. CrazyC83 03:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically no, it is pressure that determines intensity.  Wind speed only determines category status. Jdorje 06:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It's Cat 4, or at least as Cat 4 as Emily was, which is debatable. The NHC calls for it to restrengthen tomorrow morning to Cat 5.  894 is probably a record-low pressure for ANY Cat 4 storm, even in the West Pacific. That list on the Notable Tropical Cyclones page has all West Pacific storms with pressures less than 895, and there aren't more than 15 or so. I doubt any of them weren't Cat 5 at that intensity, but we don't have pages for most of them as they were probably mostly fish-spinners or much weaker at landfall like Tip so that can't be verified. On an unrelated note, the NHC still refuses to predict wind speeds higher than 175 mph. It's a conspiracy, I tell you. --69.86.16.61 03:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be right with the west Pacific storms, although it is possible that one or more of them weakened to 155 mph or less with a pressure still sub-900...I'm not sure about that. Emily was at 929 mb, which is more typical of a high-end Cat 4, but there are some indications that she was also a Cat 5 at one point. (There have been several Cat 5 storms with pressures in the 930s and even a couple in the 940s, although they were probably lower and didn't catch the minimum pressure) CrazyC83 03:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: But it is the wind that blows things around, it is wind that causes the storm surge.  --Holderca1 03:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But max wind speed isn't necessarily a good measure of this: it doesn't have as much affect on surge as storm size and hydrology.  Katrina is a good example: as it weakened it grew larger so it actually became more dangerous.  And Wilma is probably another example: earlier it had 175mph winds, but hurricane-force winds only extended 15 miles (!) out from the eye center.  Now it has 155mph winds, but hurricane-force winds extend 70 miles out from the center.  Which do you think would cause more fatalities and property damage (of course it's highly dependent on where it hits, so it's a redundant question).  Basically the pressure is rising because that energy differential is being used to "spin up" the rest of the storm.  Anyway, I would like to be able to measure the "total energy" (E=mv^2; just a sum of the squares of the velocities over the entire area of the storm, time the mass of air involved) of the hurricane, which would replace (but probably correspond very closely to) the pressure measurement (and the max winds measurement would stand alongside). Jdorje 06:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  We have something similar, the Accumulated Cyclone Energy measurement. However, this one also depends on the longevity of the hurricane. Titoxd(?!?) 06:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The cyclone energy measurement isn't the same thing at all.  It only takes wind speed into account, not storm size.  I also don't know what the exact value of accumulating the energy is (it's the same energy, it just gets counted multiple times), but that's a separate question (and I don't have a good alternative if the intent is to measure total seasonal activity). Jdorje 06:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: To put it another way, if you have a hurricane that's a circle with radius 15 miles with wind speed 175 mph throughout (i.e., Wilma earlier today), and another hurricane that's a circle with radius 120 miles with wind speed 100 mph throughout (i.e., Katrina at landfall), the latter hurricane has 20 times more kinetic energy.  And I think we can all agree that it is kinetic energy that blows things around and causes storm surge! Jdorje 06:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Okay, why are you changing the discussion.  We were discussing winds vs. pressure.  I am fully aware that a larger storm will cause more damage and more surge.  The pressure gradient is causing the winds, but it is the winds that cause the damage.  So that is why categories are based on winds, not pressure.  --Holderca1 11:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a little tangential but still on topic (if you look at the original note here).  Anyway, I completed my back-of-the-napkin calculation (User:Jdorje/Energy) and I estimate that Hurricane Katrina at landfall had a moment magnitude for the energy of its hurricane-force winds of about 8.8. Jdorje 19:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  894/155 

message: Exciting. :-) 
::THE SECOND IS POSSIBLE EXTRATROPICAL TRANSITION AND PHASING WITH THE DEEP TROUGH AFTER 96 HR.  SHOULD THIS HAPPEN...WILMA COULD BECOME A POWERFUL STORM EITHER OVER THE WESTERN ATLANTIC OR THE NORTHEASTERN U. S. NOAA
::Once the hurricane reaches the latitude of Florida, it will be grabbed by a very strong jet stream coming down from the north. This will send the storm hurtling up the Eastern Seaboard Sunday night and Monday, perhaps with catastrophic results. Parts of New England have already been devastated by floods, and the ground simply cannot hold any more water. Accuweather
If it hits New York City will it be like The Day After Tomorrow ?
:Um, no? --tomf688{talk} 11:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A Cat 3+ storm hitting NYC could be severly damaging to structures which weren't built with Hurricanes in mind.  That said, even a Katrina making a direct strike wouldn't match Hollywood.  It would be economicly disruptive, and would probably cost a number of lives, but NYC would be largely recovered within a year.  Rain damage in the currenlty saturated region could be highly damaging in the surrounding area.  (Though, it may sound a bit snarky of me, but part of me wanted the city to get hit after the mayor made a 'hurricanes are too scared of us' comment in the 80's after a near miss.)  Donovan Ravenhull 12:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wilma: A New England Catastrophe? 

message: I have tried a couple times now to insert the primary source of much of this material, the National Hurricane Center, as the first external link. The link has been removed twice by someone claiming that it was already given previously. I'm not sure if that's a valid argument, but if it is, The Weather Channel link (currently first) should also be removed. A link to the Main Page of the National Hurricane Center is important because that page has much of the graphical data that our comments are based upon, as well as the Official Advisories. 71.36.203.125 10:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be the one who's been reverting them. Under Hurricane Wilma#Current storm information, there is a clear "For information, see the NHC's latest public advisory on Hurricane Wilma" link. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 10:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: EDIT: Also noting, right at the bottom of that list is a link to the NHC's inland warnings. The main link would be redundant. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 10:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  The Weather Channel is only mentioned in the template - about the intensity of storms. Template = fixed by template; every page will have the same link. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 10:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: As I said - the Weather Channel link is from the template. You cannot remove it directly from the article. Here's something to back me up, Hurricane_Rita#External_links did not include a link directly to the NHC. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 10:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the Weather Channel isn't on the Rita page either.  --Holderca1 14:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: "For information, see the NHC's latest public advisory on Hurricane Wilma" <--- this is the official source. It's already in the article under Current storm information. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 10:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is the only instance of a link to the NHC, then it should also be linked in the External links.  The current section will be deleted once the storm is longer active. --Holderca1 11:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not; the link to NWS local statements at the bottom is also to the NHC. Also, when the storm dies, there'll be an archive link. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 12:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrational External Links? 

message: From 15 miles in radius the storm is now 90 miles in radius.  That is genuinely large!  What I can't understand is why only a 7-10 ft storm surge is predicted at landfall in Mexico.  Is it because of the oblique angle at which the hurricane may strike? Jdorje 16:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah; the worst storm surge is on the right front quadrant, and the Yucatan will be on the left front or left rear quadrants, greatly lowering the storm surge risk. --Golbez 17:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It is due to the angle it is coming in and may just be how the shore line is. The storm surge is affected by the winds speeds, the size of the storm, the rate of movement of the storm, the degree of angle that it makes landfall, and the geography of the shore. --Holderca1 17:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Storm getting big 

message: I've moved all the sources to the reference system recommended by the Manual of Style. Since I didn't ask before I did it (I thought that after the NHC advisory came out, we had a narrow window of opportunity to do major editing without edit conflicts), if there are any objections, feel free to revert if you feel it's necessary. Titoxd(?!?) 22:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Such would be hard to keep up, especially when the storm makes landfall and information comes flying in very fast. I'd hold off on that until things calm down - that could be a winter project. CrazyC83 03:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's true, but it's amazingly holding up, even better than I expected. Good job to you all! Titoxd(?!?) 05:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Damn, this sucks.  We could have just the 10th Cat 5 on record to make landfall and first since Andrew in 1992.  --Holderca1 02:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's very possible, and if it strengthens to a Cat 5, it is highly unlikely it will come back down before landfall, at least for the Cozumel landfall (maybe not the mainland landfall). CrazyC83 02:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Latest forecast looks like 145 kts (165 mph, 270 km/h) at landfall.  --Holderca1 02:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: That list should include all the most intense hurricane landfalls in Atlantic basin, not just USA.--Jyril 21:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And when you find that info, we'll put it up. --Golbez 21:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Landfall