This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I don't think that the prediction will be correct; I think it will be yet another busy hurricane season in 2005...15 tropical storms, 10 hurricanes, 5 major hurricanes, several landfalling hurricanes...
Did we make it through March without any S. Atlantic activity? Quite a difference from the last few years. -- Golbez 07:03, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Just to let y'all know I've started the sister page, 2005 Pacific hurricane season. Need to find pre-season forecasts... not sure where. -- Golbez 20:22, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Looks like www.nhc.noaa.gov has a new layout.. not sure if I like it. Have to wait for the first storm to see how it really looks. -- Golbez 09:00, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
The forecast suggests that Tropical Storm Adrian in the Eastern Pacific will cross Central America and continue on in the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. If it keeps or regains tropical storm strength, will it be renamed Arlene if such happens?
Right. I wonder if it ever happened, that a storm "crossed over" in that direction into the Gulf and regained storm status. Awolf002 17:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Cool, thanks! Let's hope this one just fizzles! Awolf002 18:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Uuhhh... I read in one of the discussions on the NHC site that re-naming will depend on its tropical status. If it stays a tropical storm, it will keep its original name. If it fizzles and then some wave/remnant action create a new storm in the Carribean, it will have the Atlantic name. Does that jive with you guys? Here is the link [1] and the quote
Awolf002 20:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Isn't it also ironic that they both kept the same gender? (Cesar to Douglas, Joan to Miriam).
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 23:42, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
(crossposted from the pacific page)
OK, folks, this is a warmup for the much more important (at least as far as clicks are concerned, no one in Central America right now should take this as a slight. I mean for Wikipedia, for publicity, for getting our name out) Atlantic season. Last year, we either didn't have Wikinews, or none of us felt it up to snuff to either make articles for it, or link them if they did exist.
I'm making Wikinews for every major milestone along Adrian's course, and plan to make them for each subsequent storm, regardless of impact. (Well, I mean, I would make one about the formation of Karl, and maybe the dissipation, and that's it. And time will tell if this is necessary)
ANYWAY.
So far, I've linked every story (two so far) under Adrian. Now, this could get long for a large storm, but then again, a large storm will get its own article (Adrian will likely deserve one before the week is out) and thus have room for a long list of links.
Now imagine if we have another Hurricane Jeanne or Ivan this year, and everyone who comes to look at the article sees links to Wikinews articles.
I would daresay it's the best advertising Wikinews can get. We all know how powerful the storm articles were last year; the Hurricane Frances article was, IIRC (And I could be very wrong), for a while, the most read article on Wikipedia. If we even only get 1% of clickthroughs to Wikinews, that could be a huge boon for that site; maybe they're better off, I don't know, I've been remiss in my duties there.
My point is, let's see how this style works here, and I suggest we implement it on the Atlantic page. It couldn't hurt. Yes, the Wikinews article at present is mostly a clone of the Wikipedia article, but the differences are, the Wikinews article has the ability to expand beyond that, especially with local reports which would be just awesome. Also, the Wikinews article will still be there - so even after this article says "Adrian dissipated on this and that date", there will still be articles chronicling its formation, strengthening, strike, and effects. So while Wikipedia remains up to date, Wikinews serves as a useful archive outside of the history page.
Any comments? -- Golbez 18:29, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
It's now Tropical Depression One. -- Goobergunch| ? 21:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Current subjects: Arlene, possibly bringing heavy rainfall to Cuba and the Gulf Coast, and just-tagged 91L INVEST, well northeast of Puerto Rico. As for Wikinews, I'm better at writing wire reports and headlines than at writing articles, but I think Wikinews might be able to handle itself. Hopefully. If not, I can write up a quick blurb. -- Golbez 17:33, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Based on experience from last year, using 0000Z instead of 2400Z is a pain in the ass, even if it is more "normal". It's harder to read, and more work to edit. Compare:
Zerbey changed my use of the latter, but failed to add the date, and the resulting "7pm CDT (0000 UTC)" either relied on assumption or was just plain wrong. Well-intended, yes, but factual accuracy trumps style. Use of 2400 to specifically indicate the end of the day is standard (literally, see ISO 8601), and helps reduce clutter in this case. -- Cyrius| ✎ 29 June 2005 00:10 (UTC)
They're both correct, that was the whole point. It's just that one encourages factual mistakes and is painful to keep properly updated, and the other looks wrong to some people. When providing "current" information, it is far more important to be factually correct than stylistically correct. -- Cyrius| ✎ 29 June 2005 01:37 (UTC)
While working on another research project (which I'll share here once my webpage is done), I ran into a troublesome problem regarding hurricanes on the borderline of Cat-3 and Cat-4 intensity.
According to the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale, and from all of my prior knowledge, 130 MPH is Cat-3, and 131 MPH is Cat-4. This can be verified as well by the 8:00 PM EDT (July 7) advisory on Hurricane Dennis, which brings the storm to 130 MPH and claims it to be of Cat-3 strength.
However, the Saffir-Simpson scale also suggests that any storm with winds equal to or greater than 113 knots are Category 4... and according to Unisys (a source I've been using very frequently), Dennis has reached 115 knots as of the aforementioned 8:00 PM EDT advisory. Unisys lists the storm as Category 4, which directly contradicts the NHC's public advisory. Indeed, the entire Unisys archive lists storms at 115 knots as Category 4.
Even more troubling is that the official re-analysis done by HURDAT (warning: large html file) lists all wind speeds by MPH, and includes all 130 MPH storms as Category 4.
So, where is the line really drawn?
The Great Zo 8 July 2005 01:51 (UTC)
More info: On that HURDAT data I linked above, the only storm EVER listed as having winds of 135 MPH is two data points for Helene in 1988... I looked to see the corresponding wind speed in knots for those two data points (on Unisys) and they were 117 knots and 118 knots - two very strange numbers.
So it looks like 115 knots = 130 MPH, and 120 knots = 140 MPH....
but 115 knots also = Cat-4, although 130 MPH = Cat-3...
This is darn confusing...
The Great Zo 8 July 2005 02:15 (UTC)
Should we note in the timeline whenever a storm drops to TD strength? We didn't note when it lost a category last year, and I think it's kind of redundant to note when a landfalling TS drops to TD strength - are these really relevant? Though in the case of Cindy, come to think of it, that was when the NHC ceased monitoring it, so it's kind of like a "half death", the full death coming when the HPC gives up on it. So never mind. What will matter is if a storm stays out at sea and drops to a TD, that's not worth mentioning. -- Golbez July 6, 2005 18:37 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think this should be included. It's a useful concatenation of satellite images, but every single thing there, apart from some of the paths, are NOAA products and available from the NHC website. And the paths imply more defined forecasting than I think we should endorse with a link. I didn't want to delete it before bringing it to discussion first, though. -- Golbez 13:37, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Emily hasn't even been officially named, but someone already moved the page Hurricane Emily for the 2005 storm, assuming it will be retired! (although on that track it is a possibility) The original Emily page is at Hurricane Emily (disambiguation). Isn't it WAY too early for that? At the most, if we want to speculate, it should be at Hurricane Emily (2005). CrazyC83 03:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
I speedy deleted the Emily 2005 page. I don't figure anyone's going to object except possibly the creator. If I'm wrong, let me know. -- Cyrius| ✎ 04:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I don't think that the prediction will be correct; I think it will be yet another busy hurricane season in 2005...15 tropical storms, 10 hurricanes, 5 major hurricanes, several landfalling hurricanes...
Did we make it through March without any S. Atlantic activity? Quite a difference from the last few years. -- Golbez 07:03, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Just to let y'all know I've started the sister page, 2005 Pacific hurricane season. Need to find pre-season forecasts... not sure where. -- Golbez 20:22, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Looks like www.nhc.noaa.gov has a new layout.. not sure if I like it. Have to wait for the first storm to see how it really looks. -- Golbez 09:00, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
The forecast suggests that Tropical Storm Adrian in the Eastern Pacific will cross Central America and continue on in the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. If it keeps or regains tropical storm strength, will it be renamed Arlene if such happens?
Right. I wonder if it ever happened, that a storm "crossed over" in that direction into the Gulf and regained storm status. Awolf002 17:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Cool, thanks! Let's hope this one just fizzles! Awolf002 18:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Uuhhh... I read in one of the discussions on the NHC site that re-naming will depend on its tropical status. If it stays a tropical storm, it will keep its original name. If it fizzles and then some wave/remnant action create a new storm in the Carribean, it will have the Atlantic name. Does that jive with you guys? Here is the link [1] and the quote
Awolf002 20:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Isn't it also ironic that they both kept the same gender? (Cesar to Douglas, Joan to Miriam).
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 23:42, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
(crossposted from the pacific page)
OK, folks, this is a warmup for the much more important (at least as far as clicks are concerned, no one in Central America right now should take this as a slight. I mean for Wikipedia, for publicity, for getting our name out) Atlantic season. Last year, we either didn't have Wikinews, or none of us felt it up to snuff to either make articles for it, or link them if they did exist.
I'm making Wikinews for every major milestone along Adrian's course, and plan to make them for each subsequent storm, regardless of impact. (Well, I mean, I would make one about the formation of Karl, and maybe the dissipation, and that's it. And time will tell if this is necessary)
ANYWAY.
So far, I've linked every story (two so far) under Adrian. Now, this could get long for a large storm, but then again, a large storm will get its own article (Adrian will likely deserve one before the week is out) and thus have room for a long list of links.
Now imagine if we have another Hurricane Jeanne or Ivan this year, and everyone who comes to look at the article sees links to Wikinews articles.
I would daresay it's the best advertising Wikinews can get. We all know how powerful the storm articles were last year; the Hurricane Frances article was, IIRC (And I could be very wrong), for a while, the most read article on Wikipedia. If we even only get 1% of clickthroughs to Wikinews, that could be a huge boon for that site; maybe they're better off, I don't know, I've been remiss in my duties there.
My point is, let's see how this style works here, and I suggest we implement it on the Atlantic page. It couldn't hurt. Yes, the Wikinews article at present is mostly a clone of the Wikipedia article, but the differences are, the Wikinews article has the ability to expand beyond that, especially with local reports which would be just awesome. Also, the Wikinews article will still be there - so even after this article says "Adrian dissipated on this and that date", there will still be articles chronicling its formation, strengthening, strike, and effects. So while Wikipedia remains up to date, Wikinews serves as a useful archive outside of the history page.
Any comments? -- Golbez 18:29, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
It's now Tropical Depression One. -- Goobergunch| ? 21:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Current subjects: Arlene, possibly bringing heavy rainfall to Cuba and the Gulf Coast, and just-tagged 91L INVEST, well northeast of Puerto Rico. As for Wikinews, I'm better at writing wire reports and headlines than at writing articles, but I think Wikinews might be able to handle itself. Hopefully. If not, I can write up a quick blurb. -- Golbez 17:33, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Based on experience from last year, using 0000Z instead of 2400Z is a pain in the ass, even if it is more "normal". It's harder to read, and more work to edit. Compare:
Zerbey changed my use of the latter, but failed to add the date, and the resulting "7pm CDT (0000 UTC)" either relied on assumption or was just plain wrong. Well-intended, yes, but factual accuracy trumps style. Use of 2400 to specifically indicate the end of the day is standard (literally, see ISO 8601), and helps reduce clutter in this case. -- Cyrius| ✎ 29 June 2005 00:10 (UTC)
They're both correct, that was the whole point. It's just that one encourages factual mistakes and is painful to keep properly updated, and the other looks wrong to some people. When providing "current" information, it is far more important to be factually correct than stylistically correct. -- Cyrius| ✎ 29 June 2005 01:37 (UTC)
While working on another research project (which I'll share here once my webpage is done), I ran into a troublesome problem regarding hurricanes on the borderline of Cat-3 and Cat-4 intensity.
According to the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale, and from all of my prior knowledge, 130 MPH is Cat-3, and 131 MPH is Cat-4. This can be verified as well by the 8:00 PM EDT (July 7) advisory on Hurricane Dennis, which brings the storm to 130 MPH and claims it to be of Cat-3 strength.
However, the Saffir-Simpson scale also suggests that any storm with winds equal to or greater than 113 knots are Category 4... and according to Unisys (a source I've been using very frequently), Dennis has reached 115 knots as of the aforementioned 8:00 PM EDT advisory. Unisys lists the storm as Category 4, which directly contradicts the NHC's public advisory. Indeed, the entire Unisys archive lists storms at 115 knots as Category 4.
Even more troubling is that the official re-analysis done by HURDAT (warning: large html file) lists all wind speeds by MPH, and includes all 130 MPH storms as Category 4.
So, where is the line really drawn?
The Great Zo 8 July 2005 01:51 (UTC)
More info: On that HURDAT data I linked above, the only storm EVER listed as having winds of 135 MPH is two data points for Helene in 1988... I looked to see the corresponding wind speed in knots for those two data points (on Unisys) and they were 117 knots and 118 knots - two very strange numbers.
So it looks like 115 knots = 130 MPH, and 120 knots = 140 MPH....
but 115 knots also = Cat-4, although 130 MPH = Cat-3...
This is darn confusing...
The Great Zo 8 July 2005 02:15 (UTC)
Should we note in the timeline whenever a storm drops to TD strength? We didn't note when it lost a category last year, and I think it's kind of redundant to note when a landfalling TS drops to TD strength - are these really relevant? Though in the case of Cindy, come to think of it, that was when the NHC ceased monitoring it, so it's kind of like a "half death", the full death coming when the HPC gives up on it. So never mind. What will matter is if a storm stays out at sea and drops to a TD, that's not worth mentioning. -- Golbez July 6, 2005 18:37 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think this should be included. It's a useful concatenation of satellite images, but every single thing there, apart from some of the paths, are NOAA products and available from the NHC website. And the paths imply more defined forecasting than I think we should endorse with a link. I didn't want to delete it before bringing it to discussion first, though. -- Golbez 13:37, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Emily hasn't even been officially named, but someone already moved the page Hurricane Emily for the 2005 storm, assuming it will be retired! (although on that track it is a possibility) The original Emily page is at Hurricane Emily (disambiguation). Isn't it WAY too early for that? At the most, if we want to speculate, it should be at Hurricane Emily (2005). CrazyC83 03:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
I speedy deleted the Emily 2005 page. I don't figure anyone's going to object except possibly the creator. If I'm wrong, let me know. -- Cyrius| ✎ 04:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)