Talk:Hurricane Rita/archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents

WP:Not a crystal ball

Lets revert this back to 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A CRYSTAL BALL. 200.124.35.174 00:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

This one is a tough call. As it stands now, this page would be necessary anyway within 12-24 hours as it is expected to strengthen considerably overnight before reaching the Keys, and at that point it will be a notable storm. Do we really want to revert it back when we will likely need to bring it all back tomorrow? (BTW I did not make this page - I would have done a poll first - although I did decide to build it up either for a future revert or to keep the page) CrazyC83 00:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I like the way how "Main Article: Hurricane Rita" was removed from 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. We can keep this page, but link it from 2005 Atlantic hurricane season once it's needed. - 65.94.110.179 01:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
^ That was me Tcwd 01:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
And then I added it back in 4 hrs later, - just "being bold", hadn't read these comments - Rye1967 23:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Timing on articles

I think whoever created this article jumped the gun by creating it days before it was needed, and by naming it "Hurricane Rita" when it, at this point, is not a hurricane yet. Mike H (Talking is hot) 09:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Why on Earth is this page called 'Hurricane Rita'? It isn't a hurricane yet. And despite the forecasts it is possible it may never become one. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Rita turns out to be much less destructive and powerful than the forecasts say it may become. And then whoever created this article is going to look pretty silly aren't they? It's ridiculous how people get all competitive over being the first to create an article for any current event when often it simply isn't necessary. If I knew how to change article titles I would change the 'hurricane' to 'tropical storm'. I wish someone would do that! It is annoying.

-saph (doesn't think the Hurricane Ophelia article is needed either)

This article is wrong on so many levels, but I have reverted it once already and it will just get changed if I revert it again. I don't see why people think it they need a seperate article for a tropical storm hitting a few islands. At least put it under the correct title. When and if it becomes a hurricane, just copy and paste it to the hurricane article. Tropical Storm Rita already exists, not like you have create a new article. --Holderca1 11:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

There is an aircraft en route now, if the next advisory says it is still a tropical storm, this article is getting moved to the proper location. --Holderca1 12:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Unnecessary - it is now a hurricane. Unsure of exact strength though (my guess is 80 mph). CrazyC83 14:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
There will always be people in the "general public" (i.e. outside the core group of us who have been working on the hurricane stuff all season) who get reactionary and make mountains out of molehills. Just a fact of life we'll need to learn to deal with, despite wanting to rip our hair out now and then. The Great Zo 16:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
How about we protect those future storm articles until they are needed to prevent this from happening in the future? --Holderca1 19:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
That's what I am thinking. I would have made this article myself early this afternoon, probably when it went to a Cat 2. The problem is how do we justify premature articles (often from anonymous users) getting deleted only to have to be restored within 12-24 hours (in this case)? It is especially likely to happen when it involves a name that has never been in use before, because if it has been used before, a disambiguation page needs to be ripped up - since the natural tendency for such is to go Hurricane Rita (2005) - but the year is unnecessary in this case until 2011 (if Rita isn't retired - which it likely will be at this point - and if we get that far in the alphabet then). CrazyC83 20:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't think this is such a big worry. Make sure that Tropical Storm Whatever is created, and make sure that Hurricane Whatever redirects there. As to whether each tropical storm deserves its own article, well, there's always AFD once it blows past, and there's always disambiguation for the rare repeat that's a significant hurricane and isn't retired. --Dhartung | Talk 18:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
The solution is to pre-emptively redirect Hurricane Rita (and Tropical Storm Rita also, as appropriate) to 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. Then the prospective article writer will get redirected instead of being told "no article with that name" and will probably just add on to the existing season article. The redirect should also have a comment saying "don't create a new article here until it is warranted". Of course the redirect may later be changed to a disambiguation or a real article, as needed. BTW, I have no problem with creating an article for a storm that wasn't retired - if the article about it is long enough it should be its own article rather than a part of the season article. Article length should be the determining factor, following the same guidelines for determining what constitutes a stub. Jdorje 00:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
One thing to remember - information on moderate-impact storms is much easier to find nowadays than even in the 1990s, so we will likely get a situation where moderate-impact storms that are unlikely to be retired (i.e. Alex, Ophelia) warrant articles on the amount of information. Since 1995, the following storms I could think of would have warranted an article if they had actually formed today with the Internet and endless sources available: Erin (1995), Bertha and Edouard (1996), Danny (1997), Bonnie (1998), Bret, Dennis and Irene (1999). CrazyC83 17:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Underestimation

Key West NEXRAD was reporting 116 knot winds [1] and one cell is repeatedly reporting winds well over 85 knots. Although the 116 was probably a fluke peak gust, I'd say that Rita is a Category 2 hurricane now at 100 mph (85 knots). The NHC (I think) also missed the call on the hurricane - I believe that it was a hurricane since around midnight...there were actually upper-level winds of 72 knots which translate into 64 knot surface winds, but there was no closed eyewall (I thought the wind speeds where what counts?) CrazyC83 16:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

  • The Tropical Prediction Center agrees with you. An intermediate discussion was issued indicating that Rita is now a Cat 2 hurricane with 100 mph winds. [2] --Titoxd 20:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


Emergency hotlines and information

Hi there, I am wondering if there is a page people can post hotlines such as: 311 is the number for Texans to call if they need to evacuate and don't have a car. That may be just for Galveston. I know the hurricane Katrina page (I am an evacuee) was very useful for those of us IN Louisiana with no TV. I took hotlines announced on the radio only and posted them on the Katrina page. I realize the scope of this page is being debated - but am wondering if there is a Wiki page somewhere that will/does contain emergency information. It could help people.


take care, --Survivor 15:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Protected image?

If you are going to protect an image that needs updated regularly, then someone with the ability to change protected pages needs to ensure that it is updated. I tried updating with the 2 pm forecast track but was prevented from doing so. --Holderca1 19:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Image

The image currently showing the storm east of the Florida Keys refers to it as "Hurricane Rita;" however at that point in time, I do not believe it was yet a hurricane. Peyna 19:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually it just refers to it as Rita. "Rita approaching the Florida Keys." --Holderca1 19:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
The most recent NOAA RGB "false color" satellite image of Rita (taken at 21:45 UT) is available here linked from the NOAA storm tracker for Rita and Philippe updated --Earthsound 21:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
The imagery below the Storm history section should be updated with the latest image from the MODIS Rapid Response Team -- Earthsound 22:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The IR image needs to be updated to the latest available (currently stamped 22:15 UTC, & these do update every 30 minutes) or replaced with the latest NOAA IR image (also updated every 30 min). -- Earthsound 23:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

IR needs updating, again. The current image is roughly 6 hours old -- Earthsound 17:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
^^^ -- Earthsound 17:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Forecast image

I don't really know why, but the forecast image is broken on this page. --Tinus 19:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

And it was broken on the Main Page too, then it appeared, then I browsed here, it was broken again, and now it has reappeared. I have no idea what's going on, but it's not an isolated problem. Titoxd 20:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia servers haven't exactly been well-behaved lately. Sometimes the images are loading, other times it just displays text (at least in Firefox it does, which everyone should be using anyways). --tomf688<TALK> 20:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I actually had this problem a while ago, and got this response: "Sometimes the server that delivers thumbnail images gets overloaded, and can't keep up with the work that millions of wikipedia visitors place on it. The result is that we show the image caption instead of the image. Generally waiting a bit and retrying (with ctrl-f5 or shift-reload) will yield the image." -- RattleMan 02:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
This locked image needs updating. The most recent version of the forecast image was released at 16:00 CDT. It is available at here Earthsound 21:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, I've updated it with the latest image.--Pharos 22:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
You are aware that a new one comes out every 30 minutes. --Holderca1 22:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Does it? Well, I'm not going to do it that often... but I'm sure we will be able to update it at least a couple of times a day.--Pharos 22:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
No, they do not come out every 30 minutes. They come out with every advisory, sometimes with an intermediate advisory. The next intermediate advisory will come out at 19:00 CDT, the next complete advisory at 22:00 CDT. -- Earthsound 22:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Houston

You may want to detail that the storm is forecasted to hit around Houston at this point. It would be wise to include some information about the heavey flooding that occured in that city after Tropical Storm Allison made landfall in 2001. Houston is prone to floods.

It would be a bit premature for that, forecast errors at 4-5 days are around 200 miles, so its possible it won't effect Houston at all. --Holderca1 21:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, there is the possibility of heavy flooding, but at the same time, the storm isn't projected to sit on the Houston area for five days and dump that kind of rain on us. Of course, I could be wrong, as I have been before. However, Houston may flood, but it does drain, too. Water won't stand here for very long before draining into our bayous and out into Galveston Bay. Thephotoman 20:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

abnormal

Isn't it kind of strange why New Orleans is getting hit with all these hurricanes lately? Scorpionman 00:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not even expected to come near New Orleans now. New Orleans isn't even in the margin of error range anymore. bob rulz 01:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Outside of 24-48 hours, they're really just guessing; look at some old storm tracks and you'll see sometimes they'll do a complete 180 and head the other way Peyna 01:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
It really depends on the storm. If the "complete 180" is refering to Ophelia, you should of seen the models that they were trying to make a forecast from. The steering currents were very weak and as someone said on the main page it appeared that someone dropped some marbles on the map and thats where they rolled. Rita is a completely different animal. The models are in fairly good agreement with a Texas landfall. --Holderca1 02:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with Peyna. They even said that the predictions are not accurate, especially after the 48-hour range. --Tcwd 02:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I'd just like to randomly mention that I think wind speed doesn't have all that much to do with rainfall. In fact, there might be a smaller chance of flooding if wind speeds were higher and the storm passed by... once... and quickly. An Allison Survivor
It isn't that strange. This is gonna be a record Atlantic storm season. One of the typical cyclone routes is pretty much the Rita/Katrina path, and the warm water of the Gulf of Mexico almost always helps a storm strengthen. And yes, New Orleans is going to get some bad weather because of this, which won't be fun for people whose houses had roofs ripped off or windows blown open. --Dhartung | Talk 18:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Why does everyone think it will hit New Orleans. If it did, why would it be unusual. Over the last 2 years Florida has gotten hit by 7 hurricanes and 2 other tropical storms, but yet no one finds that unusual.
Agree that it's not strange for hurricanes to hit New Orleans. ("Strange" would be the word I'd use if hurricanes started hitting, say, Atlanta with regularity as full hurricanes-- not a coastal city like New Orleans.) However, it's not quite appropriate to compare the number of hurricanes hitting one city with those hitting a whole state. Also, if you want to be technical, it's slightly "unusual" that New Orleans has been hit with so few hurricanes since Hurricane Camille in 1969. -- SwissCelt 11:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I read somewhere on the National Hurricane Center site that there are patterns in hurricane paths; for example, during one decade most hurricanes will go into the Gulf of Mexico, during another decade most will impact Florida, during another decade they will make landfall in the US mid-Atlantic area, etc. Consider last year when 3 or 4 storms hit the same general area of Florida. Cmadler 20:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I think it has something to do with the subtropical high pressure ridge that sits around 30 degrees N latitude, depending on how far it extends determines where the hurricanes/storms will tend to 'get off the tracks' as it were, and means they will tend to come in bunches in one general area more often than not. Sfnhltb 14:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Inconsistent with hurricane category

The text reads:

"As of 11 pm EDT September 20 (0300 UTC September 21), the center of Hurricane Rita was located about 95 miles (150 km) west-southwest of Key West, Florida and about 80 miles (130 km) northwest of Havana, Cuba, with maximum sustained winds of 110 mph (175 km/h). Rita is now a strong Category 3 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale."

However, this maximum sustained wind velocity means Category 2. Besides, even NHC gives it as Cat. 2. Proceeding with correction. nihil 04:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

That was almost certainly a typo. bob rulz 05:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Category Five

The 11 PM discussion on the National Hurricane Center's website has called category five by landfall a "distinct possibility".

I expect that to happen on Thursday morning, and it should stay there well into Thursday night and early on Friday. However, I don't think it will be a Cat 5 at landfall...it will probably weaken on the approach. Still should be a Cat 4 though! CrazyC83 05:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Intense hurricanes bounce up and down in intensity as they undergo eyewall replacement cycles. Attempting to forecast intensity at landfall precisely is a sucker's game. -- Cyrius|✎ 13:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
That's exactly where it is now. The question is how long will it remain Cat 5 and will it move back up as it gets closer? We'll have to wait, and see, and pray that it doesn't. CrazyC83 20:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Fortunately, Rita is a Category 5 hundreds of miles away from land. This means it will not hit land at this intensity and will weaken. Unfortunately, Rita will hit as a Category 4 (probably). Fableheroesguild 23:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Category Three

It has been confirmed that the hurricane is a category three.

Where? The NHC site has not updated it yet, although I would expect it to be up to 115 or 120 mph at the 2 am advisory. CrazyC83 05:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
The BBC in Britain reported it at 12pm BST. And the BBC is pretty reliant on reuters. So I think it is safe to believe this.--80.42.146.101 11:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Oil

Some oil platforms have been evacuated. The Houston area produces more oil than New Orleans. Oil prices have already surged as news of Rita was detailed. Someone should add to this on the article. The barrel prices jumped four dollars just on Monday due to it.

Retirement trivia

The record for most names retired in a season is four. Rita should be at least the 4th name of the season retired (Dennis, Emily and Katrina the other three), and a slight chance of being the 5th name (although I doubt Ophelia will be retired and don't think it deserves to be, I wouldn't be shocked if it is). Since there could easily be another big storm in October, we could be seeing another record.

Also note that there have been two "R" names used, and this will be the second straight to be retired on first use. CrazyC83 06:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

We're kinda jumping the gun here. How do we know that Rita will be retired? Rita may not be as intense at landfall as we expect. It may also move through very quickly. Also, my gut also tells me Emily will not be retired. Fableheroesguild 18:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, besides, names aren't retired until the annual WMO committee meeting (of which retiring storm names is a very minor part). Even then, there are no guarantees, they just generally retire them if they were so deadly or costly as to raise sensitivity issues when used again. Katrina most certainly will meet the criteria, because people will remember it 6 years from now; however, compared to other retired names, Emily did little damage, and probably won't be much of an issue in reusing the name when it comes up again in 6 years.
Something like this is more appropriate for an article on storm names; but just because more names were retired in one year compared to another might just mean that the people on the committee were more or less sensitive that year. Peyna 19:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I would say that Emily has a 95% chance of being retired. Not sure of the track record of landfalling major hurricanes and whether they were retired or not. Keep in mind that Emily made landfall twice as a major hurricane. --Holderca1 19:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree, and they were in populated areas as well. Rita is now a Category 5; it has been 34 years since a storm that reached that intensity was not retired (and since it is almost assured Rita will make landfall as a major hurricane, I'd say Rita is headed for the dustbin as well) CrazyC83 20:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Regardless, please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When it happens, it happens. Until then, it does not belong on Wikipedia. Peyna 04:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Agreed 100%. You should see the never ending battle of those of us that contribute regularly to the main season article. Constantly reverting edits stating what will be retired. --Holderca1 19:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

"Boom"

The sound of Rita bombing out? Winds are at 135 mph and further strengthening is very possible considering those warm waters of the Gulf. Fortunately she seems to be much more compact than Katrina was (hurricane-force winds only extend out 45 miles, versus katrina which was 100+ miles). --tomf688{talk} 12:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Katrina was compact too when it first entered the Gulf, then grew in size. When Katrina first became a Cat 3, the hurricane force winds only extended 40 miles from the center. [3] --Holderca1 12:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
As I posted in the season's talk page, pressure is down to 922-923 MB, with two planes in the vicinity. Max flight level winds have topped 143 kts, on just one eye pass. We may see the Cat 5 upgrade sooner rather than later. The Great Zo 17:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Meanwhile,the wind field expanding is part of the official forecasts.So far they expect that intensity will peak tonight before eyewall replacement and then drift over cooler water weaken it by landfall to around the Cat 3/Cat 4 boundary.I've added the Corpus Christi HLS evacuation orders and will now add the new Houston ones if no one else does them first.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 17:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
We have Cat 5 now. If this tracks the way they're saying it will track, it'll affect people as far away as ME! Oh, boy. RADICALBENDER★ 19:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
No we don't. --Golbez 19:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
From [4] (and, yes, I know it's not "official"):
SEP 21 2005 - 1:20PM CDT
The latest RECON reports confirm RITA is now a CATASTROPHIC CATEGORY 5 Hurricane.
Center Pressure is down to 920mb, and MAX Sustained winds of 153KTs at Flight level -- implying 155mph surface winds. with gusts to 175mph.
RADICALBENDER★ 19:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
155 mph is a Cat 4. --Holderca1 19:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Besides, the official report still says 150mph. - FleetAdmiralJ 19:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Holy shit, no, 2:55 CDT update (released 12 minutes ago):

000
WTNT63 KNHC 211955
TCUAT3
HURRICANE RITA TROPICAL CYCLONE UPDATE
NWS TPC/NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
255 PM CDT WED SEP 21 2005

DATA FROM RECONNAISSANCE AIRCRAFT INDICATE THAT RITA HAS REACHED
CATEGORY FIVE INTENSITY WITH ESTIMATED MAXIMUM SUSTAINED SURFACE
WINDS OF 165 MPH.  THIS WILL BE REFLECTED IN THE 4 PM CDT ADVISORY.

FORECASTER AVILA

$$

-- Golbez 20:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Central pressure? This is amazing intensification... even in comparison with Katrina! --tomf688{talk} 20:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree. This is an incredible rate of intesification! Rita has topped the NHC's outer probability predictions for wind speed, just like Katrina did. —BazookaJoe 20:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Threat to Mexico?

At this point, isn't there still a chance that it will go towards Northern Mexico? Shouldn't this be addressed in the article? (SeanMcG 16:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC))

Because of the high preasure area moving out north of Rita, there's not really any possibility of the hurricane going south. Besides that, I don't think Wikipedia was meant to be used to forcast the storm. *If* it hits Mexico, then we can write about it. We'll be rewriting most of this later anyway, so I don't see any reason to worry about it anyway. DMAJohnson 21:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The warning box, template or not?

I feel that the note on top of the page warning people not to trust Wikipedia with their lives should be made into a template of its own and protected, to keep it from falling prey to vandals. It's an important thing, and this article will generate an awful lot of traffic, inevitably including idiots out to deface it. Opinions? --Kizor 18:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. A few weeks ago during Katrina, I personally saw many times when the page text was deleted and replaced with such nonsense as "New Orleans is screwed." Fortunately, editors were on the ball and had it reverted before I could get in there even once to do just that. While most of the time, Wikipedia information is accurate, I think that when it comes to people's lives, we're not the best source of information. Alternatively, we could tell them to heed the warnings of local emergency management officials.
Oops, forgot to sign the above. Thephotoman 20:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Anytime a page is linked to the main page, it will see its share of vandalism. --Holderca1 20:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I've been bold and put this into effect. I'm going to try bothering the next admin I see about protecting Template:RitaWarning. If you're one and I haven't succeeded yet, please protect. --Kizor 21:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
The template's been protected. --Kizor 21:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
PS. Woot. -- Kizor
Doesn't Wikipedia have a general disclaimer? The template seems to be redundant in that sense. The same applies to planning during any imminent disaster, not just hurricanes, so why not make the message more general so fewer templates need to be created in the future, rather than creating this ad-hoc special case (of putting an instruction to the reader on an article in a big red box): the obvious logic people should understand is that it may not be wise to make or break any immediate plans based just on what a public Wiki tells you. Is a small reminder appropriate? Maybe, but I don't see any reason the template should be protected, as protection wouldn't even stop someone from taking the message down, anyways, but protecting it would block progress and stop someone from improving the wording or fixing any issue with the template that came up. Object to the preemptive protection of Template:HurricaneWarning. --Mysidia (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, that warning box is pretty ridiculous! Is Wikimedia afraid of being sued or something!? I can see it now... "I was about to leave but Wikipedia told me it was OK to stay inside my trailer. I want $150,000... But I'll settle out of court right now for $20!" I'm not a Darwinist, but if you trust your life to Wikipedia, then... -newkai | talk | contribs 08:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

New Update: Rita Now a Category 5

the 4:01 Eastern/3:01 Central update is now in, and Rita is now a Category 5 hurricane:

  • Winds: 165 mph
  • Location: 24.3N 85.9W
  • 755 Mi SES of Corpus Christi
  • Moving: West 13mph
  • Pressure: 27.17 in / 920 mb

- FleetAdmiralJ 20:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The 2:15 EDT update said 920 millibars and 150 mph winds,the 2:55 CDT update (that's an hour and forty minutes later) said just 165 mph winds...no pressure figure...but I expect that the pressure probably decreased further,and we'll know current figures in half an hour.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 20:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Though it is possible the pressure hasn't decreased (much) from 920. It could be that the pressure is about the same, but the wind speeds "caught up" to the sudden pressure drop at 115 pm CDT. It would be even more incredible if the pressure does continue to drop. —BazookaJoe 20:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
It's down to 914 mb. CrazyC83 21:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
904 mb. 5th most intense EVER as per NHC and verified by my research. The Great Zo 21:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
904 confirmed http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCUAT3+shtml/212146.shtml right there. Too lazy to wikify the link.
Now it's 898, which is [adjective]!! So much for the possibility of it maintaining 920... —BazookaJoe 00:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Could this be worse than Super Typhoon Tip and set a world record? CrazyC83 00:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Possible, but not likely. The world record is 870. It is extremely doubtful that Rita (or anyone) will top that. Gilbert may be scared though.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 00:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Katrina is now back down to 150mph, making it category 4. Nathan J. Yoder 19:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

School closings

Perhaps it would be useful to list school closings here as well. I know that most of the school districts here in Houston have cancelled school until Monday, and that the University of Houston has cancelled all classes effective at noon on the 21st, and has closed the campus offices. Thephotoman 20:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

That would get a bit tedious. Listing the evacuations orders out is a bit much as well. --Holderca1 20:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Even news outlets here in Houston are having a hard time keeping track of the growing list of ordered evacuations and school closings. Besides, it has no real bearing on the article, especially after this is all over. A lot of work for nothing, if you ask me. DMAJohnson 21:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an Encyclopia not a news outlet. While such information might be useful to people in the area; Wikipedia isn't the place for it. Peyna 21:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Evacuations are quite important; consider the Hurricane Katrina situation. School closings, however, are not, and should only be mentioned in a very general manner.--Pharos 21:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
There's so many school closings there's no point. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

"Do not decide whether to leave your house, shelter or vehicle based on Wikipedia information."

Vehicle? As if someone is accessing wikipedia on a laptop in their car during a hurricane.

An RV is a vehicle, lots of people take them to evacuate. --Holderca1 20:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
As I'm evacuating, I'm packing my laptop, power inverter, and a power strip so that I can use my computer in the car. Some of us are addicts, and won't leave our Internet connection behind when Armageddon comes. Thephotoman 20:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
When I ran from Katrina I brought my laptop. Of course, I couldn't get Internet access in the car, but I could get it at the Red Cross shelter and the hotel I spent time at.Kevin M Marshall 21:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Latest Emergency Weather Info Links

Airport Closing and Delay Link

Severe Weather Map Link AlMac|(talk) 21:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

vandalism

wtf? please stop! it is f***ing immature and stupid to be putting crazy stuff like that in a serious article, especially one frequented like this. --Revolución (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

In a similar vein I removed the bit on "THOUSANDS CHOOSE NOT TO LEAVE GALVESTON" based on the principle that Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. -- Pipian 03:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Ok, IP 68.232.90.138 needs to have someone sit down and smack him or something for vandalizing.

IP 195.194.201.97 needs a smack, too. Thank you, Artorius for correcting it. -- Earthsound 13:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, why did 161.215.18.51 delete like everything off the page? I would revert back to a previous version except i'm not exactly sure what that entails. FleetAdmiralJ 15:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Go to the history; click the timestamp of the last good version; it will bring up the out of date version of the article. Click edit; it will warn you that you are editing an out of date version. Hit save; that does it. --Golbez 15:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I also looked in the help too (duh). FleetAdmiralJ 16:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

How does one put up a vandalism alert? I was trying to fix the weirdness that this twink did, but couldn't remember how to revert, nor could I find info on alerts. Anyway, glad someone knowledgeable caught it.Deirdre 00:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

IP 72.21.122.88 needs to be banned -- Earthsound 14:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane infobox

We need to add pressure to the hurricane infobox. Ask any serious meterologist about a hurricane and the first thing she will want to know is the pressure in MB. Especially with a powerful storm like this, we need the pressure in there. I don't know how to do that but maybe someone can. 69.142.21.24 22:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

It would need to be done to ALL the infoboxes on all the pages. I think it is a good idea, but it should be done when things calm down. CrazyC83 22:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree that adding minimum pressure to the infobox is the next step. It's not that intrusive since for hurricanes that don't have it the entry would just be empty. I also think something about landfall (wind/damage/pressure) should be added to this template, but that's complicated since hurricanes may have any number (generally 0-3) landfalls. Jdorje

Also, it would be nice if SOMEONE WOULD PUT THE FRICKING RITA PICTURE BACK!!!-- User:Alexie

Infuriating, isn't it? Well, it's back now. There's not much more we can do than be vigilant... it tends to work out in the end. --Kizor 23:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Rita "Name" Background

Can we change that so its not up as high (or higher) than information that many people actually care about?

(not a rant...)

Gurukid 22:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are referring to. --Holderca1 23:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I think Gurunkid is talking about the paragraph about Roxanne being the only R besides Rita, saying it's too trivial to be the second paragraph in the article. —BazookaJoe 00:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I think it's more than just trivial. It shows that this has been an extremely active hurricane season. --tomf688{talk} 00:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Proposed merger of effects.

Given their closeness in time and location, it strikes me that it will soon become difficult to separate the respective economic, political, and social effects of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. How would my fellow editors feel about moving the articles covering these aspects for Hurricane Katrina to Economic effects of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, Political effects of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, and Social effects of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season? -- BD2412 talk 00:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

It's possible the nationwide effects could be taken together, but we still need a whole host of articles for the localized impacts. Since the effects of Rita are speculation at this point, I don't think we need the new articles now. Will we need them in a few days? Possibly, but I'd rather separate things now because these articles will fill up with information and get very large very quickly. Make separate articles for the effects of Rita when needed; after the hurricane season is over we can consider condensing things and closing articles then. To put it briefly, I think combined articles would end up way too big.Kevin M Marshall 00:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Note: I've opened a centralized discussion on this question: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/2005 Atlantic hurricane season effects. I'll copy the above comment there. -- BD2412 talk 00:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


Metric / Global units

I would to call to everyone's attention general Wikipedia policy on units of measure; in writing a global encyclopedia we must bear in mind that the majority of the world does not use imperial units. Also a problem are the timezones used - UTC should be used for all information of a general nature (Though CDT may be preserved for local information such as evacuation orders).

I find it odd that the NHC preserves archaisms like "millibars". This should be eliminated in a reference work.

Remember;

"mbar" => hPa
"inches" => inHg
"## mph (## km/h)" => ## km/h (## mph)
"### EDT (### UTC)" => ### UTC (### EDT)
I disagree, and please sign your remarks. --Golbez 01:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Here is how I would do it:
Pressure ---> ### mbar or mb (disregard inches)
Winds ---> ### mph (### km/h) - if one is not shown, calculate it in the other measurement
Distance ---> ### miles (### km)
Time ---> ### local (### UTC) - local time being EDT, CDT, AST, etc.
CrazyC83 02:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I thought WP's policy is to include the dialect of English for what the article is about. So India would use Indian English, Australia would use Australian English (and therefore metric units), and this article would use imperial units as well as American English. Of course, we should include metric units (perhaps in brackets) in this particular article, because it is a major current event, but imperial should be the favoured unit. 203.208.88.138 02:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Metric units go in the brackets. Since this storm is affecting the U.S. primarily, it should be written in U.S. style. --tomf688{talk} 02:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
With the exception of the pressure, the metric units should always go in the brackets on hurricane pages, no matter where it affects, to keep consistent... CrazyC83 03:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Millibars are the standard in meteorology, and all of the hurricane articles (except the ones about really old hurricanes) use them. They are equivalent to hPa so this shouldn't confuse users of metric (admittedly the mbar article is a bit confusing: "a millibar is defined as 1/1000 of a bar"). Jdorje 02:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Original measurements should go first, then conversions—in any article. Gene Nygaard 13:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Miles need to be specifically identified, in order to convert them properly, since both nautical miles and statute miles are used in connection with storm tracks. Gene Nygaard 12:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

If it is in nautical miles, it would be identified as such. Otherwise we use statute miles in all measurements. CrazyC83 15:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The general convention is source units first, conversions second. Bobblewik 16:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
That assumption that if nautical miles are used they will be identified as such is not a convention you can rely on. More importantly, people who do not use miles regularly are not likely to know that such a convention exists (not as likely as they are to know that nautical miles are used for this purpose, at least sometimes, which would lead them to expect that nautical miles are used here). Furthermore, many people who do use miles regularly are blissfully unaware of the distinction; you cannot count on them to make a proper identification. Gene Nygaard 16:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree. CrazyC83, it would be nice if what you said were true. A brief search shows that it is not true. Fortunately, an increasing proportion of respectable sources avoid the ambiguity of the term 'mile' by quoting km. Bobblewik 20:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

UGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH

Hurricane Gilbert never made landfall in the United states, yet this article says it did. When I went to the edit page to fix that, it didn't show up on the edit page, could someone fix this please. Fableheroesguild 02:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't see where it says Hurricane Gilbert made US landfall? --NSLE | Talk 02:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Someone fixed it. It used to say that if Rita hits at a Category 5, it would be the fifth after The Labor Day hurricane of 1935, Hurricane Cammile in 1969, Hurricane Gilbert in 1988, and Hurricane Andrew in 1992. But now it says the last hurricane to hit the U.S. at Category 5 was Hurricane Andrew in 1992Fableheroesguild 02:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Apparently someone has gone back and listed Hurricane Gilbert has hitting the US again. FleetAdmiralJ 03:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Found the problem; the Template:Category5 had listed Gilbert as hitting the US. I've put it up for deletion, as that template refers to Rita, although Rita is likely not to be the only Cat 5 anytime soon to pose a threat to land. {{Category5}} needs to be removed. -- NSLE | Talk 03:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I was wondering why there suddenly was a "this page is marked for deletion" thing on it heh. (doh it helps to be logged in) Also, can't one just...edit the template? FleetAdmiralJ 03:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Note

The paragraph beginning

"If Rita makes landfall in the United States as a Category 5 hurricane it will become one of only four Category 5 hurricanes to have hit the United States;"

directly contradicts the paragraph two before it:

It also marks only the third time in recorded history that there have been two Category 5 hurricanes in a single season; it had previously only happened in the 1960 and 1961 seasons.

Twang

No contradiction whatsoever. The first is about storms hitting the country; the second is about there being two cat 5 storms AT ALL in one season. They usually don't hit land while at cat 5; Katrina and Ivan didn't, and Rita probably won't. --Golbez 05:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Global Warming

The newscasts are starting to hit the possible global warming tie-in pretty hard. Certainly both Katrina and Rita went berserk when they hit the warm Gulf waters. I suggest a one-paragraph mention that says the link is tenuous and highly controversial and links to Effects of global warming. Simesa 12:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Factually, the Gulf of Mexico is a whole 1 (one) degree Farenheit above its average temperature. Global warming talk is certainly trendy, but not validated as being anything more than a standard statistical variation.--66.69.219.9 23:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
What CNN is showing is that as Katrina and Rita crossed the warmer spots of the Loop Current, they rapidly gained strength. Therefore a 1-degree "average" rise may be significant. Main point is, the networks address it yet we're mute on the discussion. Simesa 14:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Could link to the [BBC Article] that goes off on The Indepedent for trying to play the GW card on this. Sfnhltb 15:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Good article. It quotes: "The most recent study on the issue, published this month in the journal Science, found that while the incidence of hurricanes and tropical storms has remained roughly constant over the last 30 years, there has been a rise in the number of intense hurricanes with wind speeds above 211km/h (131mph). The leader of that research project, Dr Peter Webster, believes there may be a link to climate change." Simesa 16:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
A good, balanced article. It doesn't rule out climate change, but attacks those who rule out anything else. I think there's stronger evidence for global warming than one exceptional hurricane season - like melting polar ice caps. | KP 09:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Crawford, Texas

This is speculation but it looks like Rita could directly hit Mr Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas. I'm wondering what sort of damage is possible in Crawford given it is quite a long way inland. Auswide 13:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Minimal damage, Crawford is a couple hundred miles from the coast and is forecast to be on the left side of the storm, away from typical tornado formation in tropical cyclones. --Holderca1 19:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Mplayer Urls

KHOU Houston - mms://beloint.wm.llnwd.net/beloint_khou

Quickest Drop?

Rita has broken multiple records, being the earliest 17th named storm, the third most intense storm, and quickest drop of pressure in 1 hour.

Which drop is the quickest in one hour? Maybe note the drop in parentheses beside that? TransUtopian 19:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

This needs a reference. I saw it in one of the blogs of the NWC guys (included in the external links) but I don't think he was making an official claim. Regardless, this is a pretty useless record (I suspect) because only very rarely are measurements taken 1 hour apart. Jdorje 05:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Contradictions

The folowing text is from the first two sentences in the article:

Hurricane Rita is the 17th named storm, ninth hurricane, fifth major hurricane, and was the second Category 5 hurricane of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. This hurricane (currently Category 3)...

Later, under Current Status, it says

As of 5pm CDT, Rita is currently a Category 4 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale...

That's confusing to readers, so to someone who knows the correct numbers, please fix this? --TwilightBat 23:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

According to http://www.noaa.gov Rita will stay at 145 mph and a Category 4 for the next 36 hours. Simesa 23:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The numbers are correct and I don't see any contradictions. --Holderca1 17:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Just like the stock market, wind speeds in a hurricane can go down as well as up. Sfnhltb 15:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Records

I took some information from Wikipedia, and it got called to be incorrect. This is the corrected information:

Rita ties a record for Cat-4/5 storms hitting the U.S. - two Category 4 storms hit in 1915 (one estimated to be 4 by the strength of the winds). Source: [5] which I checked - ironically, New Orleans and Galveston were hit in 1915.

1995 had 19 named storms. The "record" is 21 in 1933 (although "The Atlantic tropical cyclone record before 1944 is likely incomplete since storms may have been missed or their intensity misclassified due to lack of satellite and aircraft monitoring.") [6], which I checked.

Simesa 01:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

CHECK OTHER EDITS BEFORE SAVING

It's annoying typing shit ten times because people can't CHECK other additions/corrections/etc before saving their own stuff.

It's also annoying when people don't sign their comments. --Holderca1 02:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Live streaming?

Is this section really needed? -- NSLE | Talk 03:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Well I added it. I think it is. It was very useful during Hurricane Katrina for people who wanted to get to local media coverage without navigating through graphic-intense pages. The idea is to have direct URL's. It seems a bit more organized pulling them out from the general external links section. Check out the Live streaming area on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina (at the bottom of the page).

IMHO anyways. Bsheppard 04:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a subsection under External Links would be more appropiate. Jobarts-Talk 07:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Organizing links

I am trying to organize some of the links on the bottom of the page... storm resources... for the hurricane enthusiasts.. I hope you all enjoy.. add as you find other links... I figure the "external links" can be for the Misc Links... Bsheppard 07:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

when is it expected to make landfall exactly?

the article doesn't say. -Lethe | Talk 10:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

That's because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Forecasts aren't necessarily correct, thus the vague "landfall sometime on September 24, somewhere between Galveston and the Texas/Louisiana border". -- NSLE | Talk 11:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Loop Current

There's a new article on the Loop Current. CNN has been showing it's effect heavily. Basically, as Katrina and Rita passed over the warm Loop Current, they rapidly increased in strength. (It may be that hurricanes that cross Florida and bend a little northwards are more likely to "ride along" the current and thus gain great strength.) I have to leave now - would someone research this? Simesa 15:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Recent images of TOPEX/Poseidon data of the Gulf loop current can be found here. There are some good images with overlays of the paths of Katrina and Rita. Might be worth adding if the copyright issue works out. -Loren 22:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Rita's power

Can someone tell me, why Rita's winds are getting slower now?

If you watch CNN, Rita has gone off the top of the Loop Current and is now over cooler water. So the storm gets weaker. Simesa 17:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
It is typical of most hurricanes that strike the northern Gulf coast. The water is a bit cooler as well as depth of the warmer water is less then the central Gulf. Hurricane Opal, Ivan, Dennis, and Katrina all weakened considerably prior to landfall.
According to the DISCUSSION part of the NHC's advisory on Rita, it discusses the wind sheer that is affecting Rita. Currently averaging 15-25 knots over the northwestern Gulf region. Bsheppard 21:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
As of the 4pm CDT advisory discussion, the weakening may have leveled off and Rita may strengthen a bit more as it enters some warmer water near the coast.. But the sheer may still hold it back from strengthening too much. Wind sheer is basically a weather phenomenon that involves upper level winds blowing over a storm and causing the storm to not be able to build high cloud tops (which lead to stronger storms). Bsheppard 21:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Good thing it did weaken. A massive Cat 5 hitting the coast would be worse then Katrina. However i think one day it may happen.

It already has, Hurricane Camille struck as a Cat 5. --Holderca1 23:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The only difference was that Camille was much smaller in size than Katrina...if Camille was as large as Katrina was at landfall, it would have been just as bad. CrazyC83 02:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
If Cammile was the size of Katrina, it still wouldn't have been as bad as Katrina or Rita hitting at their peaks because of exponential growth along the coast. Fableheroesguild 02:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Why two boxes purporting to be 'Current status'?

We have a table at the top right with a label above saying Current hurricane status. Within the box it says: See current status below..

So there are two boxes apparently with the same name. Is that how it is supposed to be? Bobblewik 21:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. It looks like the infobox at the top is more of a "just the facts" information (coordinates, wind speed, etc). The second "current status" seems to be what's in the infobox put into words (and poorly formed ones at that). Soon the current status won't be neccessary anyways.  :) Bsheppard 22:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
There is just one box, the other current status is in paragraph form in the middle of the article. --Holderca1 23:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I can't wait until this storm has gone ashore so we can get rid of this box. --tomf688{talk} 02:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, once it dissipates we won't need it...the paragraph below is a detailed version that all the information is located. CrazyC83 02:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Rita might be around for a long while still before it officially dissipates; I say this should be removed once it weakens to a tropical depression and leave the current information in the paragraph in the article. It's an eyesore! --tomf688{talk} 03:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It was created by an anon earlier today. I say it can go now. --Holderca1 05:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


Is an Eyewall Replacement Cycle starting?

I'm not a meteorologist. The eyewall looks like its collapsing. Someone should research this. Make sure this is, or is not, the start of an eye wall replacement cycle. Thank you. 24.91.176.234 01:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems like so, but it should make little difference at this point as it will have made landfall before it is completed. The pressure (931 mb) seems extremely low for a 120 mph storm (which would normally be in the 945-955 range) - are they sure the winds aren't more like 140 mph? CrazyC83 02:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
They have planes flying in and out constantly. I'm pretty sure they have a good bead on it. --tomf688{talk} 02:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree the pressure is awfully low for its category, but I think the wind is probably right. My family is sheltering at our home in Houston and right now they're getting about 35mph sustained winds and 50mph gusts. · Katefan0(scribble) 05:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

17th vs. seventeenth

Is there any reason why mentions of "seventeenth," "eighteenth," etc were reverted to numerical format? I think they look awkward as numbers. Mike H (Talking is hot) 05:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Style is to only spell out numbers 10 or smaller, unless the number is the start of a sentence. · Katefan0(scribble) 05:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
It may be a personal thing but digit format '17th' and '18th' does not look awkward to me. It is certainly commonplace. In the case of references to centuries (e.g. 17th century and 18th century), it is the default format. Furthermore, digit format is more language independent and that is important to Wikipedia which, unlike many publications, is an online international resource. Native readers of any individual language in Wikipedia should be prepared to accept a little style unfamiliarity in exchange for greater access to non-native readers of that language. This matter of generic style gets discussed occasionally at: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Bobblewik 09:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
There are certain exceptions, such as with when writing percentages the number is always numeric -- 3 percent; 17 percent. Otherwise, numbers 10 and smaller should be spelled; larger should be numeric. · Katefan0(scribble) 12:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Global Warming link

Removed the link dealing with global warming and hurricanes. This article makes no mention of Rita and is much better suited in the "Global Warming" entry which is where it lives now. Dinosaurdarrell 07:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Snow days

If anyone wants to see a copy of the email regarding Sonny Perdue's declaration of "snow days," feel free to post here and I'll copy it over. I thought it was awkward phrasing as well considering it's the fringes of summer in a Southern state, but those were his exact words.

PS Looking at the email again, it's basically an official at my boyfriend's college just repeating what Perdue said, and nothing from the Governor's office or anything. Mike H (Talking is hot) 17:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds better than "ran out of gas days" --Holderca1 20:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I suppose, but the term is so not fitting when the highs are still getting into the 80s. ;) Mike H (Talking is hot) 21:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Could Rita resurrect herself?

Notice this graphic right here [7].It suggests that Rita, once done flooding the Arklatex region, could actually slide back into the Gulf of Mexico, devoid of her moisture (which a cold front would steal and take to the Northeast and Midwest), and could redevelop! (Due to the massive high-pressure dome building over Texas, it seems the only place a reborn Rita could go is Mexico) CrazyC83 23:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

O.O let's seriously hope not, it's caused quite a bit of damage already. What's the longest lived storm so far this season? -- NSLE | Talk 00:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Gotta be Ophelia --CFIF 00:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Ophelia or Irene? CrazyC83 01:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Irene. Irene lasted 14 days as a tropical cyclone (4-18 August). Ophelia lasted 12 days (6-18 September).
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 01:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane graphic in sidebar - new or old?

After following this article for a few days, I have noticed a strong tendency of people to replace the radar graphic in the "Hurricane Rita" sidebar with updated versions. However, since the label has not changed, I have assumed that this graphic was intended to show the storm at its peak intensity, and reverted it to the version the label shows. Was this incorrect? Diagonalfish 02:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

It was reverted to a previous image near peak intensity. The same was done on the Hurricane Katrina article. --Holderca1 02:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

new orleans

before the hurricane hit land one of the big repeating on bbc news 24 was that new orleans was "filling back up" after the levys broke again. Just how much did fill back up and why is there no mention of this in the article. Plugwash 21:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Seems to be limited primarily to the hardest-hit area from Katrina (9th ward/Industrial Canal) and a few outlying villages east of town; it will set back the drainage efforts by a week or two [8] [9] but there's little property of value left to destroy by now [10] as Katrina had already damaged that section pretty much beyond repair. --carlb 09:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The Houston Evacuation Bottleneck

Someone should mention the scope of the evacuations in Houston, which happened shortly after the eye was forecasted to pass over Katy... then later it was forecasted to hit Galveston head on. There was a reason for why so many people left (including every single one of my neighbors in Northwest Houston) and that in turn created one of the largest traffic jams in history. Something like 2 million people left Houston and it was the first such mass evacuation the city ever experienced (fact check). Every single major corridor out of Houston was completely gridlocked... I-10, 45, US 59, even 249 (the route I took). People ran out of gas, cars overheated, etc. Many simply turned back because it was impossible to get out of the city. In Tomball, Magnolia, etc. there were no places to stay. Every single motel and hotel was booked a couple of days in advance of the hurricane clear up to Oklaholma City.

This is important because Houston, like Los Angeles, is a city that was built around the automobile. Had the hurricane actually passed through Houston, I'm sure at least a few evacuees would have drowned in their cars. No one is really saying how many people succumbed to heat exhaustion and dehydration.

I agree the article needs to treat this better. My own family was out on 146, 21 hours to go nowhere, turned around and headed back home since there was no gas in sight. There were at least two people who died of heat stroke on 146. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)