Talk:Hurricane Emily (2005)/Archive 1

Article created

This article was previously deleted, but I revived it, since it has now hit Grenada and, considering the geography, I assume it will hit somewhere else later on as well. I figure that makes it notable enough to have its own article. Everyking 10:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Would have been better to just start fresh, considering the state of it at the time. -- Cyrius|✎ 15:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Besides, the storm hasn't caused enough damage to warrant its own article. As far as The Weather Channel goes, they are never the first ones to spot a storm. The National Hurricane Center issues advisories on tropical weather in the Atlantic...the Weather Channel just gets the advisories from them. DevilDiva 14:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Notable for significant damage in Grenada and expected to hit Mexico and Texas very hard...I think the article is warranted, plus there is lots of information now. Soon we may need to move this to Hurricane Emily and the disambiguation to Hurricane Emily (disambiguation) if it is becoming clear that the name Emily will be retired. Right now, I don't think we're there yet, but if it strikes Mexico or Texas as a Cat 3 or 4, then Emily should be crossed out. CrazyC83 14:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It is saying that TWC announced that it had been spotted, i.e. by someone, not necessarily by themselves. Everyking 14:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I removed the weather channel tidbit; it shouldn't sound like they spotted it, since it is the NHC which relays their information to all media outlets. --tomf688^(talk) 15:29, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Screw the Weather Channel, they just repackage and dumb down things. Better to go straight to the source. -- Cyrius|✎ 15:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll take TWC any day over just about any other private agency, or "regular" news. Heck, on the way home from work, I heard on the radio at 9:30 tonight that Emily was down to Cat 2... of course, by that time, the 8:00 (cat 3) advisory was an hour and a half old. Give TWC a little credit for actually having a good base on meteorology and giving timely info as well - even though they don't really deserve a place in our articles. The Great Zo 03:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

That's not as bad as when, on one of my local news stations, the meteorologist called it Tropical Storm Emily when it was already a cat 2 storm. bob rulz 03:37, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

One death does not an article make. No offense to Grenada. Unless this thing is a cat 3 heating towards Brownsville and Corpus, or manages to hit Jamaica directly or do heavy damage to Yucatan, I'll nuke this. I will continue to update only the season article. We don't want articles on every single storm, we have the season articles for a reason. --Golbez 15:51, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I was plotting to give it its own article, although I was going to wait a bit longer. It is a Cat 3 heading towards Brownsville. They're forecasting it to be relatively weak when it gets there though. Odd. This isn't a storm in the open Atlantic that's going to "dissipate 600 miles west of the Azores without affecting land". Hell, if it vanishes without hitting anything else, it'd probably be worth an article just for the sheer bizarreness. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Landfall as a weak storm? I can't see how those forecasts can be correct. Look at the SST's Emily is coming into! (85-88°F or 29-31°C) The only way I can see such happening is if she weakens to a tropical storm over the Yucatan... CrazyC83 00:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just didn't think we had enough for an article yet. Remember, THAT should be the criteria - when the section in the season page gets so large as to warrant an own article. Notability for these storms necessarily carries along content. It didn't seem to exist yet. --Golbez 18:16, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Remember that SST's aren't the only things that determine a hurricane's strength. However, it seems to be rapidly strengthening now again, so...also, remember that there are large stretches of the coasts of northern Mexico and southern Texas that are sparsely populated, so it won't necesarrily cause a lot of damage along the Gulf of Mexico coast. Not to mention that Emily is a small hurricane. Personally, I don't think that it should have an article yet...but oh well. bob rulz 03:26, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

3-day forecast image

Cyrius: Any reason to remove to three day forecast image I put up? Where's the objection? --Anderal 19:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe just that it will constantly change, they're updated every 6 hours. And there are links to NWS/TPC/NHC, where all the graphics and text products are readily available. I can see both reasons for not including the graphics here, but if you feel strongly, you and Cyrius can work it out. He bites only a little. DavidH 19:04, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

It was an accident, I brute-force merged the updated Current section from the season article and didn't notice I had removed the image ref. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. My first post sounded brutal. I didn't mean to sound angry, it was an honest question. No worries! --Anderal 22:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Seemed pretty reasonable if you believed it was done intentionally. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Fantastic image

That image of Emily is awesome. Thanks for posting it. I went to the URL, and backtracked to an FTP directory with 2005 storm images, but none of them seemed to be taken at that low angle with the great 3D cloud view. Anybody know if those images are in a different directory, or what link to use to get them? DavidH 19:33, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

You needed to go all the way up, and then back down to the Year 2005 Storm Events page. The subpages have listings of the images available for each storm, with thumbnails. I rather like this one of Dennis. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

My favorite is still the one I found of Dennis by NASA Image:Hurricane Dennis on July 7 2005 1550 UTC.jpg.

That one's great. You can see my house in the extreme upper-left corner! Thanks too Cyrius, found that page. You can get the images directly with this too: http://www.nnvl.noaa.gov/hurseas2005/

That one of Emily really puts you inside the storm -- the clouds look like mountains...wait, those are Hispanola's mountains with clouds on top. DavidH 04:41, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Here's another image to perhaps put up when the article is longer, or just gawk at here. --Golbez 17:43, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Good image. Would be better without the yellow lines, though. --tomf688^(talk) 19:00, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

If you want to see an animation of some amazing images, go to [1], then click "Visible Floater Loop" under GOES East. --Golbez 22:00, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Fluctuations

First it's a Category 4, then it's at Category 2, now it's gone way outside the 5pm wind speed 10% probability curve to get back to Category 4! AIIEEEEE. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Strange seasons produce strange storms. --tomf688^(talk) 03:22, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Small storms wind up and wind down fast, too. I wouldn't be surprised to see the two-to-four-to-two-to-four trend continue until it hits the Yucatan. The Great Zo 03:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Look at Charley last season - went from a Cat 2 to almost a Cat 5 in just 4 hours! Smaller hurricanes do jump around a lot. Likewise I see rapid deepening once Emily leaves the Yucatan. CrazyC83 03:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Charley wasn't a cat 5. I don't know where you got that information from. bob rulz 03:35, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Keyword: almost. He was a 150 mph storm at landfall, and still intensifying but ran out of water. CrazyC83 03:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I missed the "almost"...my fault. bob rulz 15:13, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Gah, they let Knabb write the discussion and it's all boring. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, good, I'm not the only one noticing that. Granted, if I was doing intensity forecasts for this thing, I probably wouldn't want my name associated with it either - so give it to the boring guy to write up :D The Great Zo 04:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

NHC update says it's at 150 mph as of 11:55 am EDT. Got a real shot at a Category 5 here. -- Cyrius|✎ 16:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

155! Beven doesn't want to push it over that extra mph, I'm guessing. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Down to 937 mb and still dropping too! It's going to be the earliest Category 5 hurricane on record! Also no hurricane this strong has not seen its name retired in 34 years... CrazyC83 19:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow, this is incredible! Also, if it reached Cat 5 intensity, it would also be the first time on record that there's been a cat 5 three years in a row. bob rulz 19:30, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like it's going to get a lot worse. From the 5pm discussion:

THE SHIPS MODEL SHOWS A MAXIMUM POTENTIAL INTENSITY OF 155-160 KT...
WHILE MAXIMUM POTENTIAL INTENSITIES FROM COLA ARE CLOSER TO 135 KT.

That's 185mph. The last storm to reach that was Gilbert. --Golbez 23:10, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Ouch, I didn't even notice that. And we enter the world of really strange coincidences with this map of Gilbert's track Jdorje added to Hurricane Gilbert (along with all the other maps he's been adding). Look familiar? -- Cyrius|✎ 23:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

The next flight is apparently scheduled for 0000Z, 30 minutes from now. We probably won't have that info for the 8pm advisory, but if it shows a Cat 5 they'll probably make an update around, what, 8:45pm? --Golbez 23:30, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

The 8:00 advisory does include data from the flight, but even though the pressure has dropped to 929 (lower than Dennis) the winds remain at 155 MPH. With a pressure drop like that, and the fact that the aircraft has only barely had time to sample parts of the storm, I would bet on Cat 5 by 11:00 - if not, in update-form before then. We'll have to see... The Great Zo 00:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

As briefly mentioned before, the similarities to Gilbert's track are remarkable...and creepy.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 01:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

There's no end in sight to this - I do think the real intensity is around 150 knots (175 mph) which would easily make Emily a Category 5 monster. Seeing those numbers popping up made me decide to do a page shift and give this the main article, knowing Emily's a pretty obvious pick to have her name retired...interesting note: should Franklin also be such a bad storm, it would be the first time since storms were first named that three consecutive names from the same season were retired (closest I can remember is 1995 when 3 out of 4 were, that was broken by a fish-spinner in Hurricane Noel) CrazyC83 01:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree; if it turns out to be a fizzle (not bloody likely) then we can remerge, but all Cat 5s deserve their own articles by their very nature, and it's close enough. --Golbez 01:55, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Only about have of the Category 5s that have ever formed in the Atlantic have articles in Wikipedia. Let me go back a bit. CrazyC83, what are you talking about? No storm this strong has gotten its name retired in 34 years. What about Ivan, Isabel, Mitch, Andrew, Hugo, Gilbert, Allen, David, and Anita? You forget about those?

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 03:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

CrazyC's statement was that no storm that strong had NOT seen its name retired - meaning any storm of this strength has been retired, in the past 34 years anyway. Since I don't forsee them running out of names any time soon, I'd actually be in favor of mandatory retirement for any Cat-5 storm based on that alone.

As for Emily, it looks like it's probably starting an eyewall cycle, which means the deepening peaked out right on the borderline. Pressure's up to 939 as per a recon report at around midnight eastern. I bet she gets another shot at Cat 5 tomorrow though. The Great Zo 04:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly what I meant. Only three Category 5 storms since 1954 have not seen their names retired: Cleo in 1958 (never threatened land, although that name would be done with the next time she was used), Ethel in 1960 (weakened quickly to a tropical storm before landfall with light damage) and Edith in 1971 (a very strange decision, since she actually made landfall while a Cat-5 in Central America). It does seem Emily is entering an eyewall replacement cycle, I think it will weaken to a low-end Cat 4 overnight (135 mph or so) then start up again as she charges for the Yucatan. CrazyC83 04:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

5 AM discussion: IT IS POSSIBLE THAT EMILY REACHED CATEGORY FIVE INTENSITY BRIEFLY AROUND 03Z. bob rulz 09:15, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

We may have to wait as long as the end of the season and the post season reports to know for sure.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 04:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I feel that the writeup for the Storm History for Emily is disorganized and leaves a lot to be desired. There are a couple of important things to emphasize about this storm that are getting lost in the writeup, or are not mentioned at all (the roller-coaster ride of intensity, the terrifying beauty of the storm over the aft and evng of the 16th as it flirted with Cat 5 intensity, the classic textbook description of the eyewall in moonlight, the unusual way in which it abruptly fell apart shortly before hitting Cozumel). Even though it did not hit the mainland US and cause extreme damage, from a meteorological standpoint Emily was a standout storm in the 2005 hurricane season, and deserves a more thorough, ordered treatment. This weekend I'll try to take a crack at cleaning it up.Mkieper 16:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

IndependentWX??? No.

Went to:

http://www.independentwx.com

The site asks you to install a Chinese language pack. Nope! This site shouldn't be listed as a link when we have the NHC and other reliable U.S. authorities. I'd rather have a link to weather.com than this. DavidH 04:39, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Weird, doesn't do it for me. They do good work though, they seem to know what they're talking about. --Golbez 06:28, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I see; looks like when I mentioned us over there (seemed fair, I'm getting a lot of my stuff from them), one of them decided to come over and reciprocate. Also, he made Super typhoon haitang - what do you think, Cyrius? --Golbez 06:31, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

The language pack msg. raised a red flag, but no problem if you find it useful. Maybe you already have the language pack (or diff OS/browser)...DavidH 06:56, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Landfall #1 - Yucatan Peninsula

The first landfall is only a few hours away - should occur sometime between 12:00 and 2:00 EDT. I really couldn't tell you why Emily only weakened all day today, given that it had beat off the 10 knots of shear for so long, and that the heat content in the northwestern Caribbean is very high. Eyewall replacement cycles don't last 20 hours (but maybe, in the parallel dimension of 2005, they do). Regardless, any further wobble north in these last few hours would be a very bad sign for the Cancun, which looks to be spared the very worst as of now.

8:00 PM EDT - 135 MPH - 151 mb - The Great Zo 00:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not happy fun time in Cozumel though. Based off the Cancun weather radar (slow to load), looks like landfall's going to be near Tulum. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the radar link. Depending on even a small jog, Cozumel could be devastated. The new advisory should be out any time, and it's interesting to note that the last Vortex message had the pressure up to 955, but the flight level winds WAY back up to 134... Satellite appearance is improving too, but it's just about out of water. The Great Zo 02:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

A new recon fix keeps the pressure at 955 and raises the flight level winds to 141 - that'd support 145 MPH at the surface but with the pressure so high I doubt they'll be quick to raise the winds much in the next advisory, if at all. The Great Zo 04:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

SATELLITE AND RADAR IMAGES INDICATE THAT THE CENTER
OF HURRICANE EMILY MADE LANDFALL JUST NORTH OF TULUM
MEXICO NEAR 0630Z...230 AM EDT THIS MORNING.  THE
ESTIMATED INTENSITY AT LANDFALL WAS 135 MPH...CATEGORY
FOUR ON THE SAFFIR-SIMPSON SCALE.  THE NORTHERN
EYEWALL...WHERE THE WORST WEATHER WOULD BE
EXPECTED...PASSED DIRECTLY OVER COZUMEL.

The Great Zo 07:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

And they let Franklin deliver the bad news. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Ugh, I must've been really out of it to put 229 km/h in. -- Cyrius|✎ 09:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Landfall #2 - Northeast Mexico

The second landfall should occur early in the morning of July 20 (fixed). Emily is reintensifying quite notably. Recon reports that the pressure has fallen to 959 mb, and that winds at the 925 mb level are - though it looks to be slightly anomalous - 107 knots. Emily will likely be upgraded to Category 2 by 3:00 EDT, and if not, thenn by 5:00 for sure. The Great Zo 18:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you mean "July 20" -- Cyrius|✎ 18:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

d'oh, yeah. The Great Zo 19:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

This is Charley all over again - back down to 944 mb, up to 125 mph and still intensifying...likely to be a Category 4 at landfall CrazyC83 03:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems that forecaster Beven agrees with you. As of the midnight (CDT) Public Advisory:

MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS ARE NEAR 125 MPH...205 KM/HR...WITH HIGHER
GUSTS.  EMILY IS A DANGEROUS CATEGORY THREE HURRICANE ON THE
SAFFIR-SIMPSON SCALE.  SOME ADDITIONAL STRENGTHENING IS POSSIBLE...
AND EMILY COULD BECOME A CATEGORY FOUR HURRICANE BEFORE LANDFALL.

-- Titoxd 06:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Not long before it hits the barrier islands and Laguna Madre. Be another hour after that before it gets actually on shore. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Looked like that until the thing stalled and wobbled for a couple hours, anyway. Landfall won't be until the 3-7 EDT timeframe, probably. Emily looks to have stabilized in strength but could still gain a little - though we all should have learned our lesson to just stop forecasting Emily by now...

The important stuff from the most recent vortex data message:

H.         945 mb
MAX FL WIND 108 KT NE QUAD 01:52:40 Z
STADIUM EFFECT VISIBLE IN MOONLIGHT

That's gotta be beautiful. The Great Zo 03:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh man, stadium effect in a hurricane with a full moon going. I hope those Air Force Reserve boys bring back pictures...and throw them on the internet. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

What's stadium effect?

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 04:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

A newbie has just in the past couple of days put together an article on stadium effect. In simple terms, the view from in the eye of the storm looks like the view from inside a very large stadium. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Alright, are we finally done forecasting this thing? My 3-7 AM landfall prediction ended up being wrong due to more wobbles... and NHC's expected further-intensification forecast didn't happen either. Of course, those were all corrections of original forecasts that were blown as well. Emily was a forecasters nightmare, and I'm anxious to see the verification stats. The Great Zo 14:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Yup, the storm made landfall at 6:30 this morning in northeast Mexico.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 20:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, so I actually did get that part right... which I thought I didn't. From now on, ignore any post I make within an hour of waking up. The Great Zo 04:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Dennis

"The storm languished while moving quickly west, and struggled with maintaining its form. Contrary to the normal occurrence that hurricanes leave a cold wake behind, Hurricane Dennis [had] made portions of the Caribbean Sea warmer, and therefore more favorable for tropical cyclone development." IS this a misprint for Emily, or is Dennis part of the aetiology for Emily. I inserted the word "had" assuming the latter. Rich Farmbrough 09:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

It was considered to be a factor enough for the National Hurricane Center to mention it. This isn't just guesswork on our part. Yes, in a discussion for Emily, they mentioned that Dennis had potentially provided a more favorable environment for strengthening - that's why they thought Emily might reach 165kt at one point. --Golbez 15:31, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Scary Thought

Emily scared Category 5 to death. Has anyone else noticed that it is extremely unlikely that Emily will be the strongest storm of the season?

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 00:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it will be officially declared a Category 5 storm when the final assessments are done in the fall. Yet there will likely be more...only twice have there been two Category 5 hurricanes in one season (1960 and 1961). CrazyC83 01:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, however Ethel in 1960 was a little suspect. I have a feeling that the intensity was slightly overjudged. Also, something to take into account: Hurricane Floyd was stronger than Emily (921 millibar pressure as opposed to Emily's 929) and wasn't declared a Category 5. E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 22:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

In the end, it won't be the strongest storm of the season. Katrina (155 knots) takes the cake - unless a mega-monster at the level of Allen or Gilbert develops later. CrazyC83 16:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I think in later review, Emily will be found as a category 5, as will Floyd. You have to remember, it took the NHC 10 years before they did a review which rated Andrew as a Category 5.Fableheroesguild 18:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

If Emily does become a cat5, it will be by far the highest pressure ever recorded for a cat5 in the modern era. Also, Floyd is not going to be changed after 10 years like andrew was...the reason they changed andrew was that they learned a lot after they started using dropsondes in '95, and applying the new information to andrew they were able to more accurately estimate the winds. Storms since then have been given post-analysis after each season and there is no reason to think - unless aerosondes lead to new discoveries that require another re-analysis - that it will be changed. Jdorje 03:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

With Rita likely to become Category 5, this could be the first season ever with three Category 5 hurricanes...I agree also with Floyd, 921 mb and sustained for some time (unlike with Hurricane Opal which was 919 mb but bounced around fast so I kinda doubt that reading) sounds like a Cat 5 to me... CrazyC83 19:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I found this from a past discussion:

AT 0324Z...THE AIR FORCE RESERVE UNIT HURRICANE HUNTER AIRCRAFT REPORTED FLIGHT-LEVEL WINDS OF 153 KT. THE STANDARD ADJUSTMENT OF THIS VALUE TO THE SURFACE WOULD YIELD 138 KT...OR JUST ABOVE THE CATEGORY FIVE THRESHOLD. AT THAT TIME HOWEVER...THE CENTRAL PRESSURE WAS RISING RAPIDLY AND ON THE NEXT PASS THROUGH THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT ONLY 132 KT WINDS WERE FOUND. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT EMILY REACHED CATEGORY FIVE INTENSITY BRIEFLY AROUND 03Z. [2]

Those words make me suggest that Emily was a 160 mph storm at its peak. CrazyC83 19:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

look at this

[3]

wow. is this copyrighted? Revolución 05:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

It's presumed PD-NASA. The image was mentioned over on Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season, but I guess nobody did anything about it. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Intro

I removed some information from the intro that is simply not needed:

• Earliest fifth storm.
• Speculation about possible Cat5 status.
• Obnoxiously many dates.

I still feel it's unnecessarily long...but then the list of places Emily visited is pretty lengthy. Jdorje 06:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, I assume all of this information is contained elsewhere in the article but if not it should be added (information from the intro should always be repeated in the article). Jdorje 06:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Image of Emily

I found a good image at http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/images/hurr-emily-20050719-n17rgb.jpg Memicho 00:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Is Emily a Category 5?

I uld know if anybody could tell if Emily is upgraded to 5 or staying on 4. Maybe the date of the final results would be helpful. juan andrés 02:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

We won't know until Emily's report is out. But there is some chance that Emily is upgraded to a category 5. But as I said, we aren't sure yet. Memicho 02:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it is about 70% likely that Emily was Category 5, since the NHC has admitted that it was definitely "possible". CrazyC83 22:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)