Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 4

Navy Images
Are those satellite photos on the Navy site public domain? If they are, we could really use to post some of them to replace all these terrible pictures we got in the article now.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 05:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The Navy is part of the U.S. Government. All U.S. Government works are public domain. -- tomf688  14:46, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

We could use some of those pictures. They are quite good, most of them.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 00:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Estimates
I can't think of any better place to put this where it will capture people's attention. For the tables that are on the Atlantic season hurricane pages dating back to I believe 1995, which have the season's strongest storm, the number of storms, when the first storm formed and last storm dissipated, etc, there's been a disagreement over the figures which should be on the strongest storms. Originally, E. Brown went through and used the figure rounding to the nearest 5 for knots to convert into exact mph figures. Me and Golbez protested this, as there's nothing that makes the (rounded) knot figures more reliable than the exact mph figures that were converted. Golbez went and changed them back. However, RattleMan went and changed them back again, so I figured before I change them back yet again I figured that we should see what everyone's opinion on this is. There's a big argument under "estimates" on me, Golbez's, and E Brown's talk pages, to get a better idea of it. What's everybody's opinion on this? bob rulz 06:18, August 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * Use what the NHC gives you - that's the official word from the official folks. You have to start with the "knots" readings, as those are what the NHC uses to create everything else. The archives on Unisys and the best track analysis on the NHC site all use knots, so make that your starting point. After that, yes, NHC gets a rough MPH reading and rounds it to the nearest five, but that's what's official and what should be used. HURDAT (warning, huge file) has the official MPH figures for the post-analysis track of all the storms through 2002. The Great Zo 16:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

NHC vs TPC
What is the structure of the National Hurricane Center? Is the Tropical Prediction Center part of it? Or vice versa? Is it the ONLY component of the NHC? Are the TPC and NHC one and the same, or is one a subdivision of the other? --Golbez 22:38, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

The National Hurricane Center is comprised of two parts: the Tropical Prediction Center: they are the most public group. They deal with issuing warnings, compiling reports (I.E post season reports, monthly summeries, tropical weather outlooks and discussions, etc.), informing the public and government officials, giving public statements, and, of course, updating the website.

the Tropical Analysis Forcast Branch (or TAFB): They are the big brains of the operation (not to suggest that the TPC is stupid by anyone's standards). They analyze data coming in from satellites, Hurricane Hunters, radar stations, etc. and interpret it to see what it means. They also run the hurricane track and intensity models that reside in the NHC (there are several). They report their findings to the TPC in high-tech meterological lingo and the TPC translates it into plain English and issues it in the advisories. Our friend James Franklin works in the TPC. Shadow forecasters like Cobb, for example, probably work for the TAFB and they peek their heads into the discussions and advisories sometimes to add a little note on the side occationally.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 01:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks :) --Golbez 17:17, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup
I cleaned up the Talk section, it was 106kb big. I added an August archive for pre-Katrina stuff in August, a Katrina-specific archive since it generated so much talk, and a Records archive specifically to discuss all the records set this season.

I tried to add the right-justified TOC template to eliminate the gigantic space the long TOC makes. I do have one question... is the Saffir-Simpson template really necessary in each individual hurricane season? If so, can we make a simplified one that doesn't take quite so much space? --Kitch 18:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it's useful for this one for the duration, so people can get a quick glimpse. I reverted the TOC right because the whitespace is useful; otherwise it all jumbles together. --Golbez 18:23, August 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * We replace the Saffir Simpson table with the Infobox Hurricane season after the season is over.


 * E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 22:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Should we have a place to put the predictions for the season and have all the prediction material go there? -- 204.228.23.141 16:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism
It appears that 203.84.188.86 went on a vandalism spree. I had to revert quite a bit to get rid of it all and I think I put all the valid posts back on. I apologize if I missed yours. --Holderca1 01:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yea. on September 1, I was looking up Katrina and it said "people in the South suck anyways". Fableheroesguild 02:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I hate it when people do stupid stuff like that. --Bladeswin 03:54, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Unit Conversions
Just to clear up any confusion that might arise, the NHC's raw data is measured in knots and thus converted into mph and km/hr for public advisories. This conversion combined with rounding may make it appear that the NHC miscalculated while converting their units. A recent example was with T.S. Lee. The NHC public advisory stated that the storm was moving at 10 mph (17 km/hr). The conversion from mph to km/hr is roughly 1 mph = 1.6 km/hr. It appears that there was an error involved in the conversions. But if you calculate based on the raw numbers, which at that time, the storm was moving at 9 knots. Converting 9 knots you get 10.4 mph and 16.7 km/hr, rounding to whole numbers gives you 10 mph and 17 km/hr. For the raw data in knots, look under the Forecast/Advisory and perform the calculations. If there is an error in the numbers, then feel free to make an edit to correct it, otherwise there would be no way to know which of the numbers to change. Using the example above, would you change the numbers to read 10 mph and 16 km/hr, or change it to 11 mph and 17 km/hr? To prevent any future editing wars, check the numbers using the knots in the Forecast/Advisory. I hope this clears up any confusion. --Holderca1 13:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Non records under record
I am not happy with the sentence: "Two tropical storms formed in June, five formed in July, five formed in August and none so far in September." appearing under "Records". Only the 5 in July is a record and that is included later. I am going to move this sentence to the summary at the top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C-randles (talk • contribs) 18:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually I have problems with some of the "records" listed under there as well. The statement regarding Katrina being the 4th most intense storm is not a record, perhaps a change of the name of the section is in order? --Holderca1 18:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Records and Rankings? --Bladeswin 00:28, September 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * I would go along with that or "Records and Notable Rankings". 4th most intense storm certainly seems notable enough to me but I wouldn't want to see the section littered with things like 17th strongest that hit Mexico and the United States during August in a leap year.... crandles 12:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The really bizarre thing is that there are wikipedians with access to the data and enough cussedness to actually figure out what the "17th strongest that hit Mexico and the United States during August in a leap year" actually is and post it here! Naraht 13:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No worries, this isn't a leap year. ;-) --Holderca1 21:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Global Warming link
"Those who believe in global warming argue that increased hurricane activity is one of the side-effects. "

is not true because: 1. some people believe in global warming but think increased hurricane activity is due almost entirely to other causes, eg R Pielke Jr. 2. There does not seem to be a good link with frequency but there is good correlation between intensity and Sea surface temperatures.

I am removing this. crandles 12:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Good. Leaving global warming entirely out of the article is a great idea - nothing but speculation in either direciton on anyone's part. We should leave the article to the facts :) The Great Zo 16:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Science is just speculation? Lilath


 * I agree that science is not just speculation. However I don't think it is right to include that theorized sentence in the summary of the season. Perhaps a heading further down the page with something like:

Relationship with Global Warming

There has been some discusion of whether Global Warming is reponsible in part for increased hurricane activity. Virtually all climatologists seem agreed that you cannot attibute a single event like Katrina to global warming. Attempts to correlate hurricane frequency with sea surface temperatures have failed to find statistically significant correlation. Part of the reasons for this could include that global warming could change wind shear so that hurricanes are less able to form.

Recently Kerry Emanuel published a paper that found a good correlation between hurricane intensity and sea surface temperatures. Correlation does not prove causation. However, the issue here is more about whether global warming has caused the increased sea surface temperatures. It is possible that a sea surface temperature increase is due to Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation ("AMO"). Kerry Emanuel found the recent temperature increase was outside the range of previous oscilations. So, both a natural cycle (the AMO) and anthropogenic forcing could have made roughly equally large contributions to the warming of the tropical Atlantic over the past decades, with an exact attribution impossible so far.

Source and further details

crandles 23:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think this section would be more appropriate in the tropical cyclone article rather than this particular season, unless you plan on adding it to every above average season. --Holderca1 14:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)