Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 25

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 [[Image:Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg|22px|]] 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. -- §  Hurricane  E  RIC  §Damages archive 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 [[Image:Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg|22px|]] 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 [[Image:Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg|22px|]] 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 ends with Nadine. I don't think the 2005 storm is listed on the reports page though. -- §  Hurricane  E  RIC  §Damages archive 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. &mdash;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. -- §  Hurricane  E  RIC  §Damages archive 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)

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. -- §  Hurricane  E  RIC  §Damages archive 22:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And now you just altered the picture! Now it shows the remnants of ST 22. -- §  Hurricane  E  RIC  §Damages archive 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)


 * Whoops, I was looking on the left. That one is possible. Well, we'll wait and see which one they picked. Hurricanehink 23:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps they are talking about the one near Philippe. Momoko 09:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Possibly, but in the Philippe report they say the storm was absorbed by an extratropical storm. Plus, that was in September. Hurricanehink 16:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The unnamed subtropical storm existed from 4-5 october and passed through the Azores. Here's a link It is over the Azores at the time of this image. Nilfanion 17:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

New Information
The 60th Interdepartmental Hurricane Conference just wrapped up here in Mobile, ALA, and they decided on the United States' recommendations for retired names. Here is a quote from an article in the Mobile Register 3/25/06

"Among the other business, officials recommended that the names Katrina, Rita and Wilma be retired from the list of Atlantic storm names."

Here is a link to the story:

http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/1143281850265410.xml&coll=3

Dennis
I guess this means that Dennis won't be retired...kind of a shock to me! Tfelts


 * You forget that Dennis probably caused more damage in Cuba, and they may be yielding to Havana to nominate that one for retirement. Dennis, for all its bluster, was in the grand scheme of things in Florida a minor event. Everything that could be destroyed by Dennis was already destroyed by Ivan, a stronger storm, not a year earlier. --Golbez 22:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I havn't forgtten. And believe me, I know what kind of damage happened during Dennis AND Ivan...I lived through both of them.  Everyone seems to forget that Alabama, especially Escambia, Monroe, and Covington counties of Alabama, were damaged terribly by both storms.  Also, remember that Dennis struck further east than Ivan, and the worst part of the storm was in the Navarre, Destin, and Panama City areas, which were not severely affected by Ivan...Ivan's worst damage was in Gulf Shores/Orange Beach, Alabama and Pensacola, Florida.  While it is possible that "they may be yielding to Havana", it would seems logical that with U.S. Damages of $2.23 billion, that the U.S. would also request retirement.  Somehow I, as a Gulf Coast resident, feel shortchanged.  Tfelts


 * I still think they might be giving this one to Cuba: According to the article, damages were "$2.23 billion in the U.S.; $4-6 billion total", meaning that over half of the damage was in Haiti and Cuba, areas with much weaker economies, meaning that the damage there was much, much worse than it was here. It could also be fading memory - Dennis struck eight months ago, long before the other big storms. I've found the NHC to be rather communicative, you might want to send off an email to them and ask. --Golbez 23:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion about e-mailing the NHC, Golbez, I went ahead and did that. Hopefully they will respond. When they do I will post what they said.  I used the address nhc.public.affairs@noaa.gov ... is that what you have used in the past? Tfelts 7:47 CST 25 March 2006


 * I think that's the address, yes. --Golbez 06:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sure Cuba will make the case for it and it'll be retired, but I see where you're coming from. It does seem kind of odd that the U.S. would request the retirement of storms like Klaus, and, for that matter, Lili (which didn't even do $1B in damage), but not Dennis.  I'll be interested in hearing what the NHC says about it.  -PolitiCalypso 05:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What makes you think the U.S. requested Klaus or Lili? (That's not a rhetorical question; I really have no idea how one would find out such a thing.  However it looks to me like those storms did most of their destruction in other countries.) — jdorje (talk) 07:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Other storms

 * Well, that clears one half of the names we thought will get retired. This leaves us with "Dennis", "Emily" and "Stan" to be proposed. "Beta" could be proposed as a retirement just in case, but that one is riding on whether or not the damage reports come in.

Jake52 7:46, 25 March 2006 (EST)

Emily and Stan were never going to be US decisions as Emily only marginally affected the US and Stan was nowhere near it. Dennis could have been chosen by either Cuba or the US; I guess Cuba got the nod. Also we can safely say Ophelia will not be retired (it shouldn't be) as no one else would make the case. CrazyC83 04:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it came out wrong. What I meant was that the US damaging storms are now being proposed. The Mexico, Guatemala, and Cuba storms need to be verified. By the way, Ophelia's precursor depression struck the Bahamas and it also affected Canada, so it isn't entirely out of the question yet, but its chances of retirement are extremely slim. The only other name with a slim chance of retirement is "Vince", but that one is riding entirely on how strange it was. Hurricane Vince's retirement is riding on Typhoon Vamei's call for retirement (which it got, despite minor damage) and Ophelia's only chance at retirement is that it gets retired because of 1960's Typhoon Ophelia causing the name to be retired in the Western Pacific (highly unlikely, but possible). Jake52 26 March 2006
 * Hurricanes are never, ever retired because of being "unusual". Hurricane Danny (1997) was unusual in that it was very very small (less than 100 miles across) and that it stalled for over 24 hours over Mobile Bay, and it was not retired.  Names are retired because future use would be inappropriate or insensitive...Vince doesn't qualify for either, it WILL NOT be retired.  Tfelts 1041 CST 26 March 2006
 * Except for Vamei. That was retired for being the closest storm to the equator. Vince has a chance, though very small. Also, many storms are very small like Danny was. None in history so far have hit Europe as a tropical cyclone. Hurricanehink 16:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that a name being retired in the West Pacific means that it will be retired in the Atlantic; the West Pacific has a different committee in charge of naming than the Atlantic, so their decisions are independent of each other; Maria is on both lists. The East Pacific and Atlantic have the same committee, and that doesn't stop Hilda, Celia and Dora from being used there. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

How likely would a rejection be? A country proposing the retirement of a Hurricane name and the international meeting saying no. Naraht 20:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * We don't know; what countries push as names isn't really published, I don't think. The biggest example is of course Hurricane Gordon. --Golbez 20:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hurricane Klaus is an example at the opposite end of the spectrum. I wouldn't rule Vince out, because its retirement would presumably be left up to Portugal or Spain and there's no way to predict what those countries will do.  It is of course extraordinarily unlikely. — jdorje (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Beta report out
Beta's report is out. No big changes. Max winds 100 knots and landfall winds 90 knots, zero deaths. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL262005_Beta.pdf Tfelts 1137 CDT, 3 April 2006.

At long last we have a full set. There is still a dearth of information on damage caused by Beta. Pobbie Rarr 18:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it is vague at best on damage reports, but they must have been hard to come by. The 0 deaths was likely due to good planning. CrazyC83 18:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * We may not have a full set if they decide there was an unnamed Subtropical Storm.  Jamie |  C [[Image:Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg|22px|]] 19:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Until they release the track map we won't know for sure. — jdorje (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

In doubt of Emily
The article doesn't say nothing about Emily's request, so this is the question: Will Emily be kept on the 2011 list? juan andrés 02:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that Emily was a Category 5. They'd probably retire it just for that. WotGoPlunk 12:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Wasn't the last cat. 5 not to be retired in 1959? Icelandic Hurricane #12 12:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Edith of the 1971 season I believe.HurricaneCraze32 12:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep. The other two were in 1958 (Cleo, fish-spinner) and 1961 (Ethel, fizzled to a weak storm before landfall). CrazyC83 15:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ethel was 1960, not 1961. Naraht 18:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I doubt they'll retire it just for the fact that it was category 5. That would be stupid. Emily did not cause a lot of damage, therefore, they may not retire it. bob rulz 18:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well they retired Anita didn't they? WotGoPlunk 19:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Emily escaped being sent to the retirement home in 1987 and 1993. She's now on a hat-trick! Pobbie Rarr 00:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Emily would more damaging than many retired hurricanes: Hurricane Cesar, Hurricane Gracie, Hurricane Diana, Hurricane Iris, Hurricane Anita, Hurricane Juan, Hurricane Klaus, Hurricane Keith, Hurricane Edna, Hurricane Fabian, Hurricane Janet (retired for deaths, not damages), Hurricane Connie, Hurricane Isidore and Hurricane Lenny, some of whom are very comparable to Emily (those in bold). But then, most of those also struck in relatively quiet seasons. — Cuivi é  nen , Wednesday, 5 April 2006 @ 01:39 (UTC)


 * Bah, they should just retire the whole slate of storms, it'd be easier than trying to pick and choose. :p :p --AySz88 ^  -  ^  04:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You have a point, Cuiviénen. The notability of a storm could well depend on how active the season has been. Then again, 1994 was an underactive season and still Gordon failed to get retired.


 * I read that every single storm proposed for retirement has gained it. So basically, it all depends on whether or not Mexico or Grenada has nominated Emily. Possible reasons for it not being nominated include the fact that Ivan hit Grenada worse and Wilma hit the Yucatan worse. Pobbie Rarr 05:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Most of the storms on that list were surely retired for their deaths, not their damages. There are not very many named storms that have caused 25 or more deaths and not been retired (see the NHC's deadliest-hurricanes list). — jdorje (talk) 07:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Alpha killed >25, but I don't see Alpha being retired.  Jamie |  C [[Image:Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg|22px|]] 12:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Until Allison, it was unstated policy not to retire tropical storms. Allison couldn't be ignored, but they're still very reticent about it. The best comparison example to Emily is Hurricane Isidore, which did less damage and killed fewer people in the same area just three (four, now) years ago. Mexico is probably more concerned about getting Wilma and Stan retired, though. — Cuivi é  nen , Wednesday, 5 April 2006 @ 13:26 (UTC)


 * Gamma also killed 41, and its 43 for Alpha.HurricaneCraze32 14:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Neither caused anywhere near $6 billion in damage though... CrazyC83 15:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review
In light of the release of Beta's report, I've put this up for peer review. — Cuivi é  nen , Monday, 3 April 2006 @ 21:38 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a plan - hopefully we can get it to Featured Article status. Weatherman90 22:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Really would like to see an interesting first sentence for this to be FA quality. If the season article reaches FA status each year, it's going to have the exact same (painfully boring) first sentence every year?
 * The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season officially began on June 1, 2005, and lasted until November 30, 2005. These dates conventionally delimit the period of each year when most tropical cyclones form in the Atlantic basin...
 * BTW, where do the comments go? DavidH 05:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Question on 1985
Here's a quote from the 1985 Hurricane Season Artile - "During the 1985 season, eight tropical storms and hurricanes made landfall on the United States mainland, the second highest amount of U.S. landfalls on record (the 2005 season) ranks first)"  I don't know about anyone else but I only count 7 this year - A, C, D, K, R, T, and Wilma.  Any Thoughts..... FreeSledder 23:39, 5 April 2006 (EST)


 * Arlene, Cindy, Dennis, Katrina, Rita, Tammy, Wilma...that's seven. Someone may be counting Ophelia. Her eyewall can be said to have gone over land, but the eye stayed offshore. -- RattleMan 04:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Even with Ophilia, that's 8 and the article says that 2005 has the record which has to be 9+ so...something is Waaay off.... FreeSledder 00:18, 6 April 2006 (EST)


 * Looking at 1985 there DOES appear to be eight landfalling storms, with TS Henri barely hitting Long Island... -- RattleMan 04:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh I know I'm not questioning that. I'm saying that quote stats that 2005 got 9 or more and it only got 7.

I know that, I'm just trying to figure out what's up here. -- RattleMan 04:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably counted Emily into the total as well (despite minimal effects). Jake52


 * It was added by Storm05 in this edit. It does indeed seem quite bogus. — jdorje (talk) 05:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that Katrina made landfall 3 times in the U.S.; maybe that's what it's talking about. — jdorje (talk) 05:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, but Gloria also made landfall 3 times, so it's still bogus. — jdorje (talk) 05:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, I would say Emily and Ophelia were counted in that figure. If one used the methodology used to produce the list of US strikes per decade as it appears on the NHC's site. A direct hit on the US would mean the center of the storm passed approximately within 1R to the right or 2R to the left of the US mainland, where R is the distance from the center of the storm to the circle of maximum winds. Ophelia is definetely a direct hit under those criteria, I believe Emily would count as an indirect (hurricane) hit since it brought a tidal surge of 4-5ft to Texas. --Tarkadal 15:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Another methodology the NHC uses is to look at what windspeeds are recorded where. Ophelia was a NC1, bringing category 1 winds to portions of NC.  Emily may have been a TX1 for all I know.  But it still wouldn't count as a "U.S. landfall". — jdorje (talk) 05:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * So What's the final status on this problem?? 2005 had 9 Hurricanes hit the US? or not....Also - 1933 seems to have had 8 or 9 Tropical Storm Landfalls on the US as well......We've GOT To figure this out.... FreeSledder 23:30, 6 April 2006 (EST)


 * 2005 definitely didn't have 9 hurricanes hit the US. In terms of tropical storms - 7 made landfall. If by 'landfall' you mean affected the US with sustained TS force winds then 9 qualify. -- Nilfanion 18:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That is not the meaning of landfall. Landfall means the center of circulation comes ashore. — jdorje (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, an appropriate line for the records page is "Most storms to cause TS force winds in the US". Nilfanion 22:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * But was it? How can you prove such a thing?  The number of 8-9 for 1933 apparently came from "looking at the track map".  The best track data  does not have complete info on tropical storm strikes so how can you even find out what the correct number is for older seasons?  (P.S. 1893 had 5 hurricane strikes and 4 tropical storm strikes; it is in the 1851-1914 period that does have data on TS's. 1933 had 5 hurricane strikes but there is no data given for TS's.  I suggest waiting for the 2006 data to see if they extend the TS strikes list.) — jdorje (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if that list of records can ever be properly verified because of that issue. We can say X happened in 2005 but saying that that is the highest ever seems much harder to prove. Nilfanion 22:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * My point exactly. If it cannot be proven or disproven, it cannot be claimed as a record.  Even something claimed in a TCR or advisory report is not entirely trustworthy, if there is no way to verify it independently.  The best track data includes a huge amount of information that (with a spreadsheet) can be used to find records, but I have no confidence that any of the existing records on the records page have been properly checked that way (I cut several out yesterday that would certainly have never been added if the author was actually checking the records before adding them). — jdorje (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Retirement
5 retired storms - Dennis, Katrina, Rita, Stan and Wilma. The new names are Don, Katia, Rina, Sean and Whitney.-- Nilfanion 17:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess they overlooked Emily. Anyway, that makes it only the fourth Category 5 not retired... CrazyC83 17:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's also one of (if not the) most destructive storms not retired. --Coredesat 17:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, that honor goes to Hurricane Juan of 1985, which caused $3.2 billion in damage (2005 USD), followed by 1985's Kate ($1.24 billion), and 1966's Alma ($1.23 billion). Hurricanehink 19:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. I read somewhere that Mexico tends to hide a lot of stuff and is slow to retire names; it was Jamaica who made the case on Gilbert for example. The only other country with a reasonable case for retiring Emily would have been Grenada and that was borderline. Still, maybe petitioning the WMO would get it done for the 2007 meeting? Definitely the worst decision made since Gordon, and one of the top 5 worst decisions ever. CrazyC83 17:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there any word on the list of new names? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Arlene, Bret, Cindy, Don, Emily, Franklin, Gert, Harvey, Irene, Jose, Katia, Lee, Maria, Nate, Ophelia, Philippe, Rina, Sean, Tammy, Vince, Whitney. CrazyC83 18:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What I meant was the new list of backup names. Sorry for the ambiguity. And this was asked below. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Somewhere I heard the plan was rejected...we'll have to wait and see. CrazyC83 19:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I was really surprised that Emily wasn't retired. It was the earliest Category 5 hurricane, the strongest storm ever in the Atlantic before August, and it made landfall TWICE as a major hurricane for goodness sakes. The WMO seems to want to keep Emily on the list. The Emilys in 1987 and 1993 were pretty notable, too. Could it be that they can't think of a replacement name?:)Omni ND 18:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Only God knows what Emily (2011) will be like - a Category 5 right into Miami? CrazyC83 19:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * They wouldn't retire that one either. ColdRedRain 21:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's not even go there - we got nailed by Katrina and Wilma (with a near miss by Rita). Actually, I can see why they didn't take Emily this time - they have just retired five other names for the first time.  Had it been any other year, Emily would have been gone (and replaced by Eileen or Eva, maybe?). 147.70.242.39 23:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Any news on what the back-up list of names will be?-- Wol F ox  ( ★ Talk ★ ) Contribs 18:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I was right - apparently they let Cuba nominate Dennis, cuz it got the boot. I too am surprised about Emily. --Golbez 19:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

wtf!!! why they didn't retire hurricane emily, it wasnt the most destructive, but still there were enough things that made emily special this year These are the most important, there were much more reasons to retire this hurricane. Memicho 19:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Earliest category 5.
 * Strongest July hurricane
 * Made landafall at Mexico twice 1st as a category 4 and then as a 3
 * Made landfall at Grenada

Katia and Rina? They sound too much like Katrina and Rita. No idea why they didn't retire Emily. WotGoPlunk


 * Damn, if we had a good Hurricane Bret last year we could've had Bobby & Whitney in the same season. Good kitty 20:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Won't happen even if Bret was that strong.  You forgot Hurricane Bob in 1991.  They don't want to confuse people.ColdRedRain 21:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I knew Emily would get overlooked, though honestly that was back when it was still a Cat 4. Katia, no offense, is the stupidest hurricane name I've ever heard and is the same as Katrina without the "rin" sound. Sounds too similar. Rina, same situation. It's Rita with a N instead of a T. Fableheroesguild 22:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * My guess is that it's Katia pronounced like "Katya", though why they would use a Russian name is beyond me. — Cuivi é  nen , Thursday, 6 April 2006 @ 22:40 (UTC)
 * Good point. If they wanted that however, I think they should have used Katja--isn't Dutch one of the languages that they use for names? 66.66.245.85 22:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Katia is a Spanish name too, and although it is not very common, it isn't anything strange either. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 22:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hooray for archives! I put this in the talk page on October 7, almost three weeks before getting hit by Wilma, and I'm amazed at how close my guess was (and had I had the opportunity to update it, I would have included Wilma): ''Emily's chances of retirement took a big hit with Stan's death toll. Had this been 1999 (the year of Floyd and Lenny) there might have been a good chance that both would have been retired, but timing is everything. The near-certainties are Katrina and Rita; Dennis' combination of damage and lives lost it makes a prime candidate for retirement; and it's hard to ignore the hundreds of lives lost to Stan (with the help of a volcanic eruption). Even Category 5 status doesn't guarantee a retirement for Emily. So the most likely number of retired 2005 names now stands at four -- Dennis, Katrina, Rita, and Stan. Ophelia has about as much a chance at retirement as Maria. '' I might as well "enjoy it" while I can as we're only seven weeks from another potential roller coaster of a hurricane season. 147.70.242.39 23:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Katia? Rina? WTF?! They've cocked that one up for sure.

So, Emily sticks around for another term in office. She's the Tony Blair of hurricanes! Pobbie Rarr 01:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"Damn, if we had a good Hurricane Bret last year we could've had Bobby & Whitney in the same season."

2004 would have been interesting had Charley been called Clyde. Then we would have had Bonnie & Clyde hitting Florida within 24 hours of each other! Pobbie Rarr 01:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This supports my theory - the NHC is completely stupid. Weatherman90 02:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You can't blame the NHC here; they didn't have a say in whether or not to retire Emily (it would likely have been Mexico who would have made the decision). Mexico, next to Haiti, is the most hesitant nation in the hemisphere when it comes to retirements. (The US retired Wilma) CrazyC83 02:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Mexico didn't even nominate Wilma? That does surprise me: two Category 4s hit the Yucatan and neither is nominated! I thought Stan & Wilma combined would be enough to overlook Emily, but not Stan alone.


 * I wonder why Haiti and Mexico are so hesitant in making cases for retirement. Surely it's not that hard? Pobbie Rarr 03:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No idea. Canada was able to knock Juan off the list (maybe because of the fact that hurricanes are relatively rare up there, but it was still a damaging storm), so why doesn't Mexico? Probably the only reason Sean is on 2011's list is because of Guatemala (one of the only other countries somewhat affected by Stan, along with El Salvador). We all remember how Haiti did't make a case for Gordon (the husband of Emily). But really, why didn't they strike Emily off? Is Emily the name that can't get retired? Jake52


 * Obvously the WMO is nearly running out of Spanish and French names and I dont know why they didnt retire Emiliy becasue none of the TV news reports even mention the reason why Emily was not retired nor mention of a backup list or the retirement of any greek letter named storms. Storm05 12:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In addtion, the new names the WMO picked are kind of blah. For example, Katia and Rina sounds too much like Katrina and Rita also Don and Dean (if you said it in British English) sounds to identical. Sean and Whitney are okay but come on! Katia and Rina ?!?!?!, those WMO folks are kiddin themselves and possibly didnt do any homework when deciding to add new names to the 2011 list and I think there will be a dispute in the comming next WMO meeting similar to the dispute when they tried to replace Lili with Laura in 2002. Storm05 12:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if the issue is Spanish names beginning with K, they should just drop the idea. Spanish doesn't even have a letter K except in words adopted from other languages, so naming storms with Spanish K names is phenomenally stupid. — Cuivi é  nen , Friday, 7 April 2006 @ 13:43 (UTC)


 * Rina is also the absolute worst replacement name I have ever heard. All they did was change a letter! — Cuivi é  nen , Friday, 7 April 2006 @ 13:45 (UTC)

Storm05, I'm British and I can safely say "Don" and "Dean" do not sound the same. Nevertheless, it would be idiotic if they ended up replacing "Don" with "Dean" (and given the Rita-Rina debacle, anything's possible!).


 * There's a 0% chance of Dean being a replacement name since "Dean" is already in use (will be used next in 2007). Jake52 8 April 2006

Oh yeah, cheers :).

Cuniéven, I completely agree. "K" in Spanish is only found in loanwords or colloquialisms. Some of the names they use just aren't British, French or Spanish at all: "Ivan" is used sometimes in Spain but is actually the Russian equivalent of "John, Juan, etc." Pobbie Rarr 20:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If Mexico is slow with retiring then who retired Hurricane Anita, who killed ten and caused $100 million in damage? Some boat off the coast of Mexico? Cyclone1 21:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I can easily come up with better female Spanish R names - Rafaela, Ricarda, Rigel, Rogelia, Romana, Rivi, Rosa, Rosinda, Rubí... — Cuivi é  nen , Friday, 7 April 2006 @ 23:43 (UTC)

Honestly, the non-retirement of Emily doesn't really surprise me. It only caused $550 million in damage. In any other year it might have been enough to retire it, but not when this year it's overshadowed by 5 other more destructive hurricanes. Also, it only killed 15 people (only 6 of them directly), which is rarely ever enough to warrant retirement, even in a calm and weak season. bob rulz 21:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I want to know is why didn't Grenada ask for Emily's retirement?? You would think the impacts of Emily on such a little island would have more then made a case for retirement. Didn't Emily cause a jail to be destoryed and prisoners escape? With such destruction and after effects of such destrution you would think the government of Grenada would have asked Emily to be retired. tdwuhs

The big jail break happened during Ivan, which caused much more devastation in Grenada than Emily. Pobbie Rarr 14:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Even though Emily wasn't the one it still destroyed all progress Grenada made after Ivan and the Prime Minister also was quoted in saying because of Ivan and Emily, recently, Grenada will not enter CARICOM for some time. tdwuhs

Track Map
Its out.HurricaneCraze32 15:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/tracks/2005atl.gif


 * Does this mean that they decided against that subbtropical storm then? -- Nilfanion 15:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no idea.HurricaneCraze32 16:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how there are 28 storms on the map one of which (19) is listed as an unnamed ST, I would say they didn't decide against it.--Tarkadal 16:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * They just added that. Nilfanion 16:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Much more consistent in regards to political borders than the UNISYS maps are. Political Borders shown are all US State Borders and all US recognized International Borders, right down to the separation between Morocco and Spanish Sahara. Wish they'd split it in 2 or 3 in addition to the full, but this is still very useful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Naraht (talk • contribs).


 * Yeah, those maps are much prettier than UNISYS. They're somewhat better than the track maps.  I can change the track maps to use a different map for the background; currently they use Image:Whole_world_-_land_and_oceans.jpg but this could easily be changed to any other high-res (~8192x4096) cartesian projection map.  What I can't do (at least not easily) is use a nonlinear projection like they have (I forget the name for it), which makes the map much more proportional when looking at a "small" area like the North Atlantic ocean. See map projection for more information on various possible projection maps. — jdorje (talk) 05:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A single map. I'll be damned. --Golbez 19:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well it works I reckon. It's not as confusing as one might expect. Pobbie Rarr 20:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, it is very nice and legible as only one map! Score 1 for NHC. Hurricanehink 20:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe the reason that the Pacific maps have been split in the past is because the storms are in mostly the same area. In the Atlantic, the storms are more spread out. -- tomf688 {talk} 21:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh and I also uploaded a higher-resolution version of the track map and moved it to the Commons. -- tomf688 {talk} 23:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know guys, the Delta, Epsilon, Zeta area is Very Confusing, and if I didn't watch the season as closely as I did I wouldn't know which is which.

FreeSledder 19:30, 7 April 2006 (EST)


 * I agree, but if you look for the numbers at both the end and the beginning of the paths, and keep track of which way they're going (by the days), you can figure it out. --Golbez 01:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else notice that all four retired major hurricanes, Dennis, Katrina, Rita and Wilma, passed within about 10 miles of a point just west of the Florida Keys and northwest of Cuba? — Cuivi é  nen , Friday, 7 April 2006 @ 23:48 (UTC)


 * See my comment above (In the double tracking map section) on the Highway intersection designed by Satan Naraht 02:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Something that has left me perplexed is that the track map appears as a white box instead of the map. So my question is: What's happening? Does the browser, the site, both, or neither at all have the problem? juan andrés 22:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it is at the wikipedia end the problem. In any case the track map there is out of date (see below), can someone who knows how to upload a high-res pic change it? Nilfanion 22:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Subtropical storm confirmed
The NHC has confirmed the existence of an unnamed subtropical storm in October of 2005. Well, everyone, its back to the updating, AGAIN.Omni ND 18:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The link is here; look at the Azores. BTW, that means Subtropical Depression 22 is now 23.


 * In these circumstances, I think the numbers of all the storms are unchanged, but im not sure. Heres an image of the storm Nilfanion 18:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Any idea how powerful it was? It passed directly through the Azores...if it was actually worth naming, I'd assume the Azores saw some fairly nasty weather from it. If that storm had been named, the most powerful hurricane in history would have been Hurricane Alpha.--SomethingFunny 18:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It was only a subtropical storm for 18 hours so it probably wasn't that powerful, however we need a TCR before we can make any real judgement, assuming the NHC will make one. Nilfanion 19:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * They don't have a TCR on it but it should show up in the best track, once that's updated. — jdorje (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you think they will make a TCR on it? If there isn't one writing 'Unnamed Subtropical Storm (2005)' might be interesting! -- Nilfanion 19:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I was talking to a friend on IRC yesterday who said the unnamed subtropical storm still was on the table. Sure enough, here it is! He said they are going to be making a TCR for it (It only makes sense). &mdash;BazookaJoe 19:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think they should designate this storm as "Bessie the Cow" in honor of our betting pool. :p  PK9 22:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a sub color for Subtropical storms on my chart if anyone wants it.HurricaneCraze32 19:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The colors go by windspeed so there is no need for a distinction via subtropical/extratropical. The track maps use the same colors for all three, with shapes to indicate the storm type - not ideal, but it's better than adding even more colors when the 7 we have are somewhat confusing already. — jdorje (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I dont see where we cant add one more-#779bEE-Its a nice dark blue.(I apologize for this-i started typing it at 20:38.)-We could put subtropical depression and storm with the same color.HurricaneCraze32 20:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A dark blue for anything? Thats a bad idea, the nominal idea is for a color palette which works in the tables, on the track maps - it might be hard to see on that. And a dark blue suggests weaker than TD. I go with what Jdorje says, just use color to denote speed, ignore whether its tropical, sub-tropical or extratropical. The worst single problem with the current palette is the aversion to green. That's not a bad thing, but it means theres a gap between blue and yellow which can't be undone.-- Nilfanion 20:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

(index reset)-#E1CCFF-light purple or so called.HurricaneCraze32 20:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Back on topic here, is the best phrasing for the articles "a record 28 tropical and subtropical storms formed"? And on the storm articles we bump the number up by one, so Zeta becomes the 28th of the season? And does STD 22 retroactively become 23? I think it stays the same, it was 22L.NONAME before, that hasn't changed. Nilfanion 21:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I doubt that's the best phrasing; I'd go with "a record 28 storms formed", where it is understood that depressions are not "storms" in this sense. (On a related note, the statistics article where it says "a record 31 storms formed" clearly needs to be changed.) — jdorje (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And on a related note, articles that say "Hurricane Wilma was the twenty-first named storm of the 2005 season" also need to be fixed. Despite the fact that this information is true, it is completely trivial.  "Hurricane Wilma was the twenty-second storm of the 2005 season" works for me; though if we can't find any good wording here I think it would be fine to remove this trivia from the article intros. — jdorje (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * In addition to updating those (if we are), we'd have to update the statistics page - but that shouldn't take too long. &mdash; Super-Magician (talk &bull; contribs &bull; count ) &#x2605; 00:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added the unnamed storm to the List page. I didn't number it as any numbering would conflict with the depression numbering. If someone could pop over and take a look, it would be appreciated. — Cuivi é  nen , Tuesday, 11 April 2006 @ 00:20 (UTC)
 * I also added the storm to the timeline article, although I left out any note about landfall (the track takes it over the Azores), pending the TCR. --Coredesat 00:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Re storm numbers, the tracking image gives the unnamed storm the "tropical cyclone number" 19. NSL E (T+C)(seen this?) at 00:28 UTC (2006-04-11)


 * A new problem with this storm is that the List article has a custom Table of Contents. All the storms Arlene to Zeta fit perfectly on three lines. How are we going to fit this unnamed storm in and still have it look good? -- RattleMan 00:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 31 is prime so it will be nightmarishly hard. Maybe the solution is to make depressions even less consequential, put then separately. Then we can have a 7x4 table with 3 underneath. However that is only going to make the BIG debate more passionate, so I don't know if I'd advocate it. -- Nilfanion 00:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That works. Hurricanehink 00:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Another new problem I just thought of...the timeline graphic was arranged in a strange matter to make it much smaller vertically. I can't see how we are going to be able to fit this storm in without redesigning the whole thing. -- RattleMan 00:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * On the TDs, yes it works, and we can still have the storms in chronological order, which is what people want. I'll sort the graphic out, I'm the one responsible for the timeline mess. I'll wait until the TCR though, for simplicity. -- Nilfanion 00:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The Graphical timeline incorporates the new storm now (and has a more userfriendly source).--Nilfanion 01:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Awesome, great work. -- RattleMan 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe this system is called Subtropical Storm 19 (from the note underneath the map), not to be confused with Tropical Depression 19. Subtropical Storm 19 was the 22nd 21st depression system, though I don't know if that means Subtropical Depression 22 will have to be redesignated completely. &mdash;BazookaJoe 01:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * All the original storms received designations of the form 24L.WILMA, for example. The existence of this storm won't change that. The fact this storm is denoted 19 is simply because it is the 19th storm chronologically. The TCR will almost certainly call it "Unnamed Subtropical Storm", but it may be different. The numbers of the depressions will not change. -- Nilfanion 01:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, this means that Wilma, not Alpha, was actually the record-breaking 22nd storm. — jdorje (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

So I know it is out of sequence but can we say that is Storm would have been called Eta? tdwuhs


 * Well, it would have been called Tammy if it was classified operationally. Hurricanehink 02:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I mean end of season-wise. I know it would have been Tammy operationally. tdwuhs


 * No, there's no way it would have been called eta. And going through all the storms to note that "zeta would have been called eta" is not good either.  Unnamed storms like this happen fairly often...since 1980 there have been 3 "NOT NAMED" (87, 88, 91) and 6 "SUBTROP" storms (I think the SUBTROP ones were recognized operationally but were simply not named).  And while a lot of changes will be needed (it was indeed Wilma that was the record-breaking 22nd storm), we should wait on them until the TCR is released. — jdorje (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I say wait for the TCR before decided how to call this one. Before 2004 the subtropical storms got numbered, not named. TS13 in 88 was treated operationally as TD13. This storm was not operationally assigned a number, so we cannot call it anything other than 'Unnamed' for now, the TCR should give us the insight we need. The unnamed subtropical storm of 2000 is the most similar to this. Nilfanion 13:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Also will the Unnamed Storm be put in the main article of storms in the October section? tdwuhs


 * That...should be the very first place it goes. I didn't even think to check; I just assumed it was there. — jdorje (talk) 04:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That being said, it crossed directly over the Azores, so research could be done to figure out if it did damage. I'm wondering if it was an extension of TD19, and not a separate storm... CrazyC83 12:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The TCR should give hints on damages in the Azores- if the track map shows it misses all the islands, I wouldn't be suprised to hear 'no damage'. The comment about TD19 is plausible, it was south of where this storm was and heading in that direction. The only problem I have with that is the season track map should show the stage when it was TD19 in that case. Nilfanion 12:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

As the usual practise, any storm found in post-analysis will not be saaigned a name or number like ALxx2006 or xxL. Therefore, this storm should not be called Eta or ST 28 or anything similar. The only way to call it is "unnamed subtropical storm". Other operational storm number won't change as well. STD 22 remains STD 22, not 23. The only thing that would be affected is the storm number in track file. Momoko