Talk:Hurricane Wilma/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Hurricane Wilma. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Split

It's not even "Hurricane Wilma" yet! Don't re-create this article until at least it becomes a hurricane please. --Revolución (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It is now. Can we create an article now? SqueakBox 16:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

But there's still nothing to put in the article! All you would add to it is the storm history and forecast, which are already included in the main article. Only when the storm article gets too large for the main article should it be split out. So...if there's stuff you want to write about the storm...put it in the season article and make it longer. Jdorje 16:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Sources?

Can we get some sources for some of the info in the article? More specifically, some of the Central American info. --Holderca1 02:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

My 2 main sources are this page in La Prensa, a Honduran paper, and this article from the BBC, SqueakBox 02:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Well put them in the article. --Holderca1 02:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Retired Greek letters? :)

What if an eventual future storm, alpha,... becomes very destructive? Will they start retiring Greek letters? What will they replace them with? Akiss 08:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I bet they won't be retired, since they're not real names.--Jyril 08:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it would be. See here for NHC responses to this question. --Rob 11:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

"Should the name Alpha ever be retired and another hurricane season runs the alphabet, the 22nd storm would then be named Beta." So retired letters will not be replaced. Well, if the trend of increasing numbers of devastating storms continues like this, the Greek alphabet will soon be completely retired.. and then we can start with the Chinese alphabet :) Akiss 11:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

LOL, then we'd never run out of characters. I thought that replacing retired Greek letters with their Phoenician equivalents was a good idea when someone posed it: Alpha -> Aleph, etc. --69.86.16.61 03:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I've done a list (on my own computer) of names through the years and which remain from the original list - of the names in each letter, here is how many remain from the original 1979-84 lists in the period 2006-11 (assuming Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Rita, Stan and Wilma are retired and Ophelia and Vince and the lesser storms stay on)...for each letter, here are the number of original names left:

Letters with all 6 names left: N, P, T, V
Letters with 5 names left: B, O, S, W
Letters with 4 names left: A, C, E, H, M, R
Letters with 3 names left: D, G, J, K, L
Letters with 2 names left: F, I
Letters with 1 name left: none
Letters completely changed: none

CrazyC83 16:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

882mbar

WOW! This hurricane takes Gilbert's place in pressure. Why it dropped so rapidly?

Something about its "pinhole eye". With such a small eye, pressure changes can be large... in either direction. When the eyewall collapses, pressure will likely rise rapidly. I noted that the 5 AM EDT pressure is unconfirmed, and at the least uncalibrated, and should be marked as such before being stated as fact. Interestingly, this may be a phenomenon similar to what Hurricane Camille experienced before landfall. --Rob 10:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

What's the diameter of the eye? Oh, i saw the satellite photo of Gilbert, it's eye was small too! : Irfan Faiz | at (GMT +8) 7.50PM October 19

When hurricanes pass over the warm Loop Current, they gain rapidly in strength. The water in the Current comes up from the Caribbean and through the Yucatan-Cuba gap into the Gulf of Mexico - right now, the water in the Current is over 85 degrees ([1]). Camille, Katrina and Rita all rode the Current. Simesa 11:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Tip must be scared right now...can this go down into the 860s? This is unbelieveable - I go to bed with this as a Category 2 (probably 3) and wake up with the most intense storm on record!!! CrazyC83 14:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

8AM EST wilma update

Down to 882 mb. But what I find interesting: HURRICANE FORCE WINDS EXTEND OUTWARD UP TO 15 MILES... 30 KM...FROM THE CENTER...AND TROPICAL STORM FORCE WINDS EXTEND OUTWARD UP TO 160 MILES...260 KM. 15 miles for hurricane-force winds? That's insanely small! Jdorje 12:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Especially considering the winds are 175 mph... --tomf688^{talk} 12:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

It is almost more like a tornado than a hurricane. --Holderca1 12:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, one of the wunderground bloggers said it almost had more characteristics of a tornado than a hurricane. Also interesting: the 11AM advisory had no pressure measurement so the storm could have strengthened (or weakened); I guess the 2PM advisory will have more info. And, the 15 miles/30 km is obviously another "error" caused by convertion from nm: it must be 15 nm, which is 17.25 miles and 27.6 km and they just round off. Jdorje 17:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

From the 11 AM EDT advisory, HURRICANE FORCE WINDS EXTEND OUTWARD UP TO 50 MILES... 85 KM... FROM THE CENTER...AND TROPICAL STORM FORCE WINDS EXTEND OUTWARD UP TO 160 MILES...260 KM. So it looks like that's changed a bit. I do agree though... wow.. 15 miles for hurricane-strength winds sounds like a large, naughty tornado! 130.15.161.188 15:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I better change some... Irfan Faiz at 6.11AM (GMT +8)

Comparisons to Pacific's record holder

Typhoon_Tip The most powerful Pacific storm was also the most massive. This one is far more compact. I also found a climatological record at http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/pcmin/climo.html, that shows the Atlantic basin having a capacity for 870mb.

Tip couldn't hold its strength: it was too massive and too energetic. It hit Japan as a minimal typhoon; the bulk of the 68 deaths were caused by the failure of a floodwall. B.Wind 22:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

NHC Miami in the bullseye?

I wonder how it must feel like to sit in the NHC building, predicting this "bad girl" maybe going right through their front yard. These people must be feeling real sick, right now. Awolf002 12:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Exactly; and as I heard from local news reports this morning, the range of landfall is from the Florida Keys to the Tampa Bay Area, which concerns me. Living in Tampa, Florida, the last major hurricane that hit the area directly was in 1921, which was a whopping 84 years ago! Moreau36: 1420, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I know! I'm in Lakeland and this is not looking good. Awolf002 14:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the NHC building was constructed to withstand sustained windspeeds of 200 miles per hour, and the people who work there are pretty sure that their measuring equipment would survive such major stress, unlike their predecessors at the former Coral Gables "home." B.Wind 22:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Another hurricane...

sigh*

People thought they were saving money not signing Kyoto and leaving the warming matter entirely to be dealt in the future... Subramanian ^talk 18:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Statements like the one above frustrate me. Was the 1933 Atlantic hurricane season a result of global warming? How about the 1983 Atlantic hurricane season? There is little climatological evidence to support this. --tomf688^{talk} 22:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Who knows? Time will tell. Subramanian ^talk

Actually, those who do know - meteorologists - are pretty adamant that global warming has nothing to do with this. But I don't deny that a lot of people will attempt to use this disaster to further their own political motives. --Golbez 00:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

To be more precise, they say that global warming probably has contributed to the strength of hurricanes - but only by a mile per hour or two per hurricane. (From the The NewsHour on PBS) AySz88^-^ 01:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, what they say is a bit contrary to what we can see this season. Big coincidence? Three category 5 storms, all very intense, one of them the most intense on record, will run out of letters for the first time, very early start for a season, earliest by a month for the 21st storm, formation very far to the west, and so on and so forth. I don't know, exactly what needs to happen before "they" think global warming might be having an effect? 200.63.231.224 20:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Because shit happens. Are you going to blame Gilbert on global warming? Camille? 1933? 1900? Come on. Global warming did not suddenly trigger in 2005, in ONLY the Atlantic basin. (Where are the Cat 5 monsters in the EPac, hmm? Does global warming only effect the Atlantic?) --Golbez 20:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

This season has been like having a Gilbert, a Camille and a Labor Day in the same year. It hasn't just broken one record. It's breaking all damn records there are. I guess we'll see how next year goes. 200.63.231.224 22:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Some believe its going to get worse but not because of global warming. I don't think global warming has any more affect than admitted above. There is a suggested couple hundred(or thousand depending) year cycle where there are more hurricanes and then less again. From what I've read they believe that we are just now beginning the cycle and it will get worse. 12.220.47.145 20:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

What a touchy subject. In order to really take effect on tropical cyclones, global warming might have to progress anywhere from five hundred to several thousand years, if it eventually has significant effect at all. Considering how little we actually know about extremely large scale (over millions of years, due to lack of being able to get to ice cores from back then) climate shift, it really kind of makes sense that we're not exactly sure about a lot of this. Although it probably can't be regarded as completely anomalous, recent hurricane years really can't be blamed on global warming (or, for that matter, Al Gore). 68.100.190.56 22:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

FEMA

Can we document their response as the situation develops ?

We will if and when the storm hits the United States, they can't respond until something happens. They don't respond to the Cayman Islands or Cuba. Also, there has to be something published somewhere for us to document it. We can't speculate or create our own opinion on their response. --Holderca1 17:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Timezones

Please keep in mind, wikipedia is INTERNATIONAL !

As the hurricane is switching timezones anyways it makes no sense to use something other than UTC for timestamps concerning the hurricane itself and not some affected area! Please stop using EDT in those occasions! With affected areas the local timezone of the area should be used.

See the Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season, it was discussed there. UTC is in the article already. --Holderca1 19:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

You are still using EDT as the primary unit at places where EDT shouldnt be USED AT ALL. The hurricane even left the UTC-5 timezone now. And IF - then call it hurricane center "local time". Not EDT! The event DOES NOT happen on US soil right now! EDT is as unjustified as would be using CEST as well at all places because so many readers also live in Europe and "are familiar" with that time.

Maybe if you signed your comments, we'd care. For someone who knows enough about wikipedia, you should know about that. PS - If you think this has nothing to do with America, I guess we should ignore everything the National hurricane center says. How sad, those Cubans could really use their EDT-dated forecasts. --Golbez 19:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

EDT usage is justified because all the official warnings from the National Weather Service are given in that time zone. We adjust to local time when the Tropical Prediction Center of the NWS does, because that's from where we get our information. This has been discussed to death before. Tito xd^(?!?) 03:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

What would be the correct way to write UTC time? Why do some write abcd instead of ab:cd? --Stry 09:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Both are accepted really, but per the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season it's currently without a colon. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Wikipedia's servers are hosted in Florida. Where exactly? If in the path of Wilma, we can expect them to go down. Is mentioning this in the article appropriate? Simesa 18:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that is our call to make. That would have to be made by Wikipedia in something they put on the main page. Wouldn't be appropriate for this particular article. --Holderca1 18:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Tampa, actually. The servers were evacuated when Charley moved in last year, if I recall. Trust me, if it comes to that this will be mentioned wiki-wide, we don't need to mention it specifically on this article. A lot of other things are in Tampa too, we shouldn't concentrate on the pedia. --Golbez 18:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Like me! I'm in Tampa! Mike H (Talking is hot) 19:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Cat 5

The 175mph wind speeds are not surface speeds, so that change should be reverted. I don't know why I changed it to 155, I thought I saw that somewhere but no official surface speed estimate has been given yet. --TimL

It's a CAT 5 now... 175 mph winds... pressure down to an incredible 892 mb... [2] PenguinCDF 07:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Category 5 story picked up by AP Mike H (Talking is hot) 07:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Who was the idiot that edited the main page with "shit" this and "shit" that...right at the top? Can someone re-edit it with the appropriate terms?

That would be 216.174.135.251 .I assume the person is just a worthless idiot.--HurricaneJeanne 16:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Revert for dealing with that kind of junk in the future. Tito xd^(?!?) 03:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

mph = km/h

165 mph = 265 km/h

145 kts = 165 mph; 145 kts = 270 km/h --Holderca1 21:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

What is the point of this? That the conversion calculations are wrong? 145 kts=166.9 mph=268.5 km/h. 165mph = 265.5 km/h. It's just a matter of rounding. PK9 21:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea, that's all that was posted without explanation. --Holderca1 22:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Simple enough to do with a calculator... 60 knots is 70 miles per hour; 100 miles is 160.9 kilometers. 147.70.242.21 23:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane Mitch 1998

Have a look at the image on the Hurricane Mitch page... same time of year. It turned due South unexpectedly and devasated Honduras and Nicaragua... could Wilma do the same??

81.108.218.26 19:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Not out of the question. If it moved more west than north, it would do just that. CrazyC83 20:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The possibility was mentioned in one of the advisories before the rapid intesification, IIRC. The NHC also said that prediction systems are much more sophisticated now than they were in 1998, however, so an unexpected turn that dramatic would be highly unlikely. Still possible, but I hope it doesn't happen. Guatemala would, after Stan, be the absolute worst place for a hurricane to make landfall right now, even worse than SE Louisiana. --69.86.16.61 03:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Ominous fatalities count

Instead of saying "Fatalities: 12 (so far)" which sounds ominous, how about "Fatalities to date: 12"?

It would mess up with the template. The mention of (so far) is there to show that the number will likely rise as it makes further landfalls. CrazyC83 20:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not the person who originally posted the suggestion, but "the number will likely rise" is exactly what that person meant by "sounds ominous." Personally, I don't think (so far) suggests that the number will rise. It simply means the event is ongoing and thus it may change. PK9 21:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

How about Fatalities: 12 to date? 68.148.212.220 22:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Windspeed and pressure?

The current hurricane wind speed is about 260km/h (the other status bar is 280km/h?) and the pressure in the status bar is about 892mbar? "Top ten most intense Atlantic hurricanes since measurements began" thing shows the pressure is 882? Must be a typo at the pressure, how about the wind speeds?: Irfan Faiz at (GMT +8) 6.07AM

Storms are allowed to change in intensity. The lowest pressure it reaches was 882, it is currently 892, same as with the wind speeds. --Holderca1 22:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

That means that it is still the atlantic's strongest hurricane and the 10th strongest in tropical cyclones? (including pacific and atlantic)? : Irfan Faiz | at 6.20am 20 October (GMT +8)

Yes, there currently are not 9 stronger tropical cyclones in the world, those are all historic. --Holderca1 22:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Pressure

Why does inHg keep getting added back in the article? I don't know of any one that uses it any more. It is an obsolete unit of measurement. Everyone uses either mbar or hPa. --Holderca1 02:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, since no one has responded to this, I am assuming that no one can provide a valid reason as to why inHg are in the article. I vote that they should be removed. --Holderca1 11:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Not everybody uses the metric system. In fact, even the NHC reports the pressure in their advisories in both inches of Mercury and in millibars, and many (if not most) weather reports on the local news in the United States still offer the barometric pressure in inHg because of the Americans' resistance to convert from a system that the country has been using for two-plus centuries. B.Wind 21:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

See also the extensive showing of how mistaken Holdercal was in his or her conclusions, below in section #cleanup where Holdercal had also raised this issue. Inches of mercury do indeed belong here. Gene Nygaard 21:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not my mistake, its my local news that doesn't use inHg. --Holderca1 22:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Temperatures in heading?

The fourth paragraph mentions a strong cold front causing temperatures to drop to "20°F (11°C)". Unfortunately, it seems that someone's goofed, because 20°F is -7°C, and 11°C is 52°F (rounded to 0dp). Would someone mind figuring out which of the two temperatures is correct and fixing the other? IceKarma ॐ 21:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The number is right. The 20°F fall would be equivalent to a drop of (20×5/9) °C. If the air temperature were 20°F, then you would be right, but in this case, the air temperature could be 90°F (32.2°C) dropping to 70°F (21.1°C). Tito xd^(?!?) 21:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Er, the number is wrong, because the quoted conversion is wrong. The correct formula is, in this case, (20-32)×5/9, which evaluates to -6.7°C. See Fahrenheit for confirmation. IceKarma ॐ 21:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not dropping to 20°F, it's falling 20°F. Tito xd^(?!?) 22:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

For further explanation: a degree Fahrenheit is 5/9 the size of a degree Celsius. They also start counting in different places, so if you're converting absolute temperatures from F to C, you have to subtract 32. But these are not absolute temperatures, they are differences. Indeed, a "drop of -6.7°C" makes no sense, and is the result of blindly applying a formula without accounting for what it means. If you need further confirmation, try converting some absolute temperatures that differ by 20°F into Celsius, and you will find that they differ by 11°C. RSpeer 22:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

A hurricane with temperatures of 20°F would be absurd. "The Day After Tommorow," indeed. PK9 01:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

That wouldn't be a tropical storm, but it would be one incredible extratropical menace - it would make the 1993 Blizzard look like a few flurries...it would be a Category 5 hurricane disguised as a blizzard. (The 1993 blizzard would most likely be a Category 3 if it was a hurricane based on its pressure in the 955-960 mb range) CrazyC83 03:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's put it this way; a fall of -7C = a GAIN of 7C. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 01:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

cleanup

This paragraph could use some cleanup :

Hurricane Wilma began extremely rapid intensification late Tuesday afternoon, approximately around 4 pm EDT (20:00 UTC). Between 3:54 pm EDT (19:54 UTC) October 18 to 2:11 am EDT (06:11 UTC) October 19, Hurricane Hunter aircraft measured a 78 mbar (2.30 inHg) pressure drop, from 970 mbar (28.64 inHg) to 892 mbar (26.34 inHg) respectively, in a 10 hour period. In a 25-hour period starting 1:56 am EDT (05:56 UTC) October 18 to 2:11 am EDT (06:11 UTC) October 19, the pressure fell from 982 mbar (28.99 inHg) to 892 mbar (26.34 inHg), a 90 mbar (2.65 inHg) pressure drop. In this same 25 hour period, Wilma strengthened from a strong 70 mph (110 km/h) tropical storm to a powerful category 5 175 mph (280 km/h) hurricane. Note: In the Atlantic Hurricane Gilbert (1988) went from 960 mbar (28.34 inHg) to 888 mbar (26.22 inHg) in a 24 hour period for a 3 mbar/h pressure drop (2.12 inHg in 24 hours)

--Revolución (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Kind of makes your head hurt doesn't it. --Holderca1 23:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, did some work on it. Why do we include inHg? Is that used in the UK or something? I had thought just about everyone either used mbar or hPa for weather. --Holderca1 23:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Many people get their information from weather reports transmitted in METAR format. In the aberration that goes under the METAR name in the United States and Canada, those are the units used for altimeter settings (atmospheric pressure reduced to sea level, but by a different algorithm than that used for SLP), officially transmitted by the National Weather Service in the U.S. and by Environment Canada. Inches of mercury are also the units used when the local sea level pressure is reported on U.S. radio and television stations (Canada differs from the U.S. here, using kilopascals in its public weather reports, in what you get on Canadian radio and television). Furthermore, those inches of mercury are the units many people are familiar with on their home barometers. In fact, I just saw something from the weather channel links on the article page, explaining just that--what those strange and unfamiliar millibars figures mean in the real money that Americans are used to, inHg. Gene Nygaard 23:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not just radio and television, of course. Same holds for the internet.

Try Intellicast, for example.

If you are in the U.S., you might put your own ZIP code or city in the box; anyone can put in whatever they might be interested in. Then, just below the date there are some "current conditions", and just to the right of that a "more info" link. Click it, and among the additional information you get is "Barometric pressure. For example, right now for Paris I get [3] Barometric Pressure (inches) 29.92 and (seeing that "and" with nothing behind it, I'm guessing that they weren't smart enough to program in "steady" if it isn't "rising" or "falling", but I don't really know if that is the right guess or not). Gene Nygaard 00:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I am actually in the U.S., I just haven't heard inHg used in years. For example, I have no idea what the avg atm pressure is in inHg. Heck, I am more familiar with psi (atm pres. would be 14.7 psi :)) than I am with inHg. I am just used to hearing everything in mb, which 1013 would be avg atm pressure. --Holderca1 02:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Just a case of someone getting so lost in the arcane jargon of his work that he loses touch with what people do in the real world around him, I suspect. Gene Nygaard 15:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I have no clue as to what you are trying to say. My work currently has nothing to do with pressure. --Holderca1 15:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)I am talking about local weather forecasts.

Currently? That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with my point (even if it is never). To make it clearer, here's what real people (like most Wikipedia readers) actually get from the local weatherreports in their news media, since that is what you say you are talking about (and even meteorologists rarely forecast pressure with specific values rather than high or low, or rising or falling):

Aberdeen American News, Aberdeen, South Dakota newspaper[4]

Pressure: 30.19 in.

KTRK-TV, Houston, Texas[5]]

Barometer: 30.01

CJME radio, Regina, Saskatchewan:[6]

Pressure/ Tendency 102.7 kPa↑

Only rarely do we even get something like this, from KARE television, Minneapolis, Minnesota[7] (and, if they ever give these on the air, I'll bet only the first is used):

Barometric Pressure: 30.09" (1019.5 mb)

Gene Nygaard 16:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Mérida, Yucatán, Mexico weather on Yahoo! Weather[8]

Barometer: 29.65 in and falling

Gene Nygaard 16:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

That paragraph is abuse of the most-beloved parethenses....Hbdragon88 20:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what's going on with all you people. I only hear millibars in hurricane intensity. All the weather newscasts I know of here (yes, the US), use inHg. However, I prefer using millibars...it makes my head hurt less. bob rulz 10:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

In the UK, we mostly use millibars (mb), although the inHg figure is given once weekly on the BBC's local regional forecast... at least, for East Anglia it is. - user:burwellian

That was me, I just hadn't gotten around to logging in... - JVG 21:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Wild Wilma

She tied the seasom with most storms in a season. Then she tied the record for the most hurricanes formed in a season. Then she made the record for most Cat. 5 hurricanes. Then she made the record for most intense hurricane beating Gilbert and edging Katrina off the Top 5 and pushing Rita down as well. What else will she try to break? Let's hope she will not be breaking any more record tough. We don't need that during this season or any season. tdwuhs

I think Wacko Wilma more accurately describes a super-hurricane like Wilma. --Revolución (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

What else can she break? The only place left to go is in Club 870 with Tip, Chaba and seven other Pacific typhoons... CrazyC83 02:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

"Club 870"? Is this a real term? Not that I care...it just...did somebody use it? Mike H (Talking is hot) 05:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Not really - it was made up here for the storms with a pressure in the 870s...which has never happened in the Atlantic but nine times in the Pacific... CrazyC83 05:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Does that tell you something about the Western Pacific? Since 1945 (the beginning of record keeping in the West Pacific). 153 typhoons have reached Category 5 intensity (I counted myself). During that same period, the Atlantic has seen just 24. Welcome to the West Pacific. The West Pacific storms feed off the monsoons, which have a much lower pressure gradient than the shallow ITCZ thunderstorms that Atlantic systems pick up. Wilma was (is) in West-Pacific-like pressure gradient. That is why the West Pacific has become a monster's favorite stomping ground.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - my dropsonde 02:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Should we called it a Super Hurricane? (e.g. Super Hurricane Wilma, Super Hurricane Gilbert?) The pressure is too low to be a normal hurricane. : Irfan Faiz at (GMT +8) October 21 8.32PM

That is what Category 5 is for. --Holderca1 15:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Note: Wilma did break two other records: the most rapid intensification both for pressure and for windspeed. I was intending to do some extensive editing to the hurricane pages of Wiki, but with this season's burnout, especially a very long 10 days (I'm not sure exactly how many days now...probably more like two weeks) with Wilma, I'm going to be waiting until Jan. I've had too many days up until 3am or 5am, then going to work.

I especially want to include in Wilma's article the circumstances of the recon that found the 901mb reading. That was some wild ride, and something as historic as that definitely should be noted. What I'll try to do eventually is to get some direct quotes by those on that flight. Mkieper 18:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Block Notice

This is probably minor compared to everything else. However, people whose IP adresses are blocked from editing the article get a very bizarre message, or at least I did before I logged in. It said something like "Those who are blocked from editing may not edit for 48 hours. shit. shit. mwahahahahahahahaha. whitehouse.hotsex.com" This is offensive, especially to innocent people who got blocked because they don't have an account and happen to have the same IP adress as some vandal. Mred64 23:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Seems someone vandalized the block notice, what is the location of that page? --Holderca1 23:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The article history shows vandalism along those lines. You just happened to view it during the few minutes it was in that state. You and your IP are neither blocked from editing, or you wouldn't have been able to post this message. -Splash^talk 23:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what happened then. I was supposedly blocked, but then I logged in and could see it. Did the vandalism get rid of the original article text, and someone just reverted it then? Lemme check the history. If the block notice was truly vandalized, I can't get back to it for some reason. 12.202.177.193 23:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The article was blanked to the message you describe in this diff. Jtkiefer reverted 1 minute later, so you just got unlucky. The block notice itself is in MediaWiki: space and cannot be edited by vandals (unless the vandal is an admin). Special:Ipblocklist does not list the IP address you just signed with as having been blocked. -Splash^talk 00:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

That's the version I saw. However, my computer doesn't use the same IP adress all the time for one reason or another (if it's possible). Mred64 00:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

894/155

Are those really correct? From my knowledge, this is the first time EVER a Category 4 hurricane in the Atlantic had a sub-900 pressure at that time...my assumption now is that Wilma is going to recharge fast and be stronger than ever within 12 hours... CrazyC83 02:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Who even says its Cat4 --- 894 mb is a cat 5 in my book.... pressure not wind determines intensity 69.142.21.24 03:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Technically, it is wind speed that determines intensity. Category 5 starts at 156 mph (really 160 mph because advisories are always in multiples of 5 mph). However, they usually correlate with each other. Usually a storm at 155 mph will have a pressure in the 920s or low 930s though. CrazyC83 03:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Technically no, it is pressure that determines intensity. Wind speed only determines category status. Jdorje 06:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It's Cat 4, or at least as Cat 4 as Emily was, which is debatable. The NHC calls for it to restrengthen tomorrow morning to Cat 5. [9] 894 is probably a record-low pressure for ANY Cat 4 storm, even in the West Pacific. That list on the Notable Tropical Cyclones page has all West Pacific storms with pressures less than 895, and there aren't more than 15 or so. I doubt any of them weren't Cat 5 at that intensity, but we don't have pages for most of them as they were probably mostly fish-spinners or much weaker at landfall like Tip so that can't be verified. On an unrelated note, the NHC still refuses to predict wind speeds higher than 175 mph. It's a conspiracy, I tell you. --69.86.16.61 03:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

You may be right with the west Pacific storms, although it is possible that one or more of them weakened to 155 mph or less with a pressure still sub-900...I'm not sure about that. Emily was at 929 mb, which is more typical of a high-end Cat 4, but there are some indications that she was also a Cat 5 at one point. (There have been several Cat 5 storms with pressures in the 930s and even a couple in the 940s, although they were probably lower and didn't catch the minimum pressure) CrazyC83 03:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

But it is the wind that blows things around, it is wind that causes the storm surge. --Holderca1 03:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

But max wind speed isn't necessarily a good measure of this: it doesn't have as much affect on surge as storm size and hydrology. Katrina is a good example: as it weakened it grew larger so it actually became more dangerous. And Wilma is probably another example: earlier it had 175mph winds, but hurricane-force winds only extended 15 miles (!) out from the eye center. Now it has 155mph winds, but hurricane-force winds extend 70 miles out from the center. Which do you think would cause more fatalities and property damage (of course it's highly dependent on where it hits, so it's a redundant question). Basically the pressure is rising because that energy differential is being used to "spin up" the rest of the storm. Anyway, I would like to be able to measure the "total energy" (E=mv^2; just a sum of the squares of the velocities over the entire area of the storm, time the mass of air involved) of the hurricane, which would replace (but probably correspond very closely to) the pressure measurement (and the max winds measurement would stand alongside). Jdorje 06:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

We have something similar, the Accumulated Cyclone Energy measurement. However, this one also depends on the longevity of the hurricane. Tito xd^(?!?) 06:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The cyclone energy measurement isn't the same thing at all. It only takes wind speed into account, not storm size. I also don't know what the exact value of accumulating the energy is (it's the same energy, it just gets counted multiple times), but that's a separate question (and I don't have a good alternative if the intent is to measure total seasonal activity). Jdorje 06:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

To put it another way, if you have a hurricane that's a circle with radius 15 miles with wind speed 175 mph throughout (i.e., Wilma earlier today), and another hurricane that's a circle with radius 120 miles with wind speed 100 mph throughout (i.e., Katrina at landfall), the latter hurricane has 20 times more kinetic energy. And I think we can all agree that it is kinetic energy that blows things around and causes storm surge! Jdorje 06:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Data from the National Hurricane Center says that Wilmas minimum pressure as a Category 4 was indeed 894. That is very hard to believe. The previous record was Katrina's 910! God this season is insane.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - my dropsonde 02:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe total kinetic energy of a hurricane can be measured as

E = 0.5mv^2 = 0.5 * (pi * r^2 * h * p * d) * v^2

pi is pi, 3.14
r is the radius of the hurricane, in meters (1600 meters = 1 mile)
h is the height of the hurricane, in meters. This is probably the height of the cloud tops.
p is the pressure of the hurricane, over the entire volume (in % of sea level pressure).
d is the density of air, in kg/m^3. This is 1.2.
v is the velocity of the hurricane, over the entire volume (in meters/second; 3600 seconds = 1 hour).

Note that v and p assume that the pressure and wind velocity are constant throughout the system. Obviously this is never the case. Using an average is not correct here, but without knowing an exact wind-speed distribution (i.e., cutoff radii for different velocities) and pressure distribution (pressure varies mostly with height) we can only estimate here.

For Katrina at landfall, r=120 miles, h=3000m (just a guess, margin of error 1000m), p of 0.8 (just a guess...pressure drops greatly with height...margin of error 0.1), v of 100 mph (just a guess...margin of error 20 mph). This gives a kinetic energy of about 3*10^17 joules, with a margin of error of about a factor of 2. Quite a lot!

See User:Jdorje/Energy.

Okay, why are you changing the discussion. We were discussing winds vs. pressure. I am fully aware that a larger storm will cause more damage and more surge. The pressure gradient is causing the winds, but it is the winds that cause the damage. So that is why categories are based on winds, not pressure. --Holderca1 11:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a little tangential but still on topic (if you look at the original note here). Anyway, I completed my back-of-the-napkin calculation (User:Jdorje/Energy) and I estimate that Hurricane Katrina at landfall had a moment magnitude for the energy of its hurricane-force winds of about 8.8. Jdorje 19:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

You are correct, although they generally (but not always) roughly correlate. Here is a rough estimate on what they generally are when at certain intensities:

Wind (knots)	Pressure (mbar)	Wind (knots)	Pressure (mbar)
25 kt	1005-1010mb	105 kt	949-957mb
30 kt	1003-1009mb	110 kt	944-952mb
35 kt	1000-1006mb	115 kt	939-948mb
40 kt	998-1005mb	120 kt	934-944mb
45 kt	995-1002mb	125 kt	929-940mb
50 kt	991-999mb	130 kt	924-935mb
55 kt	988-995mb	135 kt	920-932mb
60 kt	985-992mb	140 kt	914-926mb
65 kt	983-990mb	145 kt	909-920mb
70 kt	980-987mb	150 kt	903-914mb
75 kt	977-985mb	155 kt	896-909mb
80 kt	974-982mb	160 kt	889-901mb
85 kt	968-977mb	165 kt	884-896mb
90 kt	963-972mb	170 kt	877-890mb
95 kt	958-968mb	175 kt	873-885mb
100 kt	953-961mb

CrazyC83 03:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Very cool Wilma movie from UWisc SSEC

Check it out below. The circulation is interesting, as it looks like the eye is not actually the "center" of the storm, so to speak, as it seems to be spinning around another point. [10] --tomf688^{talk} 03:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Never seen anything like it. Looks like it is wobbling a lot or something. --Holderca1 03:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

They actually reference it in the discussion:

THE INITIAL MOTION IS A VERY WOBBLY 300/7.

--Holderca1 03:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I know there exists a technical paper somewhere discussing why - I just can't find it. It'd be pretty nice to put somewhere on tropical cyclone or eyewall or something. I'm asking around on the wunderground blogs. AySz88^-^ 20:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

(For future reference, the paper was here: http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0469(2001)058%3C3243:TWOIAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2 ) --AySz88^-^ 00:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Wilma: A New England Catastrophe?

Exciting. :-)

THE SECOND IS POSSIBLE EXTRATROPICAL TRANSITION AND PHASING WITH THE DEEP TROUGH AFTER 96 HR. SHOULD THIS HAPPEN...WILMA COULD BECOME A POWERFUL STORM EITHER OVER THE WESTERN ATLANTIC OR THE NORTHEASTERN U. S. NOAA

Once the hurricane reaches the latitude of Florida, it will be grabbed by a very strong jet stream coming down from the north. This will send the storm hurtling up the Eastern Seaboard Sunday night and Monday, perhaps with catastrophic results. Parts of New England have already been devastated by floods, and the ground simply cannot hold any more water. Accuweather

If it hits New York City will it be like The Day After Tomorrow ?

Um, no? --tomf688^{talk} 11:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

A Cat 3+ storm hitting NYC could be severly damaging to structures which weren't built with Hurricanes in mind. That said, even a Katrina making a direct strike wouldn't match Hollywood. It would be economicly disruptive, and would probably cost a number of lives, but NYC would be largely recovered within a year. Rain damage in the currenlty saturated region could be highly damaging in the surrounding area. (Though, it may sound a bit snarky of me, but part of me wanted the city to get hit after the mayor made a 'hurricanes are too scared of us' comment in the 80's after a near miss.) Donovan Ravenhull 12:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Irrational External Links?

I have tried a couple times now to insert the primary source of much of this material, the National Hurricane Center, as the first external link. The link has been removed twice by someone claiming that it was already given previously. I'm not sure if that's a valid argument, but if it is, The Weather Channel link (currently first) should also be removed. A link to the Main Page of the National Hurricane Center is important because that page has much of the graphical data that our comments are based upon, as well as the Official Advisories. 71.36.203.125 10:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I would be the one who's been reverting them. Under Hurricane Wilma#Current storm information, there is a clear "For information, see the NHC's latest public advisory on Hurricane Wilma" link. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 10:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

EDIT: Also noting, right at the bottom of that list is a link to the NHC's inland warnings. The main link would be redundant. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 10:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The Weather Channel is clearly mentioned elsewhere also. If you take a look at the main NHC page, you will see that it has links to about 10 graphics products as well as the official advisories. As such, it is the primary source of information (at least in the US). The link at the bottom may or may not be redundant The Weather Channel is a secondary source. I have more to say on this subject if you will give me a second to type it in. 71.36.203.125 10:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The Weather Channel is only mentioned in the template - about the intensity of storms. Template = fixed by template; every page will have the same link. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 10:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The Weather Channel link is therefore redundant. It is not especially useful compared to the NHC. Yet it is not removed. Why not? Is this page sponsored by them? 71.36.203.125 10:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

As I said - the Weather Channel link is from the template. You cannot remove it directly from the article. Here's something to back me up, Hurricane_Rita#External_links did not include a link directly to the NHC. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 10:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually the Weather Channel isn't on the Rita page either. --Holderca1 14:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand your point about the template. I don't think NHC link should be removed. People should have the official source at their finger tips. It would be real nice if it was included in the disclaimer at the top, but I guess that's the template also. 71.36.203.125 10:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

"For information, see the NHC's latest public advisory on Hurricane Wilma" <--- this is the official source. It's already in the article under Current storm information. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 10:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

If that is the only instance of a link to the NHC, then it should also be linked in the External links. The current section will be deleted once the storm is longer active. --Holderca1 11:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not; the link to NWS local statements at the bottom is also to the NHC. Also, when the storm dies, there'll be an archive link. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 12:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Eye getting bigger?

Take a look at this image, http://www.goes.noaa.gov/GIFS/HUIR.JPG it appears that Wilma's eye is growing. Why? - Irfan Faiz At (GMT +8 9.13PM)

That is actually a new eye. Intense hurricanes will go through eye wall replacement cycles where a new outer eye will form to replace the old eye. The hurricane will go through a weakening trend during the cycle, but once the cycle is complete, it is possible for intensification to occur as long as the conditions are favorable. It appears that the replacement cycle for Wilma is nearly complete and it will probably reintensify. Also see the eyewall article. --Holderca1 13:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it is completed, the wind speeds has risen. Irfan Faiz at (GMT +8) 6.16AM 21 OCT

Storm getting big

From 15 miles in radius the storm is now 90 miles in radius. That is genuinely large! What I can't understand is why only a 7-10 ft storm surge is predicted at landfall in Mexico. Is it because of the oblique angle at which the hurricane may strike? Jdorje 16:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah; the worst storm surge is on the right front quadrant, and the Yucatan will be on the left front or left rear quadrants, greatly lowering the storm surge risk. --Golbez 17:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It is due to the angle it is coming in and may just be how the shore line is. The storm surge is affected by the winds speeds, the size of the storm, the rate of movement of the storm, the degree of angle that it makes landfall, and the geography of the shore. --Holderca1 17:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Sources

I've moved all the sources to the reference system recommended by the Manual of Style. Since I didn't ask before I did it (I thought that after the NHC advisory came out, we had a narrow window of opportunity to do major editing without edit conflicts), if there are any objections, feel free to revert if you feel it's necessary. Tito xd^(?!?) 22:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Such would be hard to keep up, especially when the storm makes landfall and information comes flying in very fast. I'd hold off on that until things calm down - that could be a winter project. CrazyC83 03:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

That's true, but it's amazingly holding up, even better than I expected. Good job to you all! Tito xd^(?!?) 05:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Record Pressure Fall

Wilma's pressure fell 98 mb in 24 hours. That is an Atlantic basin record, that is established. The NOAA site in the sources section lists world record holder Super Typhoon Forrest as having undergone a 100mb pressure fall [11]. The JTWC post-season report however, says that Forrest's pressure fell only 92 millibars in that same amount of time, which would give Wilma the world record [12]. Who's right?

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - my dropsonde 01:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure. One other thing - it is very possible that larger drops have happened but went unrecorded before the days of Hurricane Hunters and satellites... CrazyC83 02:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but for all we know there could have been god knows how many hurricanes more powerful than Wilma before the age of Hurricane Hunters and satellites as well. bob rulz 11:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

That's besides the point. I'm just trying to find out if Wilma bested Forrest. That would be quite a significant record.

Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 23:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I was responding to CrazyC83...bob rulz 23:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Forrest's maximum intensity was put to 876mbar, after re-analyzing of data. ATCR still contains the old 883mb value (now considered too high). By the way, don't put too much attention to Wikipedia's most intense storms list - it is badly incomplete. Several storms in 870's are missing. Wilma probably isn't in Top 15 historically. --82.128.184.133 16:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

WHO re-analyzed the data? WHERE can that be found? Wikipedia:Cite_your_sources Simesa 20:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Text available at here. "Using calculations from 700-hPa aircraft reconnaissance data, it is determined that a surface pressure of 876 hPa was reached at 2030 UTC 22 September 1983..." --82.128.184.133 21:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Landfall

Damn, this sucks. We could have just the 10th Cat 5 on record to make landfall and first since Andrew in 1992. --Holderca1 02:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It's very possible, and if it strengthens to a Cat 5, it is highly unlikely it will come back down before landfall, at least for the Cozumel landfall (maybe not the mainland landfall). CrazyC83 02:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Latest forecast looks like 145 kts (165 mph, 270 km/h) at landfall. --Holderca1 02:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It looks like the entire island of Cozumel will be inside the eye here a few hours. --Holderca1 13:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Are we able to update the chart of record hurricane intensity at landfall of 926 mbar? 21:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Whoops that chart is for US landfalls - do we have data on Mexican landfalls anywhere? 21:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

That list should include all the most intense hurricane landfalls in Atlantic basin, not just USA.--Jyril 21:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

And when you find that info, we'll put it up. --Golbez 21:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Since accurate readings are hard to find from before the 1950s in Mexico, here are the top 10 since 1950 (from the Atlantic side only):

Gilbert (1988) - 892mb
Anita (1977) - 926mb
Wilma (2005) - 926mb
Carmen (1974) - 928mb
Janet (1955) - 938mb
Isidore (2002) - 940mb
Emily (2005) - 945mb
Roxanne (1995) - 958mb
Inez (1964) - 962mb
Caroline (1975) - 963mb

CrazyC83 00:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)