Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 22

Main Page
When will we get the 2005 storm tracks picture in the fact box? And when we finally get the picture in there, we need to move the related articles box BELOW the fact box. It would look 200% better then. Weatherman90 02:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The track map will be put up once the NHC releases it. It will be at the bottom of this page, which right now says "A seasonal track map will be available after the end of the season". -- tomf688 {talk} 04:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * They might not want to make one until they get all of their best tracks done in the final reports. &mdash;BazookaJoe 19:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well they have since changed their notation at the bottom to "A seasonal track map will be available after all reports are complete". -- tomf688 {talk} 23:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Spoken article?
EDIT: You guys have done a fantastic job editing this article! I think this piece of fine work should be seen and heard by every visitor of wikipedia. Do you think that this article be a narrated article? M cappeluti 09:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Not until it becomes more stable (when all TCRs are complete and end-of-season editing is finished). Jdorje 17:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Something Peculiar
On this NHC Governmental website, It supplies a list of all the names retired, and on the list is Wilma and Katrina of 2005, but no others. There is also a list of the names to be used in 2011, which has all the 2005 names intact, except for 2 blank spots...again for just Katrina and Wilma. I can't imagine them just retiring two names though. Weatherman90 01:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Is this site official? They may only have Katrina and Wilma as those are definite. Katrina caused severe damage, and Wilma was the strongest storm to exist in the Atlantic, so it makes sense they are definitely retired.WotGoPlunk 01:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah..I figure they are playing it safe, but it's still strange they would venture to take Katrina and Wilma off the list before the announcement...it just doesn't seem like something the NHC would do. Weatherman90 02:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Since each national government makes a case for which storms to retire at the WMO conference, perhaps this means that the U.S. will only pursue having the names Katrina and Wilma retired. However, I thought Rita and Dennis, which both did a good deal of damage to the U.S., would also be retired.  Or, perhaps they don't want to diminish the significance of Katrina.  Argh, politics. -- tomf688 {talk} 02:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I would be shocked if Dennis and Rita, at least, were not retired. A case can be made for not retiring Stan or Emily, but not retiring the other two would be bigger than not retiring Hurricane Gordon. Maybe they just haven't made the final decision yet on the others yet. I suppose Dennis could still be retired by the request of Cuba, too. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 04:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have looked at the cited HNC page, and note that it is put out by a regional office. Personally, I think that the most authoritative statement is the one in the article for this talk page:  The final decision will be made by the WMO in March, and any statements about retired names (and their replacements) made before then are purely speculative.  (Even so, I must agree with the author of that page that Katrina and Wilma are "slam-dunk" candidates for retirement, even if I also agree with the other editors of this thread that they are almost certainly not going the be the only retirements.) --EMS | Talk 04:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. My guess is that the WMO has already approved those decisions and they are the most obvious. Rita should also be there as it will be a US-made case (I guess it is awaiting approval); no other countries were seriously affected by it. Dennis could be either made by the US or Cuba (it was the worst storm to hit Cuba in a long time, so if the US overlooks it, Cuba will likely make the case). Emily and Stan would definitely be made by other agencies though (Stan did not affect the US at all and Emily only brushed extreme southern Texas), so the NHC won't know what is happening with them. CrazyC83 05:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The EPac list is out of date; Kenna's still on it. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I just saw this page, Katrina and Wilma are still listed on it. The lists definitely need some updating, as Iris, Michelle, Isidore, and Lili are still on them! PenguinCDF 19:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Something Peculiar - Answered!
Got Email from one of the people maintaining the site, Dennis Cain, who works for the the NWS. Contact information for him is at. If someone things that the information here can be properly compressed please make the change. ---Begin Message Randolph, It is B, an assumption on my part only and it may or may not occur. My guess is the US government (or whoever makes the request) will ask that Katrina be retired and that the Mexican government will ask that Wilma be retired. I could be wrong (and have been before). I'm much less confident about Rita though. I have no connection/association with the RA IV Hurricane Committee. Hope this helps, Dennis Cain

> According to the tc_names page > (http://www.srh.weather.gov/srh/jetstream/tropics/tc_names.htm ), > jetstream lists Katrina and Wilma as being retired. > > Is this > A) a commitment of members of the RA IV Hurricane Committee prior to > the beginning of the conference in San Juan which has officially > retired them > > or > B) An assumption given their size and damage which may or may not > actually occur after the RA IV Hurricane Committee meets? > > Thank You > Randolph Finder ---End Message Naraht 19:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. Less confident with Rita? That name also has a perfect case to be retired. After that, you get into retirement cases likely to be made by other governments - I think Dennis will be retired by Cuba (they seemed to take a harder hit), Emily by Grenada or Mexico and Stan by Guatemala. CrazyC83 02:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that the time has come to stop grumbling about this. Mr. Cain admits that they are "jumping the gun" on this, and that is all that we need to know.  Case closed IMO. --EMS | Talk 04:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The question is how much the wiki folks should care. Should we try to get him to retract it and fill Katrina and WIlma back in? Naraht 15:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I think it is fine the way it is there...they know what they are doing and know that they will be retired. I wouldn't mention it on this site though. CrazyC83 20:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I really can't believe that Only Katrina and Wilma are being the candidates for retiring. Dennis made landfall in cuba a it's peak of 150mph winds, and then reintensified to a category 4 and finally made it's 2nd landfall near Pensacola, leaving extensive damage in Cuba and in the U.S.A.

Emily Made landfall at Grenada as a hurricane (notable because only Ivan has done that), then became the strongest hurricane of July with a pressure of 929mb and 155mph winds, then Emily made it's 2nd landfall at the Yucatan Peninsula as a category 4. And finally it made it's last landfall near San Fernando in Mexico and TS force winds reached sothern Texas. Rita passed near the Florida Keys sending hurricane force winds and then after passing the Gulf Loop Current it strenghten up to 175mph winds with a pressure of 897 and made landfall near Sabine pass as a category 3. And stan wasn't notable for it's winds, it was notable for being a Deadly storm, most of them in Guatemala by rains and flooding, also let a lot of damage in Mexico and in some parts of central America. So I think that these storms also made enough disaster to be retired and now be history. Memicho 23:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Other Sub-national entities.
With the mention of the state of Quintana Roo in Mexico, are there other sub-national entities (Cuban Provinces or Haitian Departments for example) which should be added? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Naraht (talk • contribs) 01:44, February 1, 2006.
 * Judging by territorial extension, Quintana Roo is larger than several states in the Northeastern US, so if the departments are larger than that, perhaps. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 02:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If they can be broken down, yes. I did the same on the death toll lists by country/region... CrazyC83 04:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I'm largely responsible for the introduction of Mexican states as "atomic" locations. I personally have no idea where most Mexican states are, but when doing my rewrite I realized that it is merely US-centrism that causes us to treat US states as recognizable single names while the similarly-sized mexican states are largely unrecognized.  So, in place of qualifiers like "Yucatan Peninsula" or "Northeast Mexico" I just added the state names.  I figured someone would add more qualifiers, but I'm glad nobody did.  So now we should all learn the names of the mexican states!  As for Cuba, however, it looks like the Provinces of Cuba are more like U.S. counties in size. Jdorje 06:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * All the ones you'll ever need to know are Tamaulipas, Veracruz, Tabasco, Campeche, Yucatán and Quintana Roo, at least in the Gulf Coast. They are large territories, around the size of most American states. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 06:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to start looking into the sub-national entries for the death toll charts for all the other countries, if they can be broken down... CrazyC83 16:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for the unsigned comment. According to the Quintana Roo, the state is 19th in area and 29th in population, (out of 31 states +DF), so it isn't that large, OTOH, it does seem to get nailed by Hurricanes more often than most Mexicans states (sort of like the US State of Mississippi). As for the Provinces of Cuba, the largest, Camag%C3%BCey_Province, is larger than three US States, and the province on the far western end that always seems to get hit by Hurricanes, Pinar_del_R%C3%ADo_Province, is bigger than two US states. OTOH, there are counties in the far western US States (like Elko_County, Nevada) are are also bigger than *nine* US States. Naraht 20:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If we decide to add Cuban provinces, Dennis made landfall on Granma and Cienfuegos Provinces. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 22:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I live in Mexico, so I don't have problem in recognizing the states. In the Atlantic Basin the most treathened states of Mexico are Quintana Roo, Yucatan and Campeche, These 3 states are allways refered as Yucatan Peninsula, and also Tamaulipas and Veracruz. And in the Eastern Pacific Basin The mos treathened states are: Baja California, Sinaloa, Jalisco, Colima, Michoacan, Oaxaca and Guerrero.

So that way you won't have much Problem in knowing the most treathened states of Mexico by hurricanes. Since I live here In Mexico and if you need to know something Please ask me. Memicho 00:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In the infoboxes, if a storm is large enough that it covered multiple jurisdictions (or the entire country, in the case of Cuba with Dennis), I would ignore those and just write in the country name. (However, if the death toll can be broken down, I'll write them into that chart!) CrazyC83 00:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Dennis FA on main page soon
Guys, please add Hurricane Dennis to your watchlists (click here to do so) as it will appear on the Main page as the featured article on February 6 and vandalism is to be expected. NSL E (T+C) 00:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It is unsettling that a FA could have as many factual errors as Dennis had (before I just fixed them). We need to be careful about this in future when marking articles as featured! &mdash; jdorje (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Emily
Jeez guys! If you think about it, Emily would only have to raise one mph to be a Cat. 5; chances are it raised that much.Icelandic Hurricane 21:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hurricane wind speeds are only recorded in intervals of 5 mph. Thus, Emily would have to increase 5 mph to 160 mph to be a Cat 5. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 21:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I noticed that but I don't see why they'd do that. Still, don't you agree?Icelandic Hurricane 21:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You could say similar things about other hurricanes, like Floyd for instance Jamie C 22:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes that should be different, too.Icelandic Hurricane 23:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe they round it based on knots. However, a tendency is to round up, not down, especially when it is on a boundary between categories. 155 mph = 135 knots, and 136 is Category 5.
 * The worst example I remember was when Wilma (with a 940-ish pressure) was still listed as Category 2 with 110 mph (just as she was starting the dizzying intensification that memorable night of October 18-19) yet they said it was a conservative estimate. (I never believed that number at all - after all, it is difficult to get the strongest winds in a nighttime flyover). I would have moved it up at least to Category 3 at that time. CrazyC83 00:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems just as likely that they would lower Emily's wind speed. &mdash; jdorje (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? They actually said she could have been a category 5.  Jamie | C 21:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * A pressure of 929 is not particularly consistent with 155 mph winds, and emily was not (unlike andrew) an especially small storm. &mdash; jdorje (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * But they actually said that it may well have been a Cat 5, relatively high pressure or not.  Jamie | C 22:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, and they might upgrade it to 160 mph. They might also weaken it to 150 mph.  Information on the storm is quite conflicting, and I don't know what their conclusions will be about it. &mdash; jdorje (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Just by way of comparison, to the best of my knowledge Hurricane Opal (150 mph/919 mbar) and Hurricane Floyd (155 mph/921 mbar) are the strongest Category 4 storms, and Hurricane David (924 mbar) was the weakest Category 5. According to the info in the advisories, Emily was substantially weaker than all three of these storms. &mdash; jdorje (talk) 09:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, Wilma was the strongest Cat. 4.Icelandic Hurricane 13:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * True, but it was already a cat. 5. Those 2 never made it to Cat. 5 status. I think Emily might make it. Hurricanehink 15:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wilma was a cat5. Q.E.D., it could not have been the strongest cat4 (though you're right that even as Wilma weakened, it was stronger than any of these other storms). &mdash; jdorje (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Also Janet was a Category 4 storm when its pressure of 914 mbar (which remains one of the lowest ever recorded) was taken, but it intensified to Category 5 by the next flight so it doesn't count for my original example either. All data from that period is suspect anyway. &mdash; jdorje (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wilma was Cat 4 at 892 mbar, much lower than Janet or any other Cat 4. However, that's not really relevant. What is interesting is that we just saw Irene dropped by 5 mbar when it was not suggested in the discussions that the value was conservative. Given that a suggestion was actually made that Emily's estimate might be low, so too could the measured pressure have been high. —<b style="color:darkgreen;">Cuiviénen</b> (<b style="color:darkblue;">Cuivië</b>) 03:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hurricane Allen was reported to be a Category 5 with some (IMO) outlandishly high pressure readings. From the best track, I found 180 mph/932 mb, 175 mph/940 mb, 160 mph/945 mb, 180 mph/920 mb, and 165 mph/935 mb.  I'd say that the only two readings in which it was actually a 5 are the 920 and maybe the 932 mb, and the wind speeds are likely too high for those.  Personally I think Emily was briefly a Cat 5 because recon found a flight-level wind speed of 176 mph (159 mph at the surface with 90% reduction) after the pressure had risen above the usual level for Category 5, but I think they'll be reluctant to upgrade it postmortem because of the implications of it -- four Cat 5s, the earliest storm to reach it, the only known pre-August Cat 5....  Unless they have proof or very strong evidence of it, I think it'll "officially" be kept as a 155 mph Cat 4 to play it safe. PolitiCalypso 07:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wilma and Janet were both cat5 hurricanes: Janet was strengthening and Wilma was weakening when those data points were taken, and it is very unlikely they could have that pressure with that windspeed unless they achieved cat5. Good point about Irene though, and I would hope that if Emily is upgraded to cat5 that the pressure would be dropped.  As for Allen, you're right, and it is bizarre - Allen also falls into the period (1945-1995) where all data is suspect, and I wonder if it's possible they're mixing up data points here and the 932 mbar is actually from a few hours earlier or later than the 180 mph. &mdash; jdorje (talk) 07:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Another strong cat4 is Hurricane Gloria - 920 mbar, 150 mph winds. Pretty much along the lines of Opal and Floyd. &mdash; jdorje (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Irene's report
It's now out. No real surprises (none were expected). CrazyC83 18:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I figured there'd be one today. I wonder if there will be any more... &mdash; jdorje (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually that's a pretty significant strengthening...+5 mph and -5 mbar, to 105 mph and 970 mbar. Close to Cat3, but...not that close. &mdash; jdorje (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Irene is notable for 1 thing. Being the only Peak Intensity Category 2 Hurricane. Now if Maria is dropped to Category 2, Beta will be notable for being the only Peak Category 3.HurricaneCraze32 20:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Irene was the longest lived 05 hurricane as well  Jamie | <i style="color:red;">C</i> 15:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Windswath
Does anybody know of the area of land that a specific cyclonic system passed over? I need an example for a formula on my userpage. Please answer on my talkpage.Icelandic Hurricane 22:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No (in response to Hurricanehink). I need to find out the sq. mi. of the windswath on land for any storm.Icelandic Hurricane 22:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That would be extremely difficult to calculate. My guess is that Katrina passed over the most land of all the 2005 storms (its dissipation point was about 47°N, 69°W). (IMO, that calculation should be based on the entire circulation, from the time it becomes a tropical depression to the time it dissipates or becomes unrecognizable) CrazyC83 22:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Then should I do something else? If it's going to be hard to calculate, may as well put something similar in its place.Icelandic Hurricane 22:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems nearly certain that Katrina passed over the most land of any Atlantic hurricane in recorded history. Looking at the Image:Hurricane_Katrina_wind_swath.gif wind swath map it looks like about 150,000 square miles of land with tropical-storm force winds.  In fact I'd guess Katrina's swath through Florida alone is about the same size as Andrew's. &mdash; jdorje (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That's just wind, not rainfall (which basically followed the length of the Appalachians). Last year's Frances and Ivan probably came close, if not surpassed, Katrina's "effective" area. CrazyC83 22:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but that's what he was talking about...wind swath. As for rainfall, you're right that Katrina didn't drop much because it was torn apart as it moved inland, and didn't cross any mountainous areas.  Very, very lucky. &mdash; jdorje (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Very true as she stayed on the western front of the Appalachians for over 48 hours from just after landfall right up to (basically) dissipation...from the descriptions I could find, the worst inland flooding due to actual rain was more than 60 hours after landfall - at the end of the line in eastern Quebec, just as another system was absorbing Katrina on August 31st! If Katrina had shifted 100 miles to the east, it would have been a long trail of destruction, and we'd be talking about many more lost communities. That could have increased the death toll several hundred more and caused billions of dollars in additional damage. Yes, Katrina could have been worse! CrazyC83 04:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I would venture to guess that Hurricane Donna covered the largest land area with hurricane- and tropical storm-force winds of any recorded hurricane, but data is not available for Donna as it is for Katrina. —<b style="color:darkgreen;">Cuiviénen</b> (<b style="color:darkblue;">Cuivië</b>) 03:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point...although I don't know how far inland Donna's winds went, so Katrina might still be bigger. No way to know though. &mdash; jdorje (talk) 05:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Donna hugged the coast, so it was probably smaller... CrazyC83 18:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It still covered almost all of Florida and Maine with TS-force winds. That's probably more than Katrina by itself, ignoring the entire coastline between Florida and Maine. —<b style="color:darkgreen;">Cuiviénen</b> (<b style="color:darkblue;">Cuivië</b>) 23:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Maria's report
It's now out. Not downgraded. A few minor changes (minimum pressure changed from 960 to 962), but the most interesting part is how intense it was after becoming extratropical - 962 mbar! CrazyC83 16:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Added it in the references. What's surprising about the extratropical storm is, with a pressure of 962 mbar, it still only had 75 mph winds. —<b style="color:darkgreen;">Cuiviénen</b> (<b style="color:darkblue;">Cuivië</b>) 16:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That is very surprising indeed - 962 mbar suggests winds around 110 mph... CrazyC83 16:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe for a tropical cyclone. Extratropical storms have lower pressures at lower windspeeds. I thought we all knew that. bob rulz 23:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Beta
What do you think prediction wise? He seems to the Major hurricane left out.All i am wondering is did he do more or less than Stan.Your opinions? Oh and shall i add Beta to the major landfalling hurricanes?HurricaneCraze32 20:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It didn't make landfall as a major hurricane. —<b style="color:darkgreen;">Cuiviénen</b> (<b style="color:darkblue;">Cuivië</b>) 20:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks.Even though i also ask for a prediction (dont have to do it).HurricaneCraze32 20:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Philippe's report
It's now out. No changes to its track or intensity, but we learned something new: it was actually formed and embedded WITHIN an extratropical cyclone, a la The Perfect Storm. CrazyC83 18:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Count down beings just 10 more reports left!!! tdwuhs
 * Interesting. I thought that couldn't happen? Tito xd (?!? - help us) 04:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded Maria and Philippe track maps. &mdash; jdorje (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Monthly Global Summary
Gary Padgett's Monthly Global Tropical Cyclone Summary for September 2005 is out. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

TCR citations
I changed the TCRs to use. Interestingly, the date on the Jose TCR is wrong (it says January 2005). &mdash; jdorje (talk) 05:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Stan and Tammy Reports
Are out: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2005atlan.shtml --Ajm81 19:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, this really answers no questions about Stan. They even used the confusing phrase "cannot be directly attributed to Stan", implying that the 2,000+ deaths might be indirectly attributed to the storm (which I doubt is what they meant). As for Tammy, all we know is that it caused less than $25 million in insured damage, but it says nothing about how much less. &mdash; jdorje (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting, I'd count the 1,000-2,000 as indirect deaths but related to Stan. It was clear that Stan played a role in their formation, but it wasn't its own circulation. Also it has been found that Tammy itself was not a feature when the new system caused the flooding in the Northeast; it was a larger extratropical low that absorbed Tammy (and later TD22).CrazyC83 20:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The TCR does not say that they are indirectly the result of stan. Saying they're not directly the result is not the same (it could just be a coincidental phrase that happens to use the word "directly").  However without any further guidance I'd say we might as well treat those deaths as indirect. &mdash; jdorje (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That's how I'd do it. The flooding alone would warrant an article notwithstanding Stan, and the media and other reports classify the deaths as related to Stan. I remember that when it was Tropical Depression Twenty, the circulation reached over Central America before it crossed into Mexico, which would mean that Stan at least made a bad situation worse. CrazyC83 20:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we can safely say that, at the least, Stan brought a great deal more moisture into the devastating system that caused those 2,000 deaths. I don't think any number of deaths can be directly attributed unless they were due to winds, but we should call the deaths indirect. After all, that's how we do tornadoes and such (right?) —<b style="color:darkgreen;">Cuiviénen</b> (<b style="color:darkblue;">Cuivië</b>) 23:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That's correct. Any death remotely related to the storm is considered to be attributed to the storm, just not necessarily direct. Direct deaths are those based on its direct impacts - its storm surge, winds, inland flooding, high ocean waves from the storm or tornadoes within the storm itself (not a spun-off system). 03:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Deaths from a spin-off system are not indirectly or directly caused by the system. Indirect deaths are those caused by the system, just not by its weather (surge, winds, rain, and waves).  Weather that just happens to be nearby does not count as indirect.  And we can't carry causality too far: you can't say that Rita's 100+ "indirect" deaths are indirectly from Katrina, even though without Katrina there wouldn't have been a "Rita panic" and those deaths would not have happened. &mdash; jdorje (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I quote from Wilma's TCR:
 * "Twenty-two deaths have been directly attributed to Wilma: 12 in Haiti, 1 in Jamaica, 4 in Mexico, and 5 in Florida.
 * Damage was reported to have been very severe in portions of the northeastern Yucatan Peninsula, but detailed information from Mexico is not available. This dealt a major blow to the tourist industry in that area.  There was major flooding from storm surge and/or wave action in portions of western Cuba.  In southern Florida, damage was unusually widespread, including numerous downed trees, substantial crop losses, downed power lines and poles, broken windows, extensive roof damage, and destruction of mobile homes.  Wilma caused the largest disruption to electrical service ever experienced in Florida.  Media reports indicate up to 98 per cent of South Florida lost electrical service, and Florida Power and Light reported outages in 42 Florida counties.  A preliminary amount of total insured damage compiled by the Property Claims Service is $6.1 billion.  Using a doubling of insured losses to obtain the total damage gives a current estimate of Wilma’s U.S. damage to be $12.2 billion."
 * There's no mention of the 40 indirect deaths in the entire report. This seems like a reasonable precedent for counting those 2,000 deaths as indirect for Stan. —<b style="color:darkgreen;">Cuiviénen</b> (<b style="color:darkblue;">Cuivië</b>) 00:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * NHC doesn't like mentioning indirect deaths. I don't know why, but they don't. -- §  Hurricane  E  RIC  §Damages archive 21:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)