Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season

Please remember to sign your comments using "~~~~"! (This request includes anonymous users.) Please keep discussion unrelated to the upkeep of the article to a minimum. Below are special discussion areas.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23.

Monthly Event Archives: June - July - August - September - October - November - December Storm Event Archives: Katrina - Rita - Wilma - Epsilon Specialized Discussion: Records - Speculation - Betting Pools - Records Not Broken

Other Basin Talkpages: Atlantic - W. Pacific - E. Pacific - S. Hemisphere - N. Indian

Cumulative death toll

Should a chart be made, like the death toll charts for individual storms, containing the cumulative death toll for all 2005 storms, by country, region and political unit? CrazyC83 18:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea for the deaths&damages section. — jdorje (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

There was the chart of just regular storm deaths.HurricaneCraze32 22:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If we broke it down by more than country the table would be massive. It should be there, but only by country, even for the US. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 23:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It could be done in the statistics section though... CrazyC83 16:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The full breakdown could appear in the statistics article, but it would take up too much space in the main article. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 18:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The ever-expanding article

Leave an article with lots of available information alone, and it will do nothing but grow. This one has grown from 44k to 50k in the last couple of weeks, and is bordering on what I would call "too long". — jdorje (talk) 07:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Any suggestions of something to split off, or do you prefer a pruning? --Golbez 07:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I did some minor pruning of places that had too many numbers or too much detail, but most sections are about as concise as they can be. The one section I still think is too long is the "Seasonal forecasts" section. Also, I'm still not sure what role the "Economic impact" and "Forecasting uncertainty" sections should play in the overall structure and flow of the article - I think they are out of place as top-level sections but I'm not sure how to integrate them. The "Economic impact" section might be better off if it were split into a sub article (maybe Impact of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, which could have all sorts of pretty tables showing deaths and damages in each location as was discussed not long ago). — jdorje (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

50k is not excessively long. At least, that's my opinion. It's down to 48k now, and, by taking a look at it, there's 43 notes! Now that is too long. Too many notes. We don't need to cite where we got every single piece of information from. bob rulz 02:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

See WP:CITE. A comprehensive list of citations is one of the strengths of this article. --EMS | Talk 02:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It takes up, like, 30% of the article. It's good to cite sources, yes, but 43 notes is excessive. That may not be what it says in WP:CITE, but it's my opinion. Not every policy on Wikipedia is a great policy. bob rulz 02:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

50 KB is not a problem. Race, a featured article, is 127 KB long. I'd say that it is quite about right. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

50 KB is not yet a problem. But the tendancy of the article to keep on growing is a problem, and continued vigilance is needed to keep it focused. — jdorje (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it not possible to make a sub-article to all the notes? I agree the list is to long, but it citing makes an article better. Jonatanj 08:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Franklin and Harvey?

There arent many reports left undone, but Franklin and Harvey are two of them. I would have expected them to be early reports, as they didnt really do much. Could this mean they are considering upgrading them to hurricanes too? Jamie|C 20:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It could also be that they were such non-events that they're leaving those til more pressing matters are completed. --Golbez 20:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Franklin is a possibility for hurricane status.70mph (pending report).Harvey was only 65.I am onnly waiting for Emily and Beta.HurricaneCraze32 20:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It cant be because they were non-events, because they did Lee very early on. Jamie|C 21:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

There has only been one report in the past two weeks....you would think that one of these days they will release a ton. Weatherman90 22:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Emily-the last probably.HurricaneCraze32 22:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. I don't understand what's taking so long with Franklin, Harvey and Zeta. And Rita, for that matter, if they got Katrina and Wilma done so quickly. Only Beta and Emily make sense to be this late. Much longer and the reports won't be out in time for the WMO meeting. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 23:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a real pattern to the report release, they just post them when they're done. This is unusually late for reports to be coming out but given the amount of storms, it's not that surprising, but I seem to recall them churning out reports at a much faster pace last year and they went directly to HTML. I'm most baffled as to why there have been no new East Pacific reports in at least three weeks. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 23:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the last EPAC report was Hilary on February 1st, so it's been about a month! Last Atlantic one was Vince on February 22nd. -- RattleMan 23:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Emily:Last to come out.Too many things to investigate

• Beta:Next to last report.Damage,landfall category

• Rita:3rd to last-no reason why

• Franklin:4th.Category,not much else

• Zeta and Harvey:5 & 6,No reason.

HurricaneCraze32 00:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Still no reports as of Tuesday this week....I am getting quite impatient ;) Weatherman90 04:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why Rita's report is taking so long. Landfall intensity perhaps? Pobbie Rarr 14:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe... I hope they don't downgrade it. They've had a trend the past couple of years of downgrading landfall intensities, and sometimes their justification seemed really questionable to me (like with Ivan and Katrina). I also wonder if they're considering upgrading its maximum wind speed to 180 mph. The pressure would certainly support it and if I recall, certain parameters of the vortex messages (when it was at ~897 mb) were stronger even than Wilma's at its peak. In particular, I think it had an extremely high temperature differential. The crew also reported that one gust of 235 mph. I have nothing factual to base this speculation on, but if they wanted to increase its maximum intensity, it seems like they'd have ample data to support it.

There are certainly explanations for the delay with Emily, Rita, and Beta. What I don't understand is why the three tropical storms still don't have reports. There was nothing exceptional about any of them except Zeta, and surely it can't take that long to determine whether Zeta did in fact take the record of latest formation.

-PolitiCalypso 16:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Rita was smaller than Katrina with a lower barometric pressure, so a higher maximum wind speed sounds logical. Of course there's no way of knowing right now. Pobbie Rarr 17:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, there we have it. Winds up to 180mph, and the minimum pressure was even dropped a couple of millibars. Rita was no joke. Pobbie Rarr 17:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Unnamed Storm?

Check out this video. At about 36:55 Max mentions that there may have been another storm to meet the qualifications for a name. --Ajm⁸¹ 21:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

He might be referring to the first stage of Gamma. TD 27 attained TS status after the season, and the next stage could have been a different storm. Hurricanehink 22:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Either that or TD19 or TD22 was really a tropical storm...Also he said that Emily was a Category 5 at about the 38:00 mark...and admitted that they were way behind on TCR's just because of sheer volume. It takes time to write 30 reports!!! CrazyC83 22:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding a 28th named storm: at first I thought maybe it was TD22 as well...but it is not. They are looking at a system in early Oct in the eastern ATL that may have had tropical characteristics. 2005...the season that won't quit! Another surprise.Mkieper 14:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I was studying 22's report.On the track map,near the 10th update its like there was a point where it was TD status.HurricaneCraze32 14:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Timeline

I've just found this on the German Wikipedia. It would be great if someone could modify it for English (translate the months and the links and add links for others with English articles). It really demonstrates how continuous and constant the season was. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 18:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Here you go (edit to see code):

--Ajm⁸¹ 19:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This timeline looks really large. Is it possible to downsize it? Icelandic Hurricane 21:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with the downsizing, especially on the vertical axis (not so much horizontally so that it shows all the storms). Also TD's 10, 19 and 22 should be added. CrazyC83 22:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Added 10, 19, and 22, made it smaller (to mess with the sizes, edit the "ImageSize = width:800 height:400" values near the beginning), and changed the starting month from May to June. A question, why is STD22's duration on List of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms including the times it was a part of the Northeast flooding of October 2005? Really, STD22 only lasted from 15Z on the 8th to 03Z on the 9th. -- RattleMan 23:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

In addition to downsizing, would it be possible to show category on it? WotGoPlunk 02:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. See here. -- RattleMan 02:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... Can we replace "TD 10", "TD 19" and "STD 22" with just "10", "19" and "22". Otherwise it looks inconsistent (the other storms don't have "TS" or "H" in front of them). Other than that, it looks good. Also, Rattleman, I think he meant different colors for when the storms were at various intensities. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 13:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

How about compressing the timeline vertically, by putting all the storms onto a small number of rows, maybe 5? Then the concurrent storms will still be obvious and the total space required goes from 30 data rows to a much lower number. -- 86.139.249.40 10:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it needs a border of some kind. It would make it look much more organized. --Weatherman90 15:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Also - whats with the "2005.41" on the side? Can we get rid of it? Weatherman90 15:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a way to change that to just "2005" without starting in January. The .41 comes from June 1 being 41% into the year. --Ajm⁸¹ 18:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you people think of the table reorganised like this? The 'standard' Category 1 color doesn't work in this form, perhaps changing the background color is the solution, seems preferable to giving ANOTHER palette for hurricane categories. --86.142.250.56 12:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. The 5 rows makes it easier to read now. Hurricanehink 12:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I added this here to demonstrate what else could be done with this timeline. The colors on Emily show the maximum intensity on each day using the established colors but while it certainly gives more information I think it looks ugly. The mark on Katrina shows when maximum intensity occured, this might be useful. I got rid of the '2005.41' by using 'ScaleMinor' instead of 'ScaleMajor'. -- 86.142.250.56 20:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I like it that way (In reference to the condensed table)...It seems harder to read and doesn't demonstrate how constant the season was as well as the other one as Cuiviénen put it. Weatherman90 02:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the colour of the background on the timelines to a light grey; seems to make more sense than to have another battle over the category colours when there is a simpler solution. Having said that I think the colours of cats 4 and 5 are too similar. I think it works if the colours are left alone; apart from Cat4 which could be changed to:

#ff8c40

-- 86.141.83.56 01:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Overall track map for 2005?

Any idea when NOAA will be publishing the overall track map for 2005? I know that they have been used as part of the recent season pages other than 2005 and expect that it will be added when NOAA publishes them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Naraht (talk • contribs) . (sorry for forgetting to sign)

Probably when all the TCRs are done. --Golbez 15:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I was wondering the same thing to myself a bit ago. It actually says on the bottom of the page that lists the reports. - At the rate that these reports are coming in, it could be a very long time. Weatherman90 04:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I would hope that all reports would be done before the meeting at the end of this month, but you never know. --Ajm⁸¹ 09:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a report coming today. I can feel it! Weatherman90 15:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

They usually come out in the morning, so I'm afraid that you're probably wrong. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 17:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wrong indeed --Weatherman90 01:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The TCR page says that the map will come out after all reports are complete. That was changed from saying it will come out at the end of the season. —BazookaJoe 04:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Another week without a report...doesn't the NHC know that I can't sleep at night without knowing if Emily was a Cat 5?! Haha --Weatherman90 15:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Emily's Report

It is finally out; the NHC has decided it was briefly a category 5. TCR

No surprise there. That takes care of one big question mark. I'll let someone else do the updating as I do intense work on the current storm outbreak page. CrazyC83 15:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

YES!! I don't have to change any of my records!! Except now I have to fix a lot of them on here because people erased many of the Cat. 5 stats..... Here goes Heavy working on the records list again - Cory Pesaturo "The Snowman" FreeSledder 10:57, 13 March 2006 (EST)

HAH! The best one isnt the last. Lets just hope we get more intresting things. What if Beta becomes Cat4-we'll have a new record there.HurricaneCraze32 20:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Highly unlikely. Beta may have been 120-125 mph, but I can't see a jump of that degree. The most interesting things left could be if Rita was underestimated like Wilma (180 mph?) or if Franklin or Harvey was a hurricane, although I personally doubt it in both cases. CrazyC83 23:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well look at that! Figured it almost had to be, but I'm surprised the NHC did it. And without lowering the pressure. A bit of a perk on an otherwise depressing weather news day. -PolitiCalypso 21:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

What an amazing season this was... —Cuiviénen, 21:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow! This sure woke me up. So we had four Category 5's in one season. Good God! That is insane! 2005 will go down in history as the Year the Atlantic Went Mad. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 22:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Only if things quiet down and 2006 isn't just as insane. I recently read an article about 2004 describing it as a "one-in-a-lifetime" season. 2005 has been described as a "once-in-200-years" season. So we will see what 2006 brings... — jdorje (talk) 03:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

...I can sleep tonight! Weatherman90 02:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Glitch!

Uh, WTF? What the hell happened to the article? The Wikipedia server is acting like it doesn't exist. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 22:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. It's probably just your computer. I've had that happen before. Icelandic Hurricane #12 23:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

No, Wikimedia's server base is giving a bit of trouble. It appears ok to me now, but if it isn't resolved in your computer try purging the page's cache and hard-reloading your browser (e.g. pressing CTRL+F5 in Internet Explorer) Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I ran into this problem at school around 1530Z (8:30 AM my time, when I learned Emily was a Cat 5). There I went into the History and found that the user WmE somehow blanked nearly the entire article. At that time I thought that might have had something to do with it, but now I think it was just a Wiki error. -- RattleMan 00:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

He section-edited, and may have had a conflict with the server problems. NSLE _(T+C) at 00:45 UTC (2006-03-14)

The whole article disappeared this morning while modifications to all the pages were locked. I thought it had something to do with the maintenance this morning. Good kitty 02:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Harvey

About Harvey - I think that there is a definite possibility that the NHC could be considering upgrading it to a hurricane. The minimum pressure was 994 mbar, and an eye-wall or eye like feature was observed on satellite. Some quotes from the 11 AM discussion on August 4 read "IT WOULD NOT TAKE MUCH MORE INTENSIFICATION THAN FORECAST FOR HARVEY TO BECOME A HURRICANE." You never know...they would have to look at some key observations from Bermuda. Weatherman90 03:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

His peak intensity was 65 mph, not 70, which makes upgrading far less likely. I'd say there is an outside chance, but I don't see any basis myself for upgrading it. Same with Franklin, while he had 70 mph winds, the 997 mbar pressure is too high for the intensity. CrazyC83 16:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Crazy, Its also a possibility that the NHC may have missed something. Harvey getting upgraded to 70mph would be nice.75 is very unlikely.Franklin-I want him to be a hurricane.Make Floyd look bad.Rita-raise her damage,raise her winds. Zeta-Nothing, Beta-Cat3 at landfall.HurricaneCraze32 20:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

We were saying all this about Delta, which was more likely to be upgraded than Franklin or Harvey, but it stayed as a tropical storm Jamie|C 16:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Cat. 5-Cat. 4 color similarity

I noticed that the Cat.5 and Cat. 4 colors look very similar. People that are colorblind might get confused. Maybe someone could change one or both of the colors to differentiate them more. Icelandic Hurricane #12 22:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd make the Category 4 color a slightly bit lighter, but not a whole lot. Category 5 should remain as is; it needs to be in a red shade. CrazyC83 00:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

We arrived at those colors through a horribly long discussion at Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics, so I would be a bit iffy to change them. That said, tweaking Cat 4 to be just a bit lighter might make work, as long as it does not become too similar to Cat 3. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I dropped it down a shade; feel free to change it back if you don't like it. I think it strikes a balance. CrazyC83 18:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The storm path images still use the original color system. Once the new color system is agreed on and stable, I will switch them over. But the ongoing complaints and small tweaks make me think it is not stable. Even a small color change would necessitate a full re-upload of the storm tracks eventually...and with hundreds or thousands of track maps this is a non-trivial task. — jdorje (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason for the lack of contrast between cat 4 and 5 was that someone had changed cats 3-5 to a darker shade and only cats 3 and 5 were reverted, cat 4 got missed. With the original colours restored this problems gone. -- 86.141.83.56 16:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

27/Gamma

TD 27 was briefly a TS before dropping back to a TD, then regenerating into TS Gamma.

Now, if it had never become gamma, we would simply designate it TS 27, as would likely the NHC.

However, since it DID become Gamma, shouldn't we note in the timelane that it briefly became TS Gamma, designation retroactive? And then dissipated or dropped to TD, then back up to Gamma? --Golbez 22:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Large parts of the timeline probably need updating, since they were all originally take from the advisory data. — jdorje (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Cat. 1s on the timeline

Category 1s are practically the same as the background, and its really hard to see. Maybe the background colour should be changed. Jamie|C 19:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree-hurts my eyes.HurricaneCraze32 20:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Not this again. We had a huge discussion and mostly everybody agreed on this colour scheme. The old Cat 1 was the colour of the background aka white. Pikachu9000 23:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Color #ffdd88-looks good to me.Its one of the colors for my chart.

My chart is (Ignore the Subtropical Storm)

Extratropical Edit - (779bEE) Edit

Subtropical depression Edit - (violet) Edit

Tropical depression Edit - (#E1CCFF) Edit

Tropical storm Edit - (lightgreen) Edit

Subtropical Storm Edit - (#ffe775) Edit

Category 1 hurricane Edit - (#ffdd88) Edit

Category 2 hurricane Edit - (#ffffaa)Edit

Category 3 hurricane Edit - (pink) Edit

Category 4 hurricane Edit - (#ff8f20) Edit

Category 5 hurricane Edit - (#ff4343) Edit

HurricaneCraze32 23:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Too pastel. — jdorje (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What about this? The link colour may have to be changed for Tropical Storm though.

Extratropical Edit - (cccccc) Edit

Tropical depression Edit - (5ebaff) Edit

Tropical storm Edit - (00faf4) Edit

Category 1 hurricane Edit - (ffffcc) Edit

Category 2 hurricane Edit - (ffe775)Edit

Category 3 hurricane Edit - (ffc140) Edit

Category 4 hurricane Edit - (ff8e0d) Edit

Category 5 hurricane Edit - (ff6060) Edit

WotGoPlunk 02:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Repeating all the old arguments said at Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics: no green, no pink, the edit links in the Tropical Storm color is invisible due to the background, there must be continuity of hues and luminosity values... Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The color transition is too bizarre. Blue won't show up on the track maps I suspect, and green for category 3 is not good. — jdorje (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Tropical depression Edit - (#66CCFF) Edit

Tropical storm Edit - (3399FF) Edit

Category 1 hurricane Edit - (#FFFF99) Edit

Category 2 hurricane Edit - (#FFCC00)Edit

Category 3 hurricane Edit - (ff8e0d) Edit

Category 4 hurricane Edit - (FF6666) Edit

Category 5 hurricane Edit - (FF0099) Edit

How about this. I know Cat 5 is a little bit dark but you can still see the links . Pikachu9000 05:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Category 5 is too dark. You can't see the links. — jdorje (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Now it is too strong, and hurts the eyes due to excessive contrast with the black (one of the original reasons the original scheme was replaced). Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I can't make it too weak, that's the problem with Cat 1. Pikachu9000 06:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What colors are used on the French wikipedia? Their infoboxen were more mature than ours for a very long time, and they have colorcoding. Try theirs out. --Golbez 06:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the French Wikipedia colour scheme, it is one which showed up in the discussion on the statistics page:

Map plotting the storm's track and intensity, according to the Saffir–Simpson scale

Map key

Saffir–Simpson scale

  Tropical depression (≤38 mph, ≤62 km/h)
  Tropical storm (39–73 mph, 63–118 km/h)
  Category 1 (74–95 mph, 119–153 km/h)
  Category 2 (96–110 mph, 154–177 km/h)
  Category 3 (111–129 mph, 178–208 km/h)
  Category 4 (130–156 mph, 209–251 km/h)
  Category 5 (≥157 mph, ≥252 km/h)
  Unknown

Storm type

Tropical cyclone

Subtropical cyclone

Extratropical cyclone, remnant low, tropical disturbance, or monsoon depression

Tropical depression Edit - (5ebaff) Edit

Tropical storm Edit - (00faf4) Edit

Category 1 hurricane Edit - (ffffcc) Edit

Category 2 hurricane Edit - (ffe775)Edit

Category 3 hurricane Edit - (ffc140) Edit

Category 4 hurricane Edit - (ff8f20) Edit

Category 5 hurricane Edit - (ff6060) Edit

It looks very similar to the current scheme, except the cat 4 colour is lighter resolving the clash with the cat 5 colour. By changing the background colour to a light grey on the timeline the cat 1 colour is clearly visible now; some more work may be needed there, the TS colour clashes with the background now I think, further tweaking of the background colour seems to make sense. The track map I grabbed from the discussion on this colour scheme on the statistics page; all the colours seem to show up well against the map background. -- 86.141.83.56 09:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, reading the discussion - this scheme, colour scheme #23, was the colour scheme agreed upon and was uploaded, but someone altered the cat 4 colour since; I've reverted it back and altered the timeline colours to match it (the code for the timeline doesn't use the template colours). -- 86.141.83.56 10:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I meant the colours were ok, but the timeline background colour needs to be changed. Jamie|C 15:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and changed the background to a light grey instead of the white it was. I thought grey is the best choice as it is a 'neutral' colour, though the exact shade could be altered. All storms are visible on the timeline now. -- 86.141.83.56 16:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Reports: Zeta, Rita, Harvey, Franklin

Rita is out. Still cat 3 at landfall, pressure lowered a bit and max winds upped. --Ajm⁸¹ 17:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The others are out as well, just not linked to the page yet: Zeta Harvey Franklin. --Ajm⁸¹ 18:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

All right! They're all in. Some East Pacific ones are still pending. I hope the HTML versions will come out soon. A new peak intensity for Rita, revised upward: 155 knots, 895 millibars. Good God, what a monster! $10 billion in damage, too. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 18:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait, what about Beta? Is it out yet? -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 18:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Beta is the only one missing now. --Ajm⁸¹ 18:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder if anyone guessed Beta in the betting pool... -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 19:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll need to check them out...whoever guessed Beta (if anybody) gets the orange ribbon...they must be still debating her intensity (115? 120? 125?) and her strength at landfall (Category 3?). Also that was the least reported of all the landfalling hurricanes. CrazyC83 19:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I picked Beta - though I guess this new unnamed subtropical storm (see below) can still win. :p Picked it because they screwed up the forecast so badly right before landfall that they might have to spend more time reanalyzing.

Why an orange ribbon? --AySz88^-^ 00:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Color not yet used. The most common ones are already used. The new subtropical storm shouldn't count as we didn't know about it when the pool opened up. CrazyC83 04:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yay, my wild, unfounded guess about upgrading Rita's winds was right! -PolitiCalypso 04:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

No changes with Franklin. Notice his peak winds (70 mph) were set with a 1001 mbar pressure - I kinda question the winds there. I think they may have overestimated Franklin. We learn nothing new with Harvey's report. No changes, and no surprises. They did drop Rita's intensity at landfall to 115 mph from 120 and the pressure is a record low for a storm at that intensity. It seems Rita and Katrina were indeed sister hurricanes, it just happened that Rita (fortunately) hit a much less populated area. Emergency organizations should think about redrawing storm surge maps. CrazyC83 19:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Alice was NOT broken! Zeta came 6 hours short. She had actually formed late on December 29th as a tropical depression. CrazyC83 19:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Now Crazy C, why'd you have to go and put in sub headings? They're unnessisary and they break up the discussion. I'm sorry but I have to merge them, they're obnoxious. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 19:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought talking about four reports would make everything too cluttered... CrazyC83 20:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Whoa steady, four reports at once! I'll need some time to read them through properly... Pobbie Rarr 19:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Unnamed subtropical storm

In the zeta report, it says that the NHC also found an unnamed tropical storm earlier in 2005. Could this be 22, despite the report being out? Jamie|C 18:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm would guess it is referring to the first part of Tropical Storm Gamma. Hurricanehink 18:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

But that would have been tropical (I meant to say subtropical in last coment) Jamie|C 19:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Dang it Jamie, you stole my thunder! ;) I saw your message just after saving this:

A footnote in the Zeta report reads: "The National Hurricane Center has also identified an unnamed subtropical storm that formed earlier in 2005." It appears that Storm05 was in fact correct about the April storm. Now let us all sit down and eat our words. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 19:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I misread in the article. Still, we don't know if the April storm was what they were talking about. Hurricanehink 19:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What will they call it, Subtropical Storm One? CrazyC83 19:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I still think its 22 Jamie|C 19:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they should go to non-integer numbers and make it Subtropical Storm One-half. — jdorje (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Will the unnamed storm get a report? Jamie|C 19:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Assuming it is a new storm, it will be called Unnamed Subtropical Storm... at least that's what they did in 2000. I believe the storm will get a report. Otherwise, how would we know about it? Hurricanehink 19:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, a report will need to come out. Don't make a section or article about it until it does; at the most, very brief mention on the season page should be made. Remember, back in 2000, subtropical storms were not named or numbered in sequence like they are now, so they may have to shift the numbers if there are conflicts. CrazyC83 19:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Subtropical Storm Eta anyone?Maybe the color on my chart is a good idea.(For Subtropical Storms).HurricaneCraze32 20:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

They'd just call it "Unnamed Subtropical Storm" like in 2000. The 2000 storm was not noticed operationally. The storm product archive for that year [1] ends with Nadine. I don't think the 2005 storm is listed on the reports page though. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 20:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah well.Would be nice though.HurricaneCraze32 20:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

According to a post on another forum, there was an email sent to the NHC (inwhich Dr. Franklin responded), and it turns out the unnamed storm formed some time in October! The email says they WILL be preparing a report. -- RattleMan 21:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Can Dr.Franklin estimate of when it was-maybe 22?HurricaneCraze32 22:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Franklin didn't really go into any more detail about when it formed, aside from it being in October. --Coredesat 23:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

While I was watching NASA's satellite feedback from the hurricane season, I noticed two somewhat interesting storms. The first formed October 8 (STD22), but an odd storm formed on what seems like October 13 or 14. Looked interesting, to say the least.

Jake52 23:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Could it be that huge low that chewed up STD 22 and sent lots of moisture up the Eastern seaboard of the U.S.? --AySz88^-^ 00:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Doubt it. That was extratropical. Hurricanehink 00:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Another email from Dr. Franklin states that it was in the far eastern sub-tropical Atlantic, and was operationally noted, but it was considered non-tropical at the time and handled by Meteo-France (if he recalls right). He says that upon further review, it had enough tropical characteristics to be considered subtropical. -- RattleMan 01:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Won't 2005 ever stop? Unnamed Subtropical Storm... hmm, this is very interesting to say the least. Gives us a break from the winter doldrums. —BazookaJoe 04:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I wish there was more info.(Today's my b-day).HurricaneCraze32 14:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

If you redownload the Zeta report, the footnote about this unnamed storm has now been removed...what could this mean? -- RattleMan 18:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

A new email from Dr. Franklin says they jumped the gun in reporting this: "It appears that I spoke a bit too soon about the unnamed subtropical storm. I have been informed that a final decision on this system is still pending. I apologize for the misunderstanding." -- RattleMan 19:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Happy birthday HurricaneCraze; it's my b-day too. :)--tomf688^{talk} 20:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I appears that the system in question is this: Link. A strong, low-level circulation appears to have broken off from the massive arctic low to the north. The creasent-shaped overcast near the New England coast to the northwest of our system is the remnant low of STD(stop it) 22. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 22:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

That looks alright, but the email said the storm was in the eastern Atlantic. Hurricanehink 22:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

File:Img-2005-10-14-18-GOE-12-VS.jpg

Here's a close up of what I think their talking about. Icelandic Hurricane #12 22:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The eastern Atlantic, not the eastern seaboard of the US. And please don't upload images just to show them to us. Link us to the website. Hink. In the picture I have, it looks like there's something near Africa. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 22:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

And now you just altered the picture! Now it shows the remnants of ST 22. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 22:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No it's not. The picture there before was AoI:030203 from the 2006 season. Icelandic Hurricane #12 22:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Low Pressures

One thing I've noticed about this season is that every major storm seemed to hold on vigorously to the very last millibar: Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Ophelia, Rita, Wilma, Delta, Epsilon... And some of them weren't very large at all. Omni ND 12:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Emily had the highest (least intense) pressure of any Category 5 hurricane in the Atlantic for which reliable pressure measurements were made. Just thought I'd note that. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 19 March 2006 @ 00:32 (UTC)

For Emily, I was talking about 943 mbar and 110 knots in the Gulf of Mexico.Omni ND 02:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not all that uncommon. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Cuivienen, the 1947 storm had a pressure of 947 at landfall with winds of 155 mph, just weakened from it's peak intensity. That means its pressure as a 5 was probably higher than Emily's. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 22:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Beta's Information

Beta's info still says that it was the 13th hurricane to form.Shouldnt it be changed to 14th? I know that Cindy was upgraded in her report, but i think it should be renoted. The 13th hurricane thing should be added to Wilma.HurricaneCraze32 14:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we should change those around. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 22:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)