Talk:2004 Atlantic hurricane season
|
|
- Archive August 25, 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:2004_Atlantic_hurricane_season&oldid=5488235)
- Archive October 12, 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:2004_Atlantic_hurricane_season&oldid=6513984)
| Contents |
Saffir Simpson Scale
Is it really necessary for the saffir-simpson scale to be in every hurricane season's article? It would make more sense to have the finalized track map and a quick summary of # of TDs, # of named storms, # of category 1s, 2s, etc. Tom 01:37, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
- It seemed like a good idea at the time.
- The problem with track maps is finding one that we can use that doesn't look terrible like NOAA's. I'd really like something along the lines of Wunderground.com's maps (http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/at2002.asp). I've got a friend who hacked together a simple mapping system, but I can't convince him to extend it to do hurricane plots. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:52, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I might create one after the season ends, provided I get a bit of free time from school and homework. --Goobergunch 01:54, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
138 Hours
138 hours between the death of Lisa and the birth of Matthew. Felt like an eternity.
According to the map, we could have the sixth impact of named storm on Florida this year. --Golbez 22:19, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
- There's a decent chance Matthew won't make it to the coast in one piece. As to the almost six days, it felt gooood. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:30, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I happened to check the hurricane center page about 15 min after they issued the public advisory and half expected there to be a wiki article up by the time I got here. I guess with the lull you guys don't check that page much anymore. ;) Tom 23:59, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Nope... had dropped to only every other day. ;) --Golbez 00:49, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
- I still check frequently, I just wasn't obsessively waiting for the 6 hour marks like I do when there's something out there. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:02, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Pacific
Well, I've done it. I'd like if some of y'all could check out my first draft at 2004 Pacific hurricane season and see if anything really needs to be improved. The NHC has a habit of not being nearly as verbose with Pacific hurricanes at it is with Atlantic, so I abandoned trying to describe them, except for the major ones. I'd love to hear feedback on it. --Golbez 00:58, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
I like the page, Golbez. Just a thought, you might want to point out in the June section that the last time no named storms formed in June was in 1969. Also, you said that you put descriptions only on the ones that threatened land. Darby was never close to land. Its remnants just caused a few rainy days in Hawaii. Howard was a stronger storm and came closer to land than Darby did.
By the way, have you seen the records on the 1992 Pacific season. Boy what a lot of storms. They use a longer list than the Atlantic does but that season cleaned right through the list. The Central Pacific was also abnormally active that year.
-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast
Well you asked for SUGGESTIONS so I gave you SUGGESTIONS.
-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast (Eric, face it, you don't have the guts to do anything)
- Yes, yes, and I apologize, I was in a poor mood when I wrote that. Sorry. --Golbez 00:57, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
You know, the annual reports issued by the National Hurricane Center are very informative, even on the Pacific storms. Check this out: The Others. By the way, bravo on finding info on Lester, I'm still waiting on his report.
-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast
AAAAAAAHHHHHH! Where did my page go?! I was going to show you that info I had collected on that page, Golbez, but the link isn't working. I spent a lot of time on that!
-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast
Knots
After working on the Pacific hurricanes, and adding the latest Nicole update, I realized that Pacific and Canada use nautical miles, but I've never seen "nautical" in an Atlantic advisory. They mention knots for speed, but never seem to use nautical miles for distance. I just wanted to confirm this. Are we sure they aren't using nautical miles in the Atlantic, only in the Pacific? --Golbez 01:08, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
- Atlantic advisories are issued in statute miles and km for easy public consumption. The marine advisories are issued using nautical miles. Remember the audiences. In the eastern Pacific, tropical systems are primarily a threat to maritime interests. I don't know what the Canadians are thinking, though. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:41, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- OK, that all makes perfect sense. Including not understanding what the Canadians are thinking. :D --Golbez 05:44, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
Hurricane track information
I'm posting this here because I think this is where it's got the best chance of being seen by interested parties.
I've recently started working on parsing NOAA's HURDAT file format (http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/data_sub/hurdat.html). This would allow for the inclusion of tables of hurricane information similar to those found on other sites (http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/at199202.asp).
Now, this would be incredibly overwhelming on the season articles, so the question is, do we want this sort of thing on individual storm articles? It could also be used to start work on seasonal statistics. The problem is that it does not encode information about non-US landfalls, which limits its usefulness for that purpose. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:55, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Hm.. wouldn't an all-in-one map work for the season? And not sure how it would be useful for the individual articles... need time to think about it. --Golbez 17:14, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
I'm thinking of it like box scores for an article about a notable baseball game, or election results, or something like that. It's not enough to justify an article in and of itself, but it could add to the overall info. Getting actual maps is another thing entirely and will require a lot more work.
But...if we had maps, putting the numeric track info onto the image description page would make sense. The numerics describe the track, and the article could have "click for coordinate data" in the map's thumbnail description. Hmm... -- Cyrius|✎ 18:51, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, duh, I see. You said tables and mentioned wunderground, I immediately thought of the maps wunderground has. Sorry. Hm.. if you could beautify the tables, that might work, but if not, and if they don't offer better info than we already have in the articles, it sounds best just to link directly to NOAA. I'll have to see what you can do with it first. --Golbez 19:33, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
The tables offer different information than is in the articles. As far as maps go, they're a long-term goal of this project, but I'm not going to be able to have them any time soon. Raw tabular data could happen fairly soon though, which is why I brought it up. I'll try to get it to the point where I have an example, so it's more clear exactly what's being talked about. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:30, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
All right, here's an ugly-formatted version of what I've got so far, using 1980's Hurricane Allen as the test subject:
Hurricane Allen UTC Date Lat Lon Winds Pressure Category 1200 1980-07-31 11.0 N 30.0 W 30 ? Tropical Depression 1800 1980-07-31 10.9 N 32.2 W 30 ? Tropical Depression 0000 1980-08-01 10.8 N 34.3 W 35 1010 Tropical Depression 0600 1980-08-01 10.7 N 36.4 W 35 1009 Tropical Depression 1200 1980-08-01 10.7 N 38.6 W 35 1008 Tropical Depression 1800 1980-08-01 10.7 N 40.7 W 35 1006 Tropical Depression 0000 1980-08-02 11.0 N 42.8 W 40 1005 Tropical Storm 0600 1980-08-02 11.4 N 44.8 W 50 1000 Tropical Storm 1200 1980-08-02 11.9 N 46.9 W 65 995 Tropical Storm 1800 1980-08-02 12.3 N 49.1 W 70 990 Tropical Storm 0000 1980-08-03 12.4 N 51.4 W 75 985 Category 1 0600 1980-08-03 12.6 N 53.6 W 80 980 Category 1 1200 1980-08-03 12.8 N 55.6 W 90 975 Category 1 1800 1980-08-03 12.9 N 57.5 W 110 965 Category 2 0000 1980-08-04 13.3 N 59.1 W 125 950 Category 3 0600 1980-08-04 13.6 N 61.0 W 130 948 Category 3 1200 1980-08-04 14.0 N 63.0 W 145 945 Category 4 1800 1980-08-04 14.4 N 64.9 W 150 930 Category 4 0000 1980-08-05 14.8 N 66.7 W 160 911 Category 5 0600 1980-08-05 15.4 N 68.6 W 165 916 Category 5 1200 1980-08-05 15.9 N 70.5 W 180 932 Category 5 1800 1980-08-05 16.5 N 72.3 W 170 940 Category 5 0000 1980-08-06 17.8 N 73.8 W 160 945 Category 5 0600 1980-08-06 18.3 N 75.9 W 130 955 Category 3 1200 1980-08-06 19.2 N 78.0 W 130 955 Category 3 1800 1980-08-06 20.0 N 80.1 W 145 955 Category 4 0000 1980-08-07 20.1 N 81.9 W 155 945 Category 4 0600 1980-08-07 20.4 N 83.6 W 165 935 Category 5 1200 1980-08-07 21.0 N 84.8 W 180 910 Category 5 1800 1980-08-07 21.8 N 86.4 W 190 899 Category 5 0000 1980-08-08 22.2 N 87.9 W 180 920 Category 5 0600 1980-08-08 22.8 N 89.2 W 150 945 Category 4 1200 1980-08-08 23.4 N 90.5 W 130 960 Category 3 1800 1980-08-08 23.9 N 91.8 W 150 940 Category 4 0000 1980-08-09 24.5 N 93.0 W 165 912 Category 5 0600 1980-08-09 25.0 N 94.2 W 180 909 Category 5 1200 1980-08-09 25.2 N 95.4 W 160 916 Category 5 1800 1980-08-09 25.4 N 96.1 W 145 925 Category 4 0000 1980-08-10 25.8 N 96.8 W 125 935 Category 3 0600 1980-08-10 26.1 N 97.2 W 115 945 Category 3 1200 1980-08-10 26.7 N 98.1 W 100 960 Category 2 1800 1980-08-10 27.3 N 99.0 W 80 970 Category 1 0000 1980-08-11 27.7 N 99.8 W 70 990 Tropical Storm 0600 1980-08-11 28.0 N 100.9 W 50 1000 Tropical Storm 1200 1980-08-11 28.5 N 101.9 W 35 1005 Tropical Depression 1800 1980-08-11 28.9 N 102.9 W 35 1008 Tropical Depression
This is essentially the same as the table you'd find at Wunderground.com (http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/at198001.asp).
There's a bit more that I can pull out of it, but that's the bulk of the information. Other remaining information includes the number of the storm within the season, the storm's serial number, and the location and intensity of any US landfalls. Determining strikes outside the US from this data will be problematic, as it requires calculating intersections of the track segments against a map.
Statistical data could also be extracted as well, but I don't have that yet. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:21, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I don't know if the table itself should be in the articles; perhaps a link back to the raw data. There's a line between "encyclopedia" and "google". :) However... perhaps using this data to pop it into EasyTimeline, and creating a timeline of it? It could actually work. If EasyTimeline worked in hours. But til then, we can work in days and see how it manages... --Golbez 07:51, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
I don't know that the NHC has track information easily available for all storms. I suppose we could link to Unisys's archive, but they're evil. Wunderground's is too advertising-laden to point at as a piece of reference material. -- Cyrius|✎ 11:23, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- LOL, "but they're evil." Yeah, but it's a great warning archive. Hm. As it is, this charge would be as large as the whole of the rest of the Hurricane Allen article, so that alone is a red mark, IMO, but then again, it might be useful in this form. I just don't know. Yes, we are an encyclopedia, but we're also an almanac, to collect bits of info like this... --Golbez 18:28, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
Looks like holding off is probably the thing to do. If I ever get a track plotter working, that'd be a good place to put the information. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:21, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Preliminary reports
The NHC has released their preliminary reports (http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2004atlan.shtml) for most of this year's storms. Time to go through and update stuff. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:44, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Gaston was posthumously upgraded to a hurricane; the information has already been updated (it didn't have a separate page, as despite causing some damage and loss of life, it is not likely to be retired)
They're all in! Every single one of them. Now all we need is the annual track map and we'll be golden.
-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast
Most bizarre season ever.
Here we are, end of November, and there hasn't been a tropical system since the second week of October. Only a few days left in the season, and what comes up in the Tropical Weather Outlook? "If current trends continue...a subtropical or tropical cyclone could form Saturday or Sunday..." This is just weird. -- Cyrius|✎ 08:04, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Lol, I don't even read those anymore. Have come to expect nothing. :) --[[User:Tomf688|tomf688]] 05:53, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Nice jinx, Cyrius - when they mentioned the end of the season on the radio, I went to the NHC to see if they had any update, and they did... Otto! --Golbez 21:09, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
- I smell Paula in December being an unprecedented major hurricane...also what happens if a tropical or subtropical storm develops in January, would it be named Arlene even though it is 4-5 months from the start of the official hurricane season, just because it is 2005? Also should they extend the official season, since this would be two years in a row (and 4 years out of the last 7) that a storm lasted into or formed in December (and one year had an early storm!)...possibly from May 15 to December 15?
- I believe the term "wholly unprecedented" would be used. And there would probably be an animated discussion about it at the NHC, just as there was between the NHC and HPC if Ivan Reborn should be named Matthew. Frankly, I'd say it would use the 2004 list; the 2005 Hurricane Season does not begin until June 2005, so the 2005 list wouldn't be used til then. I'm guessing. The way I see it, the 2004 season officially lasts from June 1 2004 to November 30 2004, but can unofficially last until May 31 2005, at which point it becomes the 2005 season. That's just my thought.
Hey, guys, you know this has happened before. In 1954 (Hazel's year) a hurricane formed on December 29th! It persisted as a hurricane until January 4 or 5. They named it Alice, from the next year's list. That made it the second Alice that year (they used the same list each year back then). It is extremely unlikely that this will happen again. While storms and hurricanes do occur outside of the normal hurricane season, they are rare events. A Category 2 hurricane in March of 1908 was one for the record books, as was the second Alice and the Groundhog Day storm of 1952. Conditions are simply too unfavorable for them to occur.
-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast
- Frankly, however, when you get to January, you're talking really cold oceans, and so far as I know, a tropical storm has never formed in the north Atlantic in January. December, yes, but never January. South Atlantic, well, that's another story.
- As for extending the season, I dunno; they'll want to see a definite trend to do that. So far as I know, Otto will be only the third December tropical storm in a very long time, and it probably doesn't count as a December storm because it formed in November. --Golbez 22:38, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
- You think you have all the answers, don't you. --Golbez 08:42, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
I think the best boundary would be March 1, since that is the midpoint of the offseason and when waters are the coldest, plus it validates the use of Ana in April 2003...anyway, I see another wild year in 2005...
- Oh yeah, I forgot about Ana. Oh well. I would wager this problem falls well into the category of "we'll worry about it when it happens." --Golbez 23:01, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Meh, I'd say redefine a season as Jan 1 - Dec 31, but state that the most activity is usually between June and November. :) --[[User:Tomf688|tomf688]] 01:52, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Four hurricanes (along with one tropical storm) striking Florida, Ivan respawning in the Gulf of Mexico after making a loop, and now, for the second season in a row, a storm lasting into December! Alex was the strongest hurricane to intensify north of 38 degrees North, and Ivan was the strongest hurricane to intensify south of 10 degrees South! Yes, this is definitely one of, if not THE, most bizarre season ever. bob rulz 08:59, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
Bob, excuse me while I be annoying for a moment. Hurricane Ellen of 1973(?) strengthened farther north than Alex. (Ugh, whatever, Eric). Not that Alex wasn't cool and all, but I just thought I'd clear that up. You were right about Ivan though! (Thank you, Eric. The Ever Bountiful Source of Useless Info strikes again) Ivan was also the sixth most intense storm ever measured in the Atlantic Basin. (If anyone cares, Ivan is behind Gilbert of '88, the Labor Day storm of '35, Allen of '80, Mitch, and Camille.) Also, I thought that the South Atlantic stuff is facinating. Aside from the hurricane, there is evidence to suggest that a strong low pressure system in January of this year was tropical storm or depression. Two in the SAME YEAR!! I need a Coke, this is crazy. (All right, breathe Eric, breathe)
"Told you I'd return, ha! ha!" Okay Eric, time to shut up now.
-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast
- Yes, E. Brown, Ellen did intensify farther north than Alex, but Alex was still stronger, and both intensified north of 38N. There, that was my moment to be annoying. bob rulz 06:06, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough
-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast That's good Eric, keep it simple.
It's finally over.
OTTO NOTWITHSTANDING...TODAY IS THE LAST OFFICIAL DAY OF THE 2004 HURRICANE SEASON...AND THIS WILL BE THE LAST ISSUANCE OF THE TROPICAL WEATHER OUTLOOK FOR 2004. THIS PRODUCT WILL RESUME ON 1 JUNE 2005.
I think the NHC deserves a vacation. --Golbez 23:25, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
I agree Golbez, the NHC have worked their butts off this season, 24/7. And when was the last time anyone decided to care.
Hats off guys
-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast
Nine named storms
Does this really need to be an article? That's just a redirect by the way, but that and the article it goes to don't seem to be all that useful, do they? --Golbez 04:33, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Ugh, no. It seems to be intended as a list of landfalling cyclones, but it just isn't useful to have a completely separate article about a list of them for the year. The original "Nine named storms" title didn't even make sense at all. -- Cyrius|✎
No links in the header! (He!He!He!)
-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast (Eric, two words: shut, up)
Links within the Header
I recieved the message that you were annoyed by me repeatedly putting links in the headers. I did this because I was confused as to why you were formatting this page differently from the other hurricane season pages. All of the other hurricane season links have links in the headers, for example: in the 1999 Atlantic hurricane season page, the sections on Hurricane Floyd and Hurricane Lenny as well as Tropical Storm Katrina have links the main article in the header. In fact, the only seasons that are not formatted this way are the 2004 and 2003 seasons. The 1988-2002 seasons all have links in the headers of summeries on the major storms. I came to like this format and was puzzled as to why you wanted to do this page differently. I had no intention of ticking anybody off.
-Eric B.(My name means king in Viking)
"Eric, nobody cares."
- That's okay, and I'm sorry if I seemed harsh in my note (I really need to work on that...) but the fact is, THOSE articles are in error, not THIS one. The Wikipedia style guide states that is it best not to have wikilinks in headers, because some browsers and setups may not display those properly. So in actuality, those other articles should be modified to fit the style guide. This one is okay. You weren't ticking me off. :) Sorry if I turned you off editing at all. You do have good edits, but those kept getting reverted (yes, by me in many cases) and I wanted to clear it up. Thanks for chatting about this. --Golbez 23:56, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Oh. :( --Golbez 05:42, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
- I like it better without the header links personally. bob rulz 23:05, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
- I like the style guide rules as they are. Please avoid links in headers! Awolf002 23:38, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
-I wasn't offended Golbez, I was just confused (I'm easily confused). I mean, if you went to a site like this and saw EVERY SINGLE ONE of the related links formatted one way and then the most recent link formatted a different way, wouldn't you be confused too? (Also shutting up is not my best thing) Look, I'm not going to sit here and pout because you didn't like my styling of the page. And I like this site too much and am too interested in hurricanes to just storm off into the sunset.
I shall return!
-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast
By the way, Katrina will need to be reformatted into Tropical Storm Katrina (1999), as there will likely be a Tropical Storm Katrina or Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and that could easily be a devastating storm that warrants the main article...
He He He. Looks like some people finally found out exactly how widespread these header links are. They are about as common as guns in a war. The War of the Header Links has begun. The links to the main articles are now almost blended with the text and it looks thouroughly boring.
-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast 25 March, 2005
- It looks much neater and more official with the links seperated from the headers. bob rulz 07:27, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism of Charley and Ivan
Perhaps I'm just dense, but I just now figured out why Hurricane Charley and Hurricane Ivan get vandalized so much.
- reason for Charley (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hurricane+charley&btnG=Google+Search)
- reason for Ivan (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=hurricane+ivan&btnG=Search)
I'm a little freaked out by that. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:56, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Fact checking
Oi people, PLEASE fact check your stuff before you save it. I spent yesterday and this morning making changes to incorrect statements about some of these storms. Inez killed 1000, not 600, Carla was a 5, Anita was a 5, the third hurricane to hit Florida in 1964 was Isbell, not Isabella...It goes on and on and on. I'm not mad at anybody, I'm just asking you to please fact-check your stuff.
P.S: I doubt anybody on this message board has that problem.
-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast
- As always, death toll estimates vary. However, the 300 figure listed in the article was quite blatantly incorrect.
- Hurricane Carla was a Category 5 at sea, and the mention of Category 4 was correctly framed as a statement about its strength at landfall.
- The article on Hurricane Anita was simply incorrect.
- The article on the 1964 Atlantic hurricane season was apparently modified from "Isbell" to "Isabella" [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=1964_Atlantic_hurricane_season&diff=8501960&oldid=5883286) and the faulty "correction" slipped past.
- Remember that there's easily over a hundred pages on these topics, and it's sometimes difficult for the small number of resident hurricane freaks to keep tabs on everything everyone does. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I understand that. I was just asking everybody who does a page on hurricanes or modifys one that they make sure that they have the facts right. The article on Carla sounded a litte ambiguous (did I spell that right?) as to whether it meant a Category 4 at landfall or that the highest it ever got to was a 4. (Hurricane freaks, ha! ha! Now that's funny. Hurricane freaks, oh I love it.)
-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast
the future of Events
I've decided I don't much like the events section. However, I'm not bold enough to blow it away and perhaps replace it with something else without a second opinion. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:17, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The events section was useful during the season, I think, so let's not discard it for next year. However, yeah, it needs to be condensed or eliminated. Either make a monthly summary, which would note that June was 50% chance to have no storms, and that Otto went into December, etc. Or just merge that into the season summary? I dunno, it might be nice to have a season summary, then a by-month summary, then a by-storm summary. --Golbez 08:49, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Just curious, how long are we going to keep that section up there? I noticed that none of the other hurricane seasons have it, so I was wondering if it was just a temporary thing.
-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast
Long Discussion
I was just noticing that this page is getting a little long, shouldn't we consolidate some of this stuff? Especially since the 2004 season is now over.
-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast 6 February 2005
- Yeah, someone, usually Cyrius, seems to bring this up every month or so. ;) Eventually we'll figure out something to do with it! --Golbez 22:24, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Whoops, I thought you meant the timeline. You just meant this talk page. Maybe.
Maybe..hmm..wow that tells me alot. In regards to the timeline (Events), I think that it should be a seasonal thing. We track the season as it's happening and then delete it after the season is over. That's my two cents.
-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast
Meet the forecasters!
Check it out (http://www.geo-earth.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3565). It's neat to learn about the people whom we know only through "FORECASTER FRANKLIN" or the rare witty comment in a storm discussion. --Golbez 18:55, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
- You mean this thread (http://www.geo-earth.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3560)? I agree, although it was rather annoying to have to kill Javascript to be able to read it. It's also a good reminder that people we just see as signatures on the Internet really have lives and families in reality - it's not just a computer generating those forecasts and reports. --Goobergunch|? 03:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Six storms
Thanks to the map that just got put up (Good idea, by the way, I think), I decided to look a little bit. It's absolutely uncanny how the lines of Jeanne and Frances completely merge. But what shocked me more was that, while four storms went through Florida, *six* went through or just by North Carolina and Virginia. Where's our props, eh? ;) --Golbez 22:24, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
- I figured the weather service had released that by now, so I integrated it into the new infobox. --tomf688 (talk) 23:52, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Don't forget Bonnie, Golbez. That makes five storms (Bonnie, Charley, Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne) for Florida and most of the storms that went through the Carolinas and Virginia were tropical depressions at the time. All but one of the Florida storms were of hurricane intensity. Three of those were of major hurricane intensity. By the way, this may sound a bit morbid, but don't the tracks of Charley and Frances vaguely resemble a swastika. Isn't that creepy?
-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast
Infobox
Any positive/negative opinions relating to the infobox I just put up? If there are no serious objections, I'll integrate it into some of the other hurricane seasons also. --tomf688 (talk) 23:52, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
- I like it, though one comment: Maybe include 5 years instead of just 3? Also, you have 3 major storms, but there were 6. :) --Golbez 02:32, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
- As I said on the template's talk page, I think it would look better with 5 years instead of 3. As it is, the row of years takes up less than half the box's width on my setup. It also looks better to move the box down to occupy the large white space next to the TOC. At least it does on this article, I don't know how it would look on the less fleshed-out years with shorter TOCs. Other than that, I have no serious objections.
- There's a few other statistics that might prove useful as additional ways of gauging overall storm activity. ACE value and number of landfalling storms come to mind. Needs to be a line drawn somewhere though, otherwise the box would end up with so much "useful" factoids that it'd lose its usefulness. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:40, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- It's just a prototype; the info in the box was thought up skimming the article and the opening paragraphs to it. Go ahead and play around with it at Template:Infobox Hurricane Season or in this article. --tomf688 (talk) 03:09, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Personally, I like it at the top. --Golbez 08:33, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Are you going to institute this infobox for all the seasons back to 1995 (the current-style track map only goes back that far)?
-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast
- A bit difficult, as I can't find a definitive source of deaths and casualties. --tomf688(talk) 21:18, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
I could think of a laundry list of sources: the NHC reports, the Monthly Weather Review... I could probably come up with respectable figures right now.
-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast (squawk box)
Events
OK, kids, we're almost to the 2005 season, we need to come to a final decision of what to do with events. Should we split it off into a Timeline of the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season article, nuke it, somehow summarize it (Which I don't think is useful, since it would essentially be duplicate information) or what? --Golbez 20:06, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
- It'd be a shame to lose all that info... I'd go with moving it to a timeline article. --Patteroast 02:35, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Move. bob rulz 04:07, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, I was bold and moved the timeline. Put a see also note at the top of the season summary, so the timeline won't be forgotten. Makes the page much more concise IMO. --tomf688(talk) 04:32, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Move. bob rulz 04:07, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
- This was probably the right decision. The real question is whether 2005 should have a timeline or not. I'm not incredibly happy with the way it turned out. -- Cyrius|✎ 13:41, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Good point; I really don't see much point to it as the individual articles sum up the information rather nicely. --tomf688(talk) 15:34, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
- I say go with it for now, since it also records TDs that weren't named, and this is the *season* page, so it supplies a useful timeline of the season as a whole. --Golbez 17:54, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
Florida
Does anybody here actually live in Florida? I live in Central Florida, specifically Lakeland, Florida. Anyway, I was thinking we might add a user account section where people can share their stories, but would that damage the NPOV status of the article? None of the Florida storms were strong where I live, but I know a lot of people that had a good amount of damage. In our Area, it was the worst around Lake Wales. Power was out for over a month there. --Zeerus 12:58, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
Retiring storm names
The following text was removed from this page:
- The World Meteorological Organization retired four names in the spring of 2005: Charley, Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne. They will be replaced in 2010 by Colin, Fiona, Igor, and Julia.
with the comment
- i checked news sites and googled this for 20 minutes and found nada
Well, I did 5 minutes of searching and found these:
- http://wgntv.trb.com/news/weather/weblog/wgnweather/archives/000032.html
- (October 12, 2004) summary: This won't be decided until this winter's meetings of the World Meteorological Organization (which is when?)
- http://www.storm2k.org/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?p=853701
- summary: 2010 list (http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutnames.shtml) is out, but not updated. This happened previously, and will probably be fixed later.
To summarize my summaries, I agree that searching the net did not show evidence of the change. However, I think it is too soon to remove this outright as untrue, so I leave it here until final word from the NWS or WMO or whatever is posted somewhere google (http://www.google.com/search?q=hurricane+Charley+Frances+Ivan+Jeanne+Colin+Fiona+Igor+Julia) can find (http://www.google.com/search?q=hurricane+retired+2004+2010) it. --ssd 01:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- You over-summarized, I'm not sure what you're saying. The statement that they did something should stay removed until there's a cite for it. People have been trying to falsely state that the names are retired since the storms hit. I've been fighting this long enough that I'm not inclined to accept someone's word on the subject. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Found another site with the correct list: http://www.cura.net/~fcapello/html/Hurricane_names.htm - Safe to say it is official.
- How can you say that?? This not a NOAA or WMO web site, but a personal one, right? This is not official!! Awolf002 14:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- It will be official when - and only when - either an official NOAA or WMO website says so. Period. --Golbez 15:01, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Well, it's official. [2] (http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/retirednames.shtml) bob rulz 22:40, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Hmmm, have four names ever been retired in one season before? Interesting. --tomf688(talk) 00:04, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
The new names have apeared on NHC's 'Storm Names' link. [3] (http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutnames.shtml) It's official. And, yes Tom, there have been four names retired before, once in 1955 (Connie, Diane, Ione and Janet) and again in 1995 (Luis, Marilyn, Opal, and Roxanne).
-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast
Now see kids? Was it really so hard to wait until it was factually correct, rather than on random personal webpages? --Golbez 08:47, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
Crunch Time
The 2005 Eastern Pacific hurricane season starts tomorrow. The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season starts in two and a half weeks. It could get really exciting.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 00:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
- Yet, if it's anything like last year, then it'll be a boring 2 and a half months ahead. --Golbez 05:20, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
Let's get ready to rumble! Tropical Depression One_E has formed in the Eastern Pacific and is expected to strengthen into a tropical storm within the next 24-36 hours [4] (http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCPEP1+shtml/172002.shtml). The season has begun fellas, and the Atlantic, I'll wager, won't be far behind.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 22:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
- TS Adrian has formed in the Pacific, but it moves towards the east. If it crosses over to the Gulf, will it keep its name and stay a Pacific storm, or become an Atlantic storm? Mmmhhh... Awolf002 11:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
- Storms that cross basins are given a name from the new basin's list; see Earl from the 2004 Atlantic season. Perhaps we should move this discussion to the 2005 Atlantic and Pacific pages :) --Golbez 14:59, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
There's a 2005 Pacific hurricane season page?
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 22:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
- There has been for a few months now... bob rulz 05:15, May 21, 2005 (UTC)