Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Deadliest since ?

Who changed 50 years to a century? 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane includes

"at least" 2,500, making the Okeechobee hurricane the second-deadliest natural disaster in United States history (after the Galveston Hurricane of 1900).

Is Katrina certain to pass this yet? Should it be changed to "deadliest since 1928". crandles 16:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I think at this point it's very likely to beat it, and has a good run on Galveston. --Golbez 16:44, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Galveston killed 8,000 people. No way this storm tops that.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 16:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I can't see 8,000 direct deaths. Maybe it might approach it on total death toll, but a good chunk of it will be indirect deaths. CrazyC83 17:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I can see deaths caused by disease easily going into the thousands. --Holderca1 19:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Me too, but those would be indirect deaths. I think that the indirect death toll will be far higher than the direct death toll. CrazyC83 20:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The question is whether you count deaths as a result of the levees breaching in New Orleans or not. To me, you should include any deaths taht wouldn't have happened if the hurricane hadn't occured. This definition includes disease-related deaths. Tompw 21:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Global Warming

I dont really care where this article discusses global warming, but it needs to. Whoever is removing my attempts to mention it needs to go read about how to create a non-biased NPOV article. I don't care if you don't believe in global warming, what matters is that respectable scientists DO, and they believe this season has been severely amplified by global warming. Censoring that information, simply because it is controversial, is an ignorant and malicious form of vandalism. Lilath

Can you quote a meteorologist who says the 2005 cyclone season (hell, even just the Atlantic cyclone season) has been amplified by global warming? --Golbez 00:31, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Was the 1933 Atlantic hurricane season a result of global warming? That's the most active year on record afaik. Climatology teaches us that the Atlantic has had up years and down years ever since hurricane records have been maintained. --tomf688^<TALK> 00:44, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Hold on, Golbez asks the right question! WP is not a primary source or discussion board. Please tell us, where is the primary source/reference with that topic? I know some politicians are talking about it. Is that what you want to add?? Awolf002 01:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

It is not malicious vandalism, when I explained the reasons and a suggested alternative just a little above here and it seemed to be 2:1 for removing it (now more like 5:1) crandles 13:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

It is not right to say 'it's Global warming' it is also not right to say 'It's nothing to do with global warming. I would remove both. The situation is complicated and ought to be explained otherwise the impression given by removing simple 'global warming is to blame' comment is that global warming is not involved. I made an attempt to explain further up but did not put it in as it may be controversial and I wanted to see if people discussed and offered improved versions before doing so. Please add your comments. crandles 23:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Extremely Active Tropics

1 hurricane, 1 tropical storm and 1 tropical depression in the Atlantic, 1 invest in the East Pacific, 1 typhoon and 1 tropical storm in the West Pacific, 2 invests in the Indian Ocean (1 north of the equator and one south). It's definitely that time of year. Since there is no dedicated page to the Central Pacific or Northern Indian Ocean, should we have these fall under another page? The Central Pacific storms can probably fall under the Eastern Pacific since they are still called hurricanes in the Central Pacific. Not sure where to put the North Indian Ocean storms, the Southern Hemisphere page is pretty crowded and should have a lot of storms since it covers all basins south of the equator. We may just add a small section under the West Pacific page. --Holderca1 15:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

September is traditionally the most active month in the tropics worldwide so I'm not suprised. There is an invest area in the Central Pacific now and the JTWC says that a tropical cyclone is forming in the South Indian Ocean. Nabi is now a tropical storm and dissipating. TS 15W still has not been named yet, but, seeing that it is forecast to become a typhoon, it will probably be designated 'Khanun' before long. The JTWC doesn't even mention the North Indian system as an invest area. This month could be interesting.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 21:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure it does, 93B.INVEST. --Holderca1 00:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Not here [1] it doesn't. This is the link from the JTWC. I'm not talking about the NRLMY site.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 03:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Tropical Depression Ten

Why is it called "Ten" and it doesn't have a name? And why is Irene called "Nine" in the first sentence of that section? Thanks. 32.97.110.142 20:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

It is called Ten because it never strengthened into a tropical storm. Systems are only given a name when they reach tropical storm strength (39 mph or greater). Irene formed as Tropical Depression Nine and strengthened, thus being given the name Irene. Tropical depressions are numbered sequentially as they form. --Holderca1 20:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Global warming section

I am ready to remove the newly added global warming section. Its only two sources are a blog posting, and a link to a journal that doesn't seem to let us view the whole paper. My request from earlier was not fulfilled - cite a meteorologist who says that this season is influenced by global warming, and by all mean, put that. Since that is not yet met, I don't see why that section belongs in this season article, especially since the passage explicitly states that you can't blame a single season on global warming. I'll remove it in a few hours if no objections. --Golbez 18:38, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

The realclimate site contributors: Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Eric Steig, William Connolley, Ray Bradley, Stefan Rahmstorf, Rasmus Benestad, Caspar Ammann, Thibault de Garidel, David Archer are all climatologists which for this purpose is better than a meteorologist. I can provide more references if you want perhaps Dr James Annan crandles 18:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

You're really going to have to qualify that statement that somehow climatologists know more about hurricanes than meteorologists, and again, the section isn't about this season, it's about the last 15 seasons in general, and even then it's not quite sure (it says it's about the relationship of global warming, then the best it can give is correlation - should I put up the famous pirates:temperature pic?). It's not appropriate for this article. It basically says "People think global warming has something to do with it but we have no proof, but we'll imply it anyway." That there has been some discussion is irrelevant. I could discuss about pirates. --Golbez 19:08, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I am sure meteorologists know more about what hurricanes do over a period of minutes to a week or two. Climatologists would be the experts in how frequency and intensity change over 30 years. Yes it is not ideal that the subject matter in those paragraphs is not about the title of the article, but there is interest in whether Global Warming is in any way responsible. I have removed a couple of insertions that I felt were wrong. The state of climatology is what it is, I cannot do anything about that. It is better to explain it caveats and warts and all rather than say either it is due to global warming or it has nothing to do with global warming. Both the last two are wrong. You discussing pirates would not necesarily generate news items about pirates. There have already been lots of news items that have discussed Global Warming as a possible cause of increased hurricane intensity. So I don't accept your argument that discussion is irrelevant. Deleting anything that mentions Global Warming implies Global Warming has nothing to do with what is happening, which is wrong. By all means replace it with something better to explain the best knowledge we have about whether Global Warming is in any way responsible. crandles 20:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you intend to add a global warming section to every season article since 1990? Because the passage makes it clear that an individual season cannot be effected by global warming, it has to be a trend. Maybe we should just transcribe tropical cyclone here if we're going to be adding things that aren't relevant to the 2005 hurricane season? Mentioning global warming on this season article is just giving in to those people who think that suddenly global warming kicked in in the Atlantic basin (But oddly not others).

Oh, and speaking of the climatologist/meteorologist split - how many climatologists predicted this season would be above normal? None. The only people who issued predictions were meteorologists like William M. Gray. He predicted the higher-than-normal season and is on record as saying global warming had jack-all to do with it. Until climatologists can predict as well as he can (over a matter of weeks, huh? more like months, but hey, who's counting), then I'd frankly rank him above some unknown names on a blog. --Golbez 20:14, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Basically, I agree with what Golbez said. Furthermore, this is speculation/theory at best, and doesn't belong in this article (maybe a paragraph or two in the tropical cyclones article, which can demonstrate worldwide increases in hurricane activity, not just in the Atlantic basin. --tomf688^<TALK> 20:57, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

And so far as I know, no one has attempted to say that - they focus only on the Atlantic season, which only makes up 1/5 or so of the average haul. --Golbez 21:01, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

This section has been moved to tropical cyclone but I still fail to see how useful it is. "They think there's a correlation but not a causation, and global warming might have contributed to the correlation maybe in the last fifteen years" without a lick of discussion about the other bad runs? It's political, through and through, and I want it gone. --Golbez 22:48, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I am happy to accept the majority view and have it removed from here. It is where the science is at. Science is never about proof and always about evidence. There is evidence or the Emanuel paper would not have passed peer review of one of the top 2 journals for climatology. The bad run from 1900 to 1935 can be attributed to the AMO, but there is evidence that the current situation is outside the normal variation due to the AMO. So I think it does discuss the other bad runs. If it isn't explicit enough about this for you then I suggest it needs to be improved rather than removed. 50% of increased intensity from 1975 to 2005 is due to AMO and 50% due to Global warming but there is a large error bar on that 50:50 split seems a useful summary to me. crandles 23:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Can you quote any meteorologists (since they know more about what causes a hurricane than a climatologist), and can you state that the ENTIRE cyclone season worldwide is worse, or is it only the Atlantic? These are valid points. Again, the Atlantic is only 1/6-1/5 of all cyclones worldwide. Were all basins over-active? If not, then I will remove the statement on tropical cyclone that says that activity between 1990 and 2005 was higher, and that just destroys the whole argument. If only the Atlantic has gotten worse, then you have to establish why the other basins did not. Please do, quickly. --Golbez 01:32, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

So you think you know better than Nature (journal)'s peer review whether the whole argument is destroyed do you? I think many even most climatologists are qualified as meteorologist they are just slightly different specialisations. Anyway I have asked William M. Connolley who is officially notable, knowledgable and respected if he would care to share his expert opinion. (Not the best expert but he is active on Wikipedia). crandles 10:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Does the Nature article (Not available online for free so I can't exactly compare it) say that ALL tropical cyclone activity increased between 1990 and 2005 higher than expected, or only Atlantic? You seem to have access to it, please let me know. I am not a meteorologist. Neither are you. Neither is the chap who wrote the Nature article. If you can't find even one, what does that tell you? Have you looked? I'm editing that entry to clean it up a bit as I think it can be salvaged. --Golbez 17:59, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

They do think causation is likely (it just hasn't reached level of proof because science never deals in proof). It is clear that you have misunderstood what I intended so I edited it. Discussion of different POVs is good and helps improve the articles :) I would of course like to see further improvements perhaps to show the range of different views of different expert climatologists. crandles 00:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I withdraw my requests to quote a meteorologist - I did, I quoted the NOAA FAQ, which is a nice counter, and also explains that, globally, tropical cyclone formation is not higher than normal. I sincerely apologize for my gruff tone earlier, I'm just getting annoyed at people who don't know better saying that obviously global warming had something to do with this. I'm not saying the climatologists don't know better, I'm talking about the media. :P Anyway, I hope you'll look at my edits and see how they work. And what's hilarious? Kerry Emmanuel IS a meteorologist. You shoulda said that from the start! ;) That would have satisfied my original request. :) I dunno how I never noticed that, I probably just missed his wiki article. --Golbez 18:22, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the change of tone. It is clear I did a few things wrong along the way so sorry about that. I thought the material was worth including but am happy to let you and William Connolley hack it into shape. crandles 22:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Number of records - avoiding repetition

The rapid formation record section includes:

• July 24, Tropical Storm Gert, earliest formation of a season's seventh tropical storm (previous record August 7, 1936)

does this make "The number of storms before August--seven--is also a record, breaking the 1887, 1933, 1966, and 1995 record of 5." redundant?

If we are keeping it, should the 1959 season be included in that list ? (earliest formation of a season's fifth tropical storm (previous record Debra on July 23, 1959; 1959's third storm was not named, giving the fourth storm the "C" name)) ? crandles 12:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)