Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics: Difference between revisions

Note that the advisory links will not work until the advisory is issued. Please update the ACE section of the article after updating these calculations. --EMS | Talk 15:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to use knots from the discussion instead of mph. --Ajm81 18:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do Epsilon's windspeeds after midnight Eastern (end of season) count towards the ACE? NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 01:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Based on last year's data, it looks like they do. --Ajm81 03:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they apply. A storm is a storm, even if it occurs outside of the storm season. --EMS | Talk 19:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I want to see whether others approve or not before doing this, but I propose that, once this article has been fixed up somewhat, all of the "Records" section of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season article be moved onto this page. That will shorten the 2005 season's article considerably and allow this article to become more than a collection of random facts about 2005 mushed together. - Cuivienen 22:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 00:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the records should not be a part of the main article, but I think that they would work better as a seperate article. However, I will not oppose moving them here at first. If it works, it is one less article floating around. If it does not, then the seperate article can still be created. --EMS | Talk 04:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HOORAY! Thanks to Epsilon at the 10pm EST Advisory, the 2005 Season's Ace Value(225.065) has finally surpassed 2004's value of 225.023! This takes the 05 season to third place. Now, If Epsilon can hold itself together until this weekend or so, the 2005 season should surpass 1995's value of 228 taking second place. Still behind 1950's value of 243 however, where it will probably remain unless we get a crazy December superstorm.Weatherman90 03:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Using all the significant digits from the NCDC site, 5.15 for Delta, and 0.565 for Gamma, this year's ACE is currrently 225.1224 --> 225.12. --AySz88^-^ 04:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's not supposed to be good, Mr. Weatherman. Tropical cyclones kill people. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 04:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True, but not this one, it's out in the middle of nowhere. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We said that about Delta. It's killed 6. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 04:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A December superstorm? Not likely, but not impossible. It would have to hold together for a long time (a la Irene, Ophelia) most likely. CrazyC83 16:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We must be close to, if not surpassed, 1995's total! Now we are 15 away from another record... CrazyC83 15:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1995 surpassed. TimL 21:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What was Hurricane Lili (1984)'s ACE value? CrazyC83 03:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I calculated it to be 16.705. Something near Ophelia's if I recall. I could be wrong but it seems about right. I got my numbers from weatherunderground.

It is starting to look like my predicted 'December Superstorm' could perhaps be Epsilon. Weatherman90 22:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the table of individual tropical cyclone statistics, I am trying to manage the inate width of the thing. Towards that end, I am trying to limit the width of the individual columns. My current tricks include:

• Date Abbreviation (i.e. 30 Nov. instead of 30 November),
• Mutliple line entries (view embedded tables)

At the least, try to keep the entries as short as possible. I shortenned the landfall location for Beta, since the reader did not need to know there that "Atlantico Sur" is an autonomous region. I fee that this is important since this table will get very unruly very quickly if that is not managed. --EMS | Talk 18:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be consistency here. I suggest using the "day month" (i.e. 30 November instead of November 30) format in this page, unless it can be shown that a standard exists dictating otherwise. That seems to be convention in the meteorological world, and by that I would prefer to abide. --EMS | Talk 18:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only the category and/or windspeed columns should get the category color. Other columns should be uncolored. Additionally, I think the "highest category achieved" column can be removed, since it's redundant with the windpseed column (and the color imparts the same information, although color cannot be relied upon for accessibility). Jdorje 18:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The colors encode information on the relative strengths of landfalls, etc. At the same time, the type/category column backs up the colors for those who have not figured then out. So my view is that this is a very effective scheme, allowing someone to use the colors to find significant storms easily and the text to verify that this is what they want. As for just restricting the extent of the colors: I believe that this will reduce the effectiveness of the colors, and so oppose even that. --EMS | Talk 19:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's fine then, but then there shoudl be a new column for the landfalling category, and only the two "category" columns should be colorized. The use of colors is helpful to draw the eye to the notable storms, but only one column should get each color otherwise the colors dominate the table. Jdorje 03:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely with Jdorje. Those frickin colors are blinding. The less colors, the better. The colors on the first column sufficiently give a good idea of the storm's intensity. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 23:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that it'd be better to change the colors to something more pleasing to the eye while still suggesting the same progression. (I think I'll be trying a different palette unless poor Jdorje would have to redo all those storm track graphics....) --AySz88^-^ 02:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Jdorje; color is nice as a clarifier, but there is just too much color in this article. I would agree to restrict color to only the storm name column. (Actually, overall I think the table is hideous; I'm sure someone could make one more visually appealing.) - Cuivienen 04:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I conjured up a new palette, along with a sample of what the colors would look like - User:AySz88/Sandbox#New_hurricane_color_palatte. --AySz88^-^ 05:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think those colors are a lot more pleasing to the eye than the current ones. Nice job AySz88! P.S. I think however that if we were to cut down on the color in this table, keep it only to the storm name and the landfall columns. That way it gives the reader an idea of the strength of the storms when they made landfall, if they did.66.66.245.85 20:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like AySz88's colors in terms of eye care. My only problem with it is that it seems too nice. I mean they're all Easter egg colors; pale purple, pale blue, pale pink, pale everything... I like UNISYS colors are better. They have intense colors that aren't painful to the eyes. I have my own system, but it doesn't show the same progression. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 00:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I knew someone was going to say that (except pale pink, does that really show as pale pink for your monitor? o.O). I'm not sure how to get rid of the pale "Easter" colors without reducing intuition. The UNISYS] colors (self-described as "green, yellow, red, light red, magenta, light magenta, white") are good for their maps, but they'd be horrible for color-coding tables.... --AySz88^-^ 02:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about horrible but yeah. That sounds like a problem then. Like I said, I have my own system, but I think that's probably too random to use here, with progression being close to nil. I really don't know what would be best to do here. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 23:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose that color scheme. Main reasons are that the colors should be stronger at lower intensities for it to appear to be a warning. I remember the original palette had light green as Category 1 but it was changed to white because they didn't want it to make it look "safe". The aqua for depression mainly is there to emphasize rain. If any changes should be made, it should be simply to eliminate green shades, but I don't know a suitable storm color for tropical storm strength otherwise. CrazyC83 02:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a problem because the same color scheme is now used in text as is used on my track maps, and it's hard to make a color scheme that looks good in both. That said, I dislike white because when it's used in {{HurricaneActive}} it almost looks like no color. Jdorje 03:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't 'warning' color be in the foreground (text and border) and mostly unrelated? These are background and graphics colors, for the main use of the colors in tables (such as this) and the maps. You can still make the text (and the border around it) bold and red (or some other reasonable color) if you want it to be a warning in the "current info" boxes. --AySz88^-^ 03:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is completely unrelated. I was thinking about avoiding the color green, since it implies no danger, and all storms have at least some degree of danger involved... CrazyC83 04:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, changed the green to grey-yellow. It sorta still has a hint of green in it if you compare it side to side with yellow, but that keeps progression better where it matters and probably won't be noticed where it doesn't matter. --AySz88^-^ 04:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question, but I thought there were 28 total storms instead of 29. What am I missing? Rylan42 22:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Epsilon hasn't been added yet as it remains active. CrazyC83 23:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

26 named storms (21 Arlene-Wilma, 5 Alpha-Epsilon) and 3 unnamed storms (TD10, TD19 and STD22) makes 29 total storms. - Cuivienen 02:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He was talking about the article, which reads 28 as we haven't added Epsilon. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 02:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is two Cat 4 hurricanes a record/tied record for July? It probably is, but I don't want to edit it in without being certain. - Cuivienen

It was a first. In fact, the only other time there were two major hurricanes in July was in 1916. CrazyC83 05:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention that I do not believe that I have identified all of the records that have been broken or tied. I only encoded that ones that I was sure of. I would be surprised if this was the only thing that I missed. --EMS | Talk 19:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just remembered most Cat 4&5s tied with 1999. It's added now as well. - Cuivienen 23:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I left this post in the main article:

There are 26 weeks in the hurricane season. This year, only two saw no tropical cyclone activity! TWO! The week of June 19 and the week of November 6. That means that we had 19 weeks of nearly unbroken activity. Plus four other weeks. Gaps during the time from June 28-Halloween lasted no longer than 4 days and 12 hours. 19 weeks of nearly solid activity. That is incredible!

That is an unbelievabl statistic. Should it be added to this article? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 16:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am now working on a template-driven version of the large table. The templates are listed in category:tropical cyclone statistics templates. Please note that this effort is under contruction. I am announcing it partially to forestall anyone else doing the same type of thing in parallel with me. I hope to complete the package over the weekend. The test page is user:ems57fcva/sandbox/TC table.

This has two advantages that I can see:

1. It will make it easy to constuct other tables of this type.
2. It will permit experimentation with coloration, formatting, etc.

Please let me finish re-implementing the table in the new form. I will try one color reduction (removing it from the deaths and damage columns). After I am done, others can have at it.

AySz88 - I am not sure what to think of your new pallette. It is somewhat less harsh, but in the end there still is a lot of color in the table, and I think that this is the issue for others.

To everyone: I believe that at least one primary column and one landfall column should be colored for intensity. I can see that the current format looks like a riot of color at first, but without it finding the individual storms would get harder. --EMS | Talk 05:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that a "riot of color" means too many colors with high saturation; I could have misunderstood. I had hoped the change would allow the colors to lie across the whole row while not causing users to feel overwhelmed, since the new colors were designed to be more intuitive and softer.

Just to be clear, the palette change wasn't meant to be just for this table, but for everything (i.e. infoboxes, maps, etc.), since the old one has lots of flaws (black on red is hard to read, the eye gets too attracted to the bright blues, etc.). --AySz88^-^ 06:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There may be value to the new pallette in regards to readability, so I don't want to cmopletely knock it. However, since I am not used to the new colors, the modified table looked like a riot of color to me. Overall, I think some experimentation is needed here. After all, I built the table to suit myself. It is now up to others to figure out how to make it really work if it does not suit them, and I am willing to support that. --EMS | Talk 16:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The creation of the templates is done. The re-creation of the table is still in progress at user:ems57fcva/sandbox/TC table. If someone wants to help me with this, my advice is to start at the Delta (unless Epsilon transitions back to being extratropical soon), and work back while I contine to work forwards. As soon as this is done, the revised table can be transferred over to this article, and people can begin to play around with color and formatting schemes involving it. --EMS | Talk 05:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Try removing the color from everywhere except the Category and Landfall sections and see how it looks. - Cuivienen 03:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The catX shouldn't have to be in the template name; you can easily add a cat=cat1 parameter to each template. Jdorje 03:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I guess that's what you do...the other templates are just helpers. Well then, the next thing is to make sure you use the color templates (see {{storm colour cat5}}) for the colors. Jdorje 03:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The helper templates should be in a sub-category. Jdorje 03:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the transfer to the template-driven for in now complete. So changes to the templates will be reflect in the table as a whole. So Cuivienen, you can try the change yourself, and let's see what people think. BTW - The templates that you need to change are {{TC stats cyclone}} and {{TC stats landfall}}. --EMS | Talk 03:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - You should use bgcolor=#{{TC stats neutral color}} if you do try to reduce the extent of coloration. (Please remember that white is the category 1 hurricane color.) --EMS | Talk 04:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To Jdorje: I assure you that I am using the color templates. However, I needed to also control the text color (as text in the red category 5 areas is more easily seen when it is white). That is why I created the cell-format set of helper templates. I assure you that the they do reference the storm colour templates. As for placing the helper templates into a subcategory: You can do that if it means that much to you. My goal in the category was to have a place where the whole set is listed. Please realize that the documentation for the set is located in {{TC stats table start}}, and that probably is a better thing to read to understand this setup (as I tried to document in the category text). --EMS | Talk 03:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]