explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1301: File Extensions

2013-12-09T18:29:38Z

David.windsor:

The title text reference of "hand-aligned data" may refer to ASCII art. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.28|108.162.215.28]] 05:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Alan K.

I think it's also a notable point, that the better rated document formats are more data centric while the low rated formats mix text informations with design elements and finally become pure graphic formats, which often is an indication, that the author didn't use the accurate file type for (mostly) pure text informations.
Something I don't understand is the gap between jpg and jpeg. The first suffix is AFAIK only an abbreviation used by older DOS/MS Systems to fullfill the 8.3 limitation for filenames. The note about hand alignment might concern the fact, that hand alignment is more time expensive which might increase the amount of the the author spend in overthink the content before layouting. Also often automated layouting as supported by many modern writing application might lead to unexpected and sometimes wrong results, because the automatism has no semantical knowledge about the authors intention, which might lead to post processed errors
Sorry for my bad english, I'm not a natural writer
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.239|108.162.231.239]] 05:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
:"hand-aligned data" seems to me like (manually) space-indented paragraphs, perhaps even manual padding to achieve the desired justification (centering and right-and-left-margin-hugging). And of course neatly lining up an 'embedded table', perhaps originally extracted from a .csv output. Although a number of plain-text editors (in the days of CGA and pure terminal/fixedspace fonts) or text formatters and wrappers (e.g. Lynx, man-page creaters, etc) ''would'' do things like this for you. And still do. At least insofar as the justification and margining is concerned. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 08:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
If anyone has taken the time to hand align a text file (as in a README, or other info file), they want it to look attractive for people to read. Odd are you're not going to take the time to "hand pretty" the document just to be malicious. Back in the BBS days there were a large number of "online" groups who had "signature" text files which were (very probably) hand aligned, and made extensive use of extended ASCII codes to generate basic graphics. (Granted there were programs to help auto-generate "ascii art".) If you've ever seen these files you'd know. [[http://www.thuglife.org/tlv5/aabout.shtml Example 1]] - [[http://textfiles.com/piracy/NFO/ Example 2]] [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 14:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I find it interesting that .jpg and .jpeg are at different levels. Aren't those the same thing? --[[User:Mralext20|Mralext20]] ([[User talk:Mralext20|talk]]) 05:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps the .gif could contain suddenly unexpected scary/surprising frames? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.208.172|108.162.208.172]] 14:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

:That JPG/JPEG thing indeed seems strange. The more important distinction is between JPEGs that are photographs (fine) and those that are not (stupid). Also, pre-PNG, non-photograph GIFs could be just fine. And with all the accounting scandals we've seen, why would those spreadsheet formats get any credibility? -- [[User:Dfeuer|Dfeuer]] ([[User talk:Dfeuer|talk]]) 06:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
::Alongside .jpeg ('full' extension format) and .jpg (MS '8.3'-compatible extension format), I'd have expected .jpe (often full extension historically truncated on an 8.3 system), I must be honest. (And interesting that .docx doesn't co-inhabit the .doc line... or be somewhere else.) And the disparity betwixt the two versions of JPEG extension ''may'' relate to the tendency for a higher artefact-intensity of images back in the early days (when a better option than GIFs for... certain pictures... e.g. on Usenet between *nix workstations with vastly restricted bandwidths and storage capacities) compared to today's users (cameras that regularly store 10+MP pictures in low-loss JFIF files, and/or in Raw format!). But that may be a spurious or off-track reasoning on my part. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 08:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I measured the bars in photoshop to +/- 2pixels. If we scale .tex to a value of 100 like the transcript says, these are the values I get for the bar lengths (rounded to one decimal place)
.tex 100
.pdf 89.4
.csv 84.9
.txt 66.5
.svg 64.8
.xls 48.6
.doc 21.2
.png 15.1
.ppt 14.5
.jpg 3.4
.jpeg -8.4
.gif -35.8

Dunno if it is helpful - or even trusted given I'm a first time commenter - but there it is. Closer values than just estimating, though the eyeballed estimates aren't bad. Not going to adjust the actual transcript because I feel that's overstepping my bounds. {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.56}}
:Not at all, wikis are free to edit for a reason. If we didn't want new users to be editing pages, we could have turned that off long ago. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 07:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

As the information that is provided by the graph comes as png, we should probably not trust her. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.92.120|141.101.92.120]] 09:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
: Ha, +1 Like :-) [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]])

I never saw image of cute cats lying to me ... I mean, the gif is STILL the preferred format for animation, mostly because it's the only one supported. Animation formats based on PNG didn't catched up, hard to say why ... on the other hand, gif animation apparently have huge number of weird extensions, judging by the number of animated images I found which don't render properly in anything EXCEPT the browser. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
:The cute cat may not be lying, but since the format is used in other context -- like banner ads, then the average GIF may well be lying, also I believe there have been many security issues with GIFs and JPGs as they have been used as an attack vector for internet-bad-guys to take over your computer -- so while security issues is not specifically the topic for todays strip, then that may be worth noticing as well [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]])
:It is also possible to create animations with svg which is (for good reason, I like that format) ranked higher. Especially for scientific purposes it can be handy. Unfortunately is the MediaWiki software unable to show them. For example in the previous comic is an animation of the Galilean moons shown. That is an gif but someone also uploaded an [[Wikipedia:commons:File:Galilean_moon_Laplace_resonance_animation_(en_-_monochrome_-_350x217).svg|svg animation]] and I would say it does look smoother than the gif. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.215|108.162.231.215]] 14:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
:The Grumpy Cat is not grumpy in real life - so cat pictures DO lie! [[User:Schmammel|Schmammel]] ([[User talk:Schmammel|talk]]) 15:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
What is the scale of the chart? Does 'top' = most trusted'? Never assume anything with xkcd. [[User:David.windsor|David.windsor]] ([[User talk:David.windsor|talk]]) 18:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1124: Law of Drama

2013-12-06T21:36:07Z

David.windsor:

Regarding the transcript: I don't think you have enough data to characterize this short curve as exponential. What does "slightly exponential" mean, anyway? In any case, it looks like it becomes linear as the x values increase. --[[User:Prooffreader|Prooffreader]] ([[User talk:Prooffreader|talk]]) 11:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

::It could be a shallow power function curve . . .--[[User:Joehammer79|Joehammer79]] ([[User talk:Joehammer79|talk]]) 13:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

::Increasing, concave up. That's really the way to describe it. "Exponential" is a word used too widely by people who don't understand what it means. [[User:MGK|MGK]] ([[User talk:MGK|talk]]) 20:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

:I took 26 data points, assumed the axes defined a (0-1,0-1) window, and tried an extrapolation (using Microsoft Excel; someone with a different tool can surely do better). An exponential model fits fairly well: y = 0.0782 * e^(2.7035*x) with R^2 = 0.9928. However, I agree about the linear end section -- the exponential trendline clearly starts to pull high. --BigMal27 // [[Special:Contributions/192.136.15.149|192.136.15.149]] 13:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I think Randall thought about the shape of this curve. You see how it becomes linear as both drama and anti-drama declaration increase? At low values, there is a residual amount of drama even when there is little anti-drama declaration, but the marginal increase eventually becomes constant. --[[User:Prooffreader|Prooffreader]] ([[User talk:Prooffreader|talk]]) 11:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

:I think that may be it. Care to add it to the page? [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]] ([[User talk:Davidy22|talk]]) 11:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

:I think that the upper limit for drama statements does indeed have an end-point, beyond which those declarations can't increase. At that point, I suppose, the drama-ridden person experiences a split state-change, either dropping to the original non-drama state by disavowing all the causers-of-drama in their lives, or by becoming a causer-of-drama.--[[User:Noni Mausa|Noni Mausa]] ([[User talk:Noni Mausa|talk]]) 13:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

:: At this point in the discourse, I'm reminded of a real-scientist friend who admonished me once for reading too much into some data, and it seems applicable here, too. To wit: the axes are not labeled with units -- no tick marks to be seen anywhere -- nor is it clear what sort of axes are in use: log, {{w|logit}}, {{w|probit}}? Randall, not being the naïve sort, likely understands this, and merely shows us a graph that suggest a slightly accelerating direct relationship between the two axes. If the axes are linear, the curve has the characteristic upward swing of an exponential, but we don't ''know'' that, and any conjecture beyond observable facts is inappropriate. To leap to application of, say {{w|Levenberg-Marquardt}}, seems folly. (As an aside, I'm reminded of the old Benny Hill skit, where he's a movie director being interviewed on some talking-heads show; says the interviewer: "I particularly enjoyed the poignancy of suddenly switching to black and white film right as..." Benny Hill: "Rubbish, we just ran out of film, and black and white was all we had left.") -- [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 14:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to figure out how the title text could make sense grammatically, but now I think it was just written in the form of a vague, 'dramatic', facebook post. Is it just me? [[User:Alanthecowboy|Alanthecowboy]] ([[User talk:Alanthecowboy|talk]]) 13:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

As someone that has been through several drama classes, as well as a high school club, I've always found the phrases "causing drama" and "too much drama" to be really irritating. You can never have too much drama! (You can have too much comedy, though.) [[Special:Contributions/76.122.5.96|76.122.5.96]] 19:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The title is probably influenced by the concept of dharma from Indian philosophy- the "natural law". [[Special:Contributions/87.57.147.173|87.57.147.173]] 11:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC) mb

If we can figure out who "They" are, we'll have this solved in a jiffy. [[User:David.windsor|David.windsor]] ([[User talk:David.windsor|talk]]) 21:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:200: Bill Nye

2013-12-06T20:47:15Z

David.windsor: Created page with "Seems to be complete to me. ~~~~"

Seems to be complete to me. [[User:David.windsor|David.windsor]] ([[User talk:David.windsor|talk]]) 20:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1126: Epsilon and Zeta

2013-12-06T20:42:22Z

David.windsor:

Official hurricane discussions for [http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/EPSILON.shtml EPSILON] and [http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/ZETA.shtml ZETA] are here. I did read these discussions back when Randall [http://blog.xkcd.com/2011/08/29/for-the-small-handful-of-hurricane-geeks-out-there made a blag post] poking at them [[User:Odysseus654|Odysseus654]] ([[User talk:Odysseus654|talk]]) 16:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Does this have anything to do with the Italians convicting a bunch of scientists for failing to predict an earthquake? [[Special:Contributions/156.110.38.82|156.110.38.82]] 16:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

:Link? [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 18:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
:: It was all over the news, but here's [http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/10/22/163400917/italy-finds-scientists-guilty-of-manslaughter-for-2009-earthquake-forecast one account]. I wonder if there are jurists in the Italian legal system aware of how much of a laughing stock this is making them. -- [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 04:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

xkcd 980 (Money) also mentioned the fact that forecast accuracy has improved significantly: "Cost of hurricane forecast improvement funding since 1989: $440 million. Economic savings -- during Hurricane Irene alone -- due to limiting evacuations made possible by recent forecast advances: $700 million." [[User:S|S]] ([[User talk:S|talk]]) 00:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I smile and occasionally chuckle at online comics, but this one had me guffawing with delight.--[[User:Noni Mausa|Noni Mausa]] ([[User talk:Noni Mausa|talk]]) 13:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Good work to whoever linked the entire transcript! [[User:Trek7553|Trek7553]] ([[User talk:Trek7553|talk]]) 21:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I've added the rest of Zeta's saga, and added links in the transcript to each NHC message. Recommend the Quotes section be removed.
[[User:David.windsor|David.windsor]]

1126: Epsilon and Zeta

2013-12-06T20:34:05Z

David.windsor: /* Transcript */ Added links to each NHC advisories, Added ZETA transcript and links. corrected spelling

{{comic
| number = 1126
| date = October 26, 2012
| title = Epsilon and Zeta
| image = epsilon and zeta.png
| titletext = The average error in the NHC forecasted position of a hurricane three days in the future has shrunk to a third of what it was in 1990--a staggering accomplishment. However, as you may have gathered, forecasts of future storm *strength* have proved more difficult to improve.
}}

==Explanation==

[[Randall]] is imagining the situation in the National Hurricane Center towards the end of 2005 (and the 2005 hurricane season). The monospaced text in most of the panels is material taken from actual NHC reports [http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.026.shtml][http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.027.shtml][http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.028.shtml] from that season. The commentary has been edited to fit the comic's format, but it's otherwise faithful to the actual reports.

The [http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al302005.discus.030.shtml last report of the 2005 season] was issued on January 6, 2006.

A full analysis of the 2005 hurricane season can be found [http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/lib1/nhclib/mwreviews/2005.pdf here].

Randall [[453|has discussed]] the seemingly erratic nature of hurricanes before. This may, however, have been a response to the recent {{w|Hurricane Sandy}}.

===Sources for quotes===

Not atypical of Randall's sense of humor, the quotes in this comic came from real weather advisories.

[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.001.shtml "<...> TROPICAL STORM EPSILON...THE 26TH NAMED STORM OF THE APPARENTLY NEVER ENDING 2005 ATLANTIC HURRICANE SEASON."]

[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.007.shtml "<...> THE WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY FOR STRENGTHENING SHOULD CLOSE IN 12-24 HR."]

[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.010.shtml "SLOW BUT STEADY WEAKENING IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN IN 12-24 HOURS <...>"]

[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.012.shtml "EPSILON DOES NOT APPEAR WEAKER <...>"]

[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.013.shtml "EPSILON HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO A 65-KT HURRICANE."]

[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.018.shtml "EPSILON HAS CONTINUED TO STRENGTHEN AGAINST ALL ODDS <...> EPSILON CAN NOT MAINTAIN THE CURRENT INTENSITY MUCH LONGER SINCE THE ENVIRONMENT IS BECOMING INCREASINGLY UNFAVORABLE."]

[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.019.shtml "EPSILON MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT STILL BE A HURRICANE... BUT IN ANY CASE IT LIKELY WILL NOT BE ONE ON SUNDAY..."]

[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.020.shtml "<...> EPSILON IS DOWNGRADED TO A TROPICAL STORM <...>"]

[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.021.shtml "<...> MORNING SATELLITE IMAGES INDICATE THAT EPSILON HAS RESTRENGTHENED. <...> THERE ARE NO CLEAR REASONS...AND I AM NOT GOING TO MAKE ONE UP...TO EXPLAIN THE RECENT STRENGTHENING OF EPSILON AND I AM JUST DESCRIBING THE FACTS. HOWEVER...I STILL HAVE TO MAKE AN INTENSITY FORECAST AND THE BEST BET AT THIS TIME IS TO PREDICT WEAKENING <...> EPSILON WILL LIKELY BECOME A REMNANT LOW. I HEARD THAT BEFORE ABOUT EPSILON...HAVEN'T YOU?"]

[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.026.shtml "THE CLOUD PATTERN CONTINUES TO BE REMARKABLY WELL-ORGANIZED FOR A HURRICANE AT SUCH HIGH LATITUDE IN DECEMBER."]

[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.027.shtml "WE HAVE SAID THIS BEFORE <...> BUT EPSILON REALLY DOES NOT APPEAR AS STRONG THIS EVENING AS IT DID THIS AFTERNOON."] (this is likely the only case where the text was changed a bit from its original meaning. The original quote reads: "WE HAVE SAID THIS BEFORE AT TIMES DURING THE PAST SEVERAL NIGHTS... ONLY TO HAVE EPSILON MAKE A COMEBACK THE FOLLOWING MORNING... BUT EPSILON REALLY DOES NOT APPEAR AS STRONG THIS EVENING AS IT DID THIS AFTERNOON.")

[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.028.shtml "I HAVE RUN OUT OF THINGS TO SAY..."]

[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.031.shtml "THE END IS IN SIGHT. IT REALLY REALLY IS. BUT IN THE MEANTIME... EPSILON CONTINUES TO MAINTAIN HURRICANE STATUS."]

[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.032.shtml "THE END IS IN SIGHT...YES...BUT NOT QUITE YET. I THOUGHT I WAS GOING TO FIND A WEAKENING SYSTEM AND INSTEAD I FOUND THAT EPSILON IS STILL A HURRICANE."]

[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.037.shtml "CONVECTION HAS VANISHED AND EPSILON IS NOW A TIGHT SWIRL OF LOW CLOUDS. <...> I HOPE THIS IS THE END OF THE LONG LASTING 2005 HURRICANE SEASON."]

''Missing Zeta quotes TBD''

==Transcript==
:Caption: The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season saw devastating storms like Katrina and Rita. But less well-remembered is just how ''strange'' the season got toward the end. The forecasters at the National Hurricane Center are the best of the best. Their predictions are masterpieces of professional analysis. But in November 2005, out in the center of the Atlantic -- far from any land -- the atmosphere stopped making sense. And the forecasters -- who'd expected the season to be long over by now -- started to get a little ... unhinged. This is their story, as seen through the actual 2005 NHC advisories:

:Tuesday, November 29th, 2005:
:Tropical storm Epsilon... The 26th named storm of apparently never ending 2005 Atlantic hurricane season.[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.001.shtml]

:10 PM Wed: The window of opportunity for strengthening should close in 12-24 hr.[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.007.shtml]

:4 PM Thu: Slow but steady weakening is expected to begin in 12-24 hours.[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.010.shtml]

:4 AM Fri: Epsilon does not appear weaker.[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.012.shtml]
:10 AM Fri: Epsilon has been upgraded to a 65-kt hurricane.[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.013.shtml]

:4 PM Sat: Epsilon has continued to strengthen against all odds ... [but] can not maintain the current intensity much longer since the environment is becoming increasingly unfavorable.[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.018.shtml]
:10 PM Sat: Epsilon might or might not still be a hurricane ... but in any case it likely will not be one on Sunday.[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.019.shtml]

:4 AM Sun: Epsilon is downgraded to a tropical storm.[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.020.shtml]
:10 AM Sun: Morning satellite images indicate that Epsilon has restrengthened.
:There are no clear reasons ... and I am not going to make one up ... to explain the recent strengthening of Epsilon and I am just describing the facts.
:However ... I still have to make an intensity forecast and the best bet at this time is to predict weakening ... Epsilon will likely become a remnant low.
:I heard that before about Epsilon ... haven't you?[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.021.shtml]

:4 PM Mon: The cloud pattern continues to be a remarkably well-organized for a hurricane at such high latitude in December.[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.026.shtml]
:10 PM Mon: We have said this before ... but Epsilon really does not appear as strong this evening as it did this afternoon.[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.027.shtml]

:4 AM Tue: I have run out of things to say.[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.028.shtml]
:10 PM Tue: The end is in sight. It really really is. But in the meantime ... Epsilon continues to maintain hurricane status.[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.031.shtml]

:4 AM Wed: The end is in sight ... yes ... but not quite yet. I thought I was going to find a weakening system and instead I found that Epsilon is still a hurricane.[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.032.shtml]

:10 AM Thu: Convection has vanished and Epsilon is now a tight swirl of low clouds.
:I hope this is the end of the long lasting 2005 hurricane season.[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al292005.discus.037.shtml]

:Nope.

:ENTER TROPICAL STORM ZETA
:Friday, December 30th, 2005: An elongated area of low pressure ... which had its origins in an old frontal trough ... began developing organized convection overnight. Advisories are initiated on the 27th tropical storm of 2005.[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al302005.discus.001.shtml]

:ANY NEW STORMS WOULD BE IN THE 2006 SEASON
:4 PM Fri: Although the atmosphere seems to want to develop tropical storms ad nauseam ... the calendar will shortly put an end to the use of the Greek alphabet to name them.[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al302005.discus.002.shtml]

:BUT 2005's WOULDN'T END UNTIL ZETA DID.
:10 PM Sat: Zeta appeared on the verge of losing all of its deep convection a few hours ago... but since about 21z the convection has been on somewhat of an increase again.[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al302005.discus.007.shtml]

:10 PM Sun: This is like Epsilon all over again. most of the conventional guidance suggested that Zeta should have been dissipated by now...well it is not indeed...and Zeta is pretty much alive at this time. ... I have no choice but to forecast weakening again and again.[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al302005.discus.011.shtml]

:4 AM Mon: By 24-36 hours... a significant increase in westerly winds... should act to shear away most of the associated convection... and finally bring the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season to a merciful ending.[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al302005.discus.012.shtml]

:4 PM Mon: It is hard to conceive that a tropical cyclone will be able to survive for very long in such a hostile environment. Therefore I have not backed off on the forecast of weakening. (of course...Zeta may have other ideas.)[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al302005.discus.014.shtml]

:10 PM Mon: Zeta is stronger than yesterday.[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al302005.discus.015.shtml]

:10 AM Wed: As you can see...I ran out things to say.[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al302005.discus.021.shtml]

:4 AM Thu: Satellite intensity estimates have decreased ... Zeta is downgraded to a 30 kt tropical depression.[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al302005.discus.024.shtml]

:10 AM Thu: Shortly after the previous advisory had been issued ... regretfully...the intensity increased to 35 kt and Zeta is a tropical storm once again.[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al302005.discus.025.shtml]

:10 PM Thu: Although it seems as if Zeta will never die...the forecast continues to show weakening.[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al302005.discus.027.shtml]

:4 PM, Friday, January 6, 2006: Zeta no longer meets the criteria of a tropical cyclone... which means that both it and the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season have ended. ... this is the National Hurricane Center signing off for 2005 (... finally.)[http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al302005.discus.030.shtml]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Hurricanes]]