Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season

Template:Hurricane

Please remember to sign your comments using "~~~~"! (This request includes anonymous users.) Discussion should be limited to this article and related articles. Please keep off-topic discussion to a minimum.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

Monthly Event Archives: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, June, July, August
Storm Event Archives: Alberto, Beryl, Chris, Debby, Ernesto
Specialized Discussion: ACE calcs, Zeta, Re: AoIs

Other Basin Talkpages: Atlantic - W. Pacific - E. Pacific - S. Hemisphere - N. Indian

September

Week 1

98L.INVEST

New Invest up. [1] --Ajm⁸¹ 18:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the most southerly of the two waves in the Mid-Atlantic? Pobbie Rarr 18:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. It has about 24-48 hours before it clears the SAL. CrazyC83 01:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dvorak estimates now T1.0/1.0. -- WmE 12:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's starting to look a little better organizes Hello32020 20:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, convection is increasing though but it is till loosely organized. --IrfanFaiz 00:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gone!! Merged with 90L. -- WmE 13:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

99L.INVEST

Just appeared. -- WmE 13:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's in a better location for development than 98L but less organized. I'd watch it closely though. CrazyC83 17:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Convection has decreased though, looks like it is undergoing the poof stage. --IrfanFaiz 00:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invests galore! This is obviously the one to watch though. Pobbie Rarr 01:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recon's scheduled for 1545Z.

I.  ATLANTIC REQUIREMENTS
 1. SUSPECT AREA (CARIBBEAN SEA)
  A. 03/2100Z
  B. 01HHA INVEST
  C. 03/1545Z
  D. 16.0N 067.0W
  E. 03/2000Z TO 04/0000Z
  F. SFC TO 10,000 FT

– Ch acor 15:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recon called off. Not well organized. Still at least 24 hours from becoming a depression IMO, should it get that far. CrazyC83 15:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gone! -- RattleMan 01:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

06L.Florence

90L.INVEST

Here's another one. bob rulz 20:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is certainly something. 3 invests in 26 hours, and some disturbed weather east of FL (though that looks to be like an upper-low, but we'll see). Dare I say, the season is finally waking up? -Runningonbrains 00:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this blob will do much though. Dry air will get to it. CrazyC83 03:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dvorak estimates now T1.5/1.5! -- WmE 13:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NHC is now calling for the possibility of a tropical depression later today out of this one. Jake52 My talk 14:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THE AREA OF LOW PRESSURE LOCATED ABOUT 1500 MILES EAST OF THE LESSER 
ANTILLES CONTINUES TO IMPROVE IN ORGANIZATION AS IT MOVES 
NORTHWESTWARD AT ABOUT 10 TO 15 MPH. IF THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT 
TREND CONTINUES...ADVISORIES ON THIS SYSTEM WILL BE INITIATED THIS 
AFTERNOON.

-- WmE 15:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We could have TWO new depressions before the Labor Day weekend is through! Perhaps Florence and Gordon soon! 98L just adds fuel to the fire to 90L... CrazyC83 15:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

06L.NONAME

Just appeared!!! -- WmE 18:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(pokes the sizzling atlantic) Wow this is amazing. Hello32020 18:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know September is here when these blobs develop this fast. I think it will quickly become Florence. CrazyC83 18:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here comes the hurricane!... --§ Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody _{(talk + contribs + userboxes)} 19:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless shear picks up or she decides to take the same path as Ernesto... CrazyC83 19:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is by far the most impressive looking TD or weak TS of the season.--Code1390 19:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The one that became Debby looked quite good. It looks like T.D. #6 should become Florence pretty easily. After that, who knows. The key is the central Atlantic trough. Thegreatdr 20:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Depression Six

Confirmation by the NHC! -- WmE 20:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second Cape Verde system - will this be another Cape Verde dud like Debby? The track is more conducive to steady (although not exactly rapid) intensification... CrazyC83 20:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Water temperatures seem perfect for TD 6, but if shear or dry air comes, it may be just a bare tropical storm like Debby and Chris. --§ Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody _{(talk + contribs + userboxes)} 21:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should I also upload an image for TD 6 or wait until it becomes a TS? --§ Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody _{(talk + contribs + userboxes)} 22:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold off on uploading a sat image and just use the 5-day forecast track, like we've been doing. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 23:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks a lot like Hurricane Andrew did at this time...although obviously I'd prefer another Debby! 128.84.139.122 22:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of storms look like Andrew did at this time. Only one became Andrew. Really, people, stop masturbating over what you think a storm might do in ten days - the forecast quality is only good for three days. That's it. Three days. In three days, neither will it be Andrew, nor will it be anywhere near Florida. The seven day forecast said Ioke was going to hit Tokyo as a category 3 storm; the three day says it will miss completely. Which was more accurate? Hell, the three-day said Rita was going to hit Houston. There's no point to making comments like this, unless you want it to become an Andrew. (the disclaimer you added doesn't change that). But regardless of if you want it to be Andrew, the fact is: You don't know. No one will know if it's remotely like Andrew for over a week. --Golbez 22:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Word. It may not even keep to the cone: just look at Ernesto. Having said that, it is very likely to drift ever westward. We'll have a better idea later in the week. Personally I think 99L still takes priority... Pobbie Rarr 23:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL makes this a 137 kt Cat 5 in 126 hrs. Sorry, I'm to lazy to post a link.--Code1390 00:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't GDFL the model known to exaggerate things? Anyway, if this things does reach a Cat 5, plenty of people on the predictions page will be happy with thier predictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fableheroesguild (talk • contribs)

Actually, a lot of models tend to over-exaggerate things. bob rulz 01:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I made a pre-season prediction that Florence would be this year's Cape-Verde monster storm. However, given that I also predicted a hyperactive August (of which Florence was to be part) you can safely discount anything I say. ;)

Seriously, predicting a Cat. 5 this early is a fool's game. Pobbie Rarr 01:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL certaintly seems to be acting odd lately. The fact that it overexaggerated Ioke's strength (seriously, 200+ mph and 860 mbar???) made it lose a bit of credibility on my end, but I still place my trust in it. Jake52 My talk 01:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With Ioke, the GFDL wasn't being run with its full coupled ocean model, so it was certainly overexaggerating. I don't know if that is affecting the runs on Six, but even the GFS is/was calling for Six to be a powerful storm (and then recurve out to sea). —BazookaJoe 02:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ioke situation made sense though, the GFDL wasn't designed for the Central Pacific, it was handling indicators incorrectly, etc. Maybe it was even bouncing things off the dateline like UK MET. --Golbez 02:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the problems with ocean coupling apparently was a factor after all, according to Pasch — "WE BELIEVE THAT THIS PARTICULAR RUN OF THE GFDL MODEL HAD A HIGH INTENSITY BIAS DUE TO PROBLEMS WITH THE OCEAN COUPLING." —BazookaJoe 02:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! Number six seems to be on the warpath, User:Cyclone1 better keep this storm to a very close watch to this depression. --§ Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody _{(talk + contribs + userboxes)} 06:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a long way out. CrazyC83 16:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that TD6 is comfortable in its current state. Doesn't seem to want to strengthen or weaken. How long will such last? Shear is expected to drop to virtually nothing, and dry air isn't that great. CrazyC83 04:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now they're saying it shouldn't strengthen for another two days... if it makes it that far. Don't be surprised if it turns out to be yet another dud in 2006. Pobbie Rarr 11:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Florence

It's up to 40mph at the 11am advisory - we have Florence! CrazyC83 14:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She's going to be a fish-spinner. :( -24.92.41.95 14:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why the frown? Fish-spinners are good. Though there is no indication that this one will be. I have no faith in there 120 hr projections. Ernesto and John came no where close to the 120 hr projections. --Holderca1 15:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt it will be a fish at this point...it only has one escape route (between Bermuda and the US East Coast). CrazyC83 15:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Florence is a big storm. TS force winds currently extend outward 115 miles from the center. -- WmE 16:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this thing will be formidable if it becomes a major hurricane (or even a minimal hurricane). bob rulz 20:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

115 miles? Whoa... that's pretty big for such a disorganized system. I agree completley, the 120 hr prediction is not much to plan by. Look at it, it's easily 1000 miles from end to end! (the prediction cone, not Florence... that would be cool though.) →Cyclone1→ 22:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, BTW, thanks for the concern up there Alastor Moody. I imagine if it does hit, I'm not goin anywhere. I'm pretty stubborn. Lol. →Cyclone1→ 22:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look poorly-organized. Even if it's a fishy, it can send heavy surf to coastlines, if it passed very close to a coastline. --IrfanFaiz 23:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have made a deformed center. Florence could be a catastrophe if it ever strengthens into a hurricane and hit land. --§ Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody _{(talk + contribs + userboxes)} 00:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could say that about any potential hurricane. Anyway, unlike Ernesto land interaction is unlikely to stop Florence from strengthening. She might end up a fish-spinner, but with a cone like that you have to take it seriously. Pobbie Rarr 01:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also unlike Ernesto, she is not in a position where she could go into rapid intensification easily if she changed course unexpectedly...but she has time on her side. CrazyC83 15:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like she's choking off 91L. I hadn't looked at full-basin satellite imagery before now....this thing is huge! -Runningonbrains 15:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical storm winds extend out nearly 300 miles! CrazyC83 15:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the tropical storm-force wind field is about the same size as Katrina's now. Wow. Pobbie Rarr 15:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The CMC model takes a major hurricane (Cat 4?) into Newfoundland after a direct hit on Bermuda...it seems to be the most aggressive... CrazyC83 16:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, the wind field is not very symmetrical. Most of the winds are in the NE quadrant. --Holderca1 17:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sandbox article is at User:CrazyC83/Florence06, even though it will likely be several days at least (and at hurricane strength) before it is necessary. CrazyC83 15:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say, once hurricane watches go up for Bermuda, the article can go live. A hurricane watch should trigger a flood of news information. --Holderca1 18:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go: OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF HOURS CONVECTION HAS ALSO BEEN INCREASING OVER THE NOW-OBSCURED CLOUD SWIRL...AND THIS MAY BE THE BEGINNING OF A MORE SUBSTANTIAL INTENSIFICATION.

and

TOWARD THE END OF THE FORECAST PERIOD...GUIDANCE IS ALSO IN GOOD AGREEMENT THAT FLORENCE...ALREADY A LARGE CYCLONE...WILL GET EVEN LARGER. This is one hell of a storm already. bob rulz 21:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, it does not look like it will strike land, though a shift slightly westward in the track would bring it dangerously close to the Mid-Atlantic and especially New England. —Cuiviénen 22:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget about Bermuda. —BazookaJoe 00:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Bermuda counts as land. If it follows the current projected path, Bermuda would be on the right side of the storm as well. --Holderca1 18:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...FLORENCE IS AN UNUSUALLY LARGE TROPICAL CYCLONE WITH TROPICAL STORM FORCE WINDS EXTENDING OUTWARD UP TO 405 MILES... --Holderca1 20:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even bigger now....diameter of 900 NMI. Everyone (Bermuda excepted) is going to dodge a bullet here. If this impacted land, well, it's no Tip but I can't ever remember an Atlantic storm storm this big. I seem to remember Hurricane Edouard (1996) being pretty huge...anyone else?

If I remember correctly, the Great Atlantic Hurricane of 1944 had a diameter of 600 miles for hurricane force winds, and for some reason I remember Hugo (1988) and Carla (1961) as also being very large systems (but none of the details, unfortunately). 147.70.242.40 22:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm force winds now extending 405 miles from the center. Weatherman90 23:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could be the most gigantic storm of the season... --§ Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody _{(talk + contribs + userboxes)} 00:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the '44 cane takes the cake with a 300 mile 64kt radius....too bad there are no 34-kt radii from back then, it may well have rivaled Tip. I know they mentioned that Florence should grow larger, are they forecasting further growth? (I havent been keeping up on NHC discussions) -Runningonbrains 01:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a note related to the article, what is with the discrepency in storm size? The Public Advisory states that the maximum 34-kt radius is 405 miles, while the discussion says that the wind field is more than 900 nautical miles in diameter (450 nmi radius). Now, 450 nautical miles is more than 500 miles, and conversely 405 miles is about 350 nautical miles. Anyone have any idea what caused this NHC goof (if it is a goof) or where the discrepency is coming from? I'm going to change the article for now given the doubt as to the true measurement.

The wind field does not necessarily mean the radius of tropical storm force winds. The wind field probably includes all winds related to the storm, including sub-TS strength (eg. 30 mph winds from the storm). Hurricanehink (talk) 01:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought they used 34-kt winds to define the size of a storm...-Runningonbrains 02:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind what I said, then. I have no idea about the discrepency. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avila is baffled as to why Florence hasn't strengthened, just like he was baffled as to why Epsilon didn't weaken. The 2006 season seems to be all about under-forecasting as opposed to over-forecasting in 2005. Anyhow, the size alone is a major concern - the possibility of a hurricane as strong as Fabian but much larger hitting Bermuda is very real. Pobbie Rarr 03:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get why all the baffling? Until this evening, conditions were NOT great for strengthening. Shear was significant then, but has since dropped. It is definitely better organized than it was this afternoon, and I think it is now actually stronger than it way (it could have been overestimated then). CrazyC83 03:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually gonna go with baffling right now. There's no reason it shouldnt have strengthened by now. -Runningonbrains 11:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 5AM discussion mentions that strengthening is taking longer to occur due to the large circulation. List of notable tropical cyclones#Size extremes says Tip was the largest at 1350 miles, though I'd be interested in knowing the largest Atlantic TC. I'm a bit surprised that they don't know why a particular computer model is predicting something. Don't they have access to the projection's programming or the people who do? "FOR SOME UNKNOWN REASON...THE FSU SUPERENSEMBLE SIGNIFICANTLY STRENGTHENS FLORENCE AFTER RECURVATURE OCCURS." TransUtopian 12:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being a model of extreme complexity, any weather forecast model can sometimes produce unexpected or unrealistic results if some random combination of variables occurs. It will probably right itself by the next run. -Runningonbrains 14:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: LAST TWO VISIBLE SATELLITE IMAGES PRIOR TO SENDING THIS
ADVISORY SUGGESTS THAT THE CLOUD PATTERN IS A LITTLE BETTER
ORGANIZED AND THE CENTER APPEARS TO BE TUCKED INTO THE CONVECTION.
IF THIS TREND TOWARD ORGANIZATION CONTINUES...SCIENCE WILL HAVE
PREVAILED.

– Ch acor 14:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I thought it would. At this time yesterday, it looked pretty much dead. The dry air is finally gone too. Should be a really interesting Storm History section in the end explaining everything! CrazyC83 15:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found the discussion note amusing... though I'm not sure exactly what it means. What does it mean? (PS: Thanks, Runningonbrains, for the previous explanation. Nice username too.) TransUtopian 16:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what happens in the short term, this is going to be one monster of an extratropical storm. --Holderca1 18:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes. Europe may need to actually moniter this. But that's way down the road. In the short term, Florence, even if she misses Bermuda by even 100 miles or so, is large enough to cause extensive damage on the island. I don't even want to think about the damage that would come from a well estalished hurricane of that size striking Bermuda nearly head on. Remind anyone of anything? →Cyclone1→ 19:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane watch up for Bermuda. --Holderca1 20:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

50kt/997mb now on NRL. This should be official at the next advisory. It looks like Florence is finally on a strengthening trend. Is this an eye? [2]? Pobbie Rarr 02:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, 55kt/994mb in fact. Here we go (P.S. you were lightning-quick with the update, Crazy :)). Pobbie Rarr 03:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Actually 65 mph, gosh she's sure re-generating, may be a hurricane tommorow. Bermuda better be on the look out or else its *holds out his hand and gives the death signal*. Could be a wipe-out too. --§ Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody _{(talk + contribs + userboxes)} 03:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Senseless comments go elsewhere. – Ch acor 03:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would use WP:Civil, except I do agree with Chacor. While I understand that Alastor was saying that Bermuda should prepare in his own special, clever way, his way was not really a proper one for this discussion.Also, I don't want to wave rules and start fights and have it turn out my rule-throwing was unfounded and then I look like an idiot.guitarhero777777 05:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't want to be on Bermuda over the next few days. Iorek85 03:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That thing is huge, as big as Frances. But if it becomes a hurricane, it'll be larger. --IrfanFaiz 10:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably bigger (than Frances), actually. It's nearly the size of Floyd![3] Wouldn't surprise me to see the biggest storm of the season out of this. Actually, it would surprise me if this weren't the biggest of the season. →Cyclone1→ 12:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, TS winds extend outward from the eye 345 miles. That's nearly a 700 mile across monster. →Cyclone1→ 12:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T4.0/4.0 =65 kts. Newest models have it as a 70 mph TS with 992 mbar (NRL). It's approaching hurricane strength. -- WmE 13:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The advisory supports that too. This thing is a beast and if it's not a hurricane already, it soon will be. NHC says all satellite intensity estimates point to hurricane strength, but that the storm appears too ragged for them to upgrade it and they want to make sure those estimates aren't rain-contaminated. A Hurricane Hunter will have the answer later this afternoon. If the current forecast holds true, this could be Bermuda's worst since Fabian in '03. Closest approach is forecast to be at 8 am Monday while at peak intensity (now forecast to be 105 mph; Cat 2). That's not going to be a good day in paradise. Monday, by the way, is the fifth anniversary of the September 11th attacks and if this thing hits at 8 am as forecast, I'm going to be severely creeped out. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 18:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recon doesn't support a hurricane. In fact it didn't strengthen at all. They have only found windspeeds that would support a 45 kt TS. -- WmE 18:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? The recon hasn't even sent its results back yet. The 2 pm advisory still says 70 mph. [4] -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 18:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't belive me look at that: [5] and you'll find the latest vortex. sying 58kt flight level winds which corresponds to about 45 kt surface winds. -- WmE 18:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Florence is the storm that refuses to strengthen. In the NW quadrant, the storgest one, they just found 59 kt flight level winds. What an odd storm!! -- WmE 18:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the NRL is forecasting Florence to peak at the upper-end of Category 1 strength. --§ Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody _{(talk + contribs + userboxes)} 21:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have had more than enough confirmation that intensity forecasts are terrible! Knabb/Blake seem puzzled at the 11PM advisory and even Dr. Masters said, "Florence has begun the long-expected intensification phase that was forecast for the past week, much to the relief of hurricane forecasts who worried that their basic understanding of hurricane intensification processes was flawed. ([6])" and he said this prior to its weakening AGAIN. The exact opposite of what Epsilon and Wilma did. Let me leave you with a blurb from Knabb/Blake's 11PM discussion "SATELLITE PICTURES INDICATE THAT FLORENCE IS POSSIBLY STRENGTHENING TONIGHT. A ROUND CENTRAL DENSE OVERCAST FORMED OVER THE APPARENT CENTER... AND EARLIER MICROWAVE IMAGES SHOW THE POSSIBLE FORMATION OF AN EYE. HOWEVER... RECENTLY THE CLOUD PATTERN HAS BECOME ELONGATED FROM NORTH TO SOUTH AND CLOUD TOPS HAVE WARMED. IN ADDITION...A QUIKSCAT PASS AT 2238 UTC DID NOT SHOW ANY WIND SPEEDS GREATER THAN 50 TO 55 KT. ALTHOUGH DVORAK SATELLITE CLASSIFICATIONS SUPPORT HURRICANE INTENSITY... THE INITIAL INTENSITY WILL BE HELD AT 55 KT. FLORENCE HAS FOOLED US BEFORE AND IT IS BEST TO WAIT FOR AN AIR FORCE RESERVE RECONNAISSANCE AIRCRAFT THAT WILL BE IN THE AREA IN A COUPLE OF HOURS. ([7])." The great kawa 03:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article split

While I don't recommend it at this moment, I do when a watch goes out for Bermuda. The storm history alone could almost get an article out of it (I have some more to write on the sandbox) and then we will have preparations and impact beginning. Not to mention Atlantic Canada down the road... CrazyC83 17:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur once the watch goes up. --Holderca1 17:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, officials plan to issue a tropical storm warning within 24 hours, not a hurricane anything. [8] What if Florence doesn't become a hurricane until after passing near Bermuda? Hurricanehink (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would make it a very interesting storm. I don't think many storms have ever strengthened after re-curving in that part of the Atlantic. But, Florence is BIG. Bermuda could still get flooded. →Cyclone1→ 19:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Alex (2004) and Hurricane Ellen (1973) are the only two that come to mind. -Runningonbrains 20:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it doesn't become a hurricane, Bermuda is looking at tropical storm force winds for 2+ days. I looked at that link and there is nothing in there that says it will be a tropical storm warning. They just say a warning. --Holderca1 19:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't ever think Florence will be a hurricane. All she does is get fatter and fatter rather than getting on some wind speed muscles. Florence must be having a cholesterol problem. --§ Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody _{(talk + contribs + userboxes)} 01:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you say that? It looks like it's strengthening to me. bob rulz 05:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the worst is coming true...the CDO is exploding, nothing to hinder development in its way, and models tightly clustered on a direct impact on Bermuda as a significant hurricane. With the hurricane watch now out, I say split the article; given major news agencies have stories on preparation there shouldnt be a problem making the article substantial. -Runningonbrains 07:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say we wait for the 5 a.m. (and possibly 11 a.m.) advisories just in case it weakens. Recon didn't find a lot. – Ch acor 08:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fair to create it now, since we have TSWs. However, it must have enough info to justify its existence. – Ch acor 16:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it weakened again. I don't think we have enough info yet. I personally think we should wait until it makes landfall, or at least more preparations. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

91L.INVEST

Now up on NRL [9]. Pobbie Rarr 11:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much out of this blob. It needs to get a long way. CrazyC83 14:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks too ragged to even get it's act together. It will fall victim of wind sheer anyways. -24.92.41.95 14:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and Florence will keep the environment unstable behind it. Sorry Gordon, you'll probably have to wait. I'd give it a 10% chance of development. CrazyC83 15:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would give it a little higher, 25% chance of development. Hello32020 19:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The models like its chances. --Holderca1 19:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's on the NHC's tropical cyclone danger graphic now.Jamie|C 19:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. Possibility of a third Gordon, will it be a monster like the first one? or like its father? Way too soon to tell, but it bears watching. →Cyclone1→ 22:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bang my head if this becomes a storm like Gilbert. --IrfanFaiz 23:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. :P íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 23:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has potential, especially since Florence is moving faster than it and thus away. —Cuiviénen 00:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll "eat my hat" if it becomes another Gilbert. That seems to be the phrase of the season, lol. →Cyclone1→ 00:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would have a much better chance if this was 2005. Nonetheless, it is one name I really want to see retired. CrazyC83 00:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMEN! →Cyclone1→ 01:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absorbed by Florence it looks like...she is eating up everything! CrazyC83 15:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is expanding because it eats up everything on it's path!. --IrfanFaiz 10:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

92L.INVEST

Just appeared off the East Coast at 30.5N 79.4W. -- RattleMan 18:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a frontal system is going to get this one. --Holderca1 18:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AN AIR FORCE RESERVE RECONNAISSANCE AIRCRAFT IS EN ROUTE TO INVESTIGATE THE AREA THIS EVENING.

That was fast. bob rulz 21:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's an understatement, that was lightning fast! it's exsisted for like, what, 3 hours? →Cyclone1→ 21:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they sense TD7 already? CrazyC83 21:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely that Air Force plane was scheduled to investigate Florence, but, considering the proximity of 92 to the USA, they made a last minute adjustment, which is why it seems unusually fast. It usually takes a day or so for them to prepare the flight. --tomf688 (talk - email) 22:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like they have to fly very far either. --Holderca1 18:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recon's leaving, they couldn't close off a center. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 00:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both 91L and 92L are gone from NRL. --Core des at talk. o_O 18:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Week 2

93L.INVEST

NRL backup site says we have a 93L, right behind Florence at 22.2N 47.2W. It appears that 91L survived Florence and wasn't quite absorbed. --Core des at talk. o_O 01:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And now it's on the main site. --Core des at talk. o_O 01:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) 91L has survived Florence's wrath and returned to the NRL as 93L, and 07L on SSD. Current position is 22.2N 47.2W. -- RattleMan 01:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Must have been a real fighter, very impressive to see a trpical wave survive Florence's wrath. --§ Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody _{(talk + contribs + userboxes)} 01:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know. It's kinda small, and disorganized, I can't see this becoming TD7 anytime soon, though I would love to be proved wrong. →Cyclone1→ 12:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I agree. It deserves it after fighting off Florence successfully. CrazyC83 16:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like just some debris Florence left behind. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 18:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, is this the low pressure trailing Florence or is it the area of thunderstorms south of there (though that seems pretty far south for development) -Runningonbrains 21:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no meterologist or anything, but I think that now its simply a cluster of isolated thunderstorms, but if it manages to develop and form low-level low, then its a tropical depression, but if it alrady has TS-force winds (in case), it will instantly be Tropical Storm Gordon when it also forms a low-level low. In addition, shear produced by Flornce may alter the blob's ability to develop. --§ Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody _{(talk + contribs + userboxes)} 21:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly right, but it can have an associated surface low, but if that low pressure does not have a closed center, it's not a tropical cyclone. I assume, then, that the invest is the more northerly system. This one definately has a surface circulation (and low according to the TWO), but it might be too broad or elongated to be considered a cyclone. Im not a mind-reader, so I dont know what the NHC is thinking. -Runningonbrains 21:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's beggining to look a little better. →Cyclone1→ 21:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I guess the NHC could be considering for a 30-5 mph depression or tropical low. --§ Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody _{(talk + contribs + userboxes)} 23:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Storm articles

Yea, yea, we brought up this topic a while ago, but it can't hurt to do it one more time. Obviously, having an article right when a system becomes a storm isn't going to work. If they only threaten land and don't have much impact, articles will be fairly short and not flow well at all (per Chris). Should we wait to make articles for all storms until they have their final advisory? I know that sounds crazy, but it might be the best way, with the exception for storms that have preparations and impact while the storm is still active. Alberto worked as a current event article; it was upgraded accordingly, and the article handled the evacuations and impact as the info came in. Beryl and Chris, on the other hand, were written sentence by sentence as the storm changed, and info was very minimal while the storm was still active. Comments or ideas? Hurricanehink (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think that is a great idea. However, I think that since we are giving all articles of 2005-2006 their own articles, maybe we should create articles for every storm over the past decade. I know my idea seems crazy, but the correllation of notable storms to forgetful storms is about equal. guitarhero777777 03:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, let's not open that Pandora's Box ;) Articles for all storms have been proposed for storms back to around 2000, though we haven't set a date. We should talk about that on the Wikiproject talk page. However, we should first talk about storm articles operationally. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think that fishspinners should have articles. However, I do think that any storm that affects land and for which a decent preparations/impact/aftermath section can be written should be written. I just don't see much point in fishspinner pages (unless they're really powerful or there's something notable about them, or if they came close enough to land for people to take serious notice of it). bob rulz 03:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was my main point. Either open the Pandora's Box or limit the articles. I can understand a powerful fishspinner like Dog (1950) or Cleo (1958), but not any storm, i.e. Phillippe (2005), I wouldn't have an article. guitarhero777777 04:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Pandora's Box has been opened, its just it takes time to write a lot of GOOD articles. The crucial thing is that the articles actually add something, which means a lot of effort would be needed to write Tropical Storm Chris (2000). There is no harm to a well written article on minor storms, provided the seasonal article doesn't suffer. Its best to come back to storms, both in the Atlantic and elsewhere, after they are gone. Writing their articles while they are current gets us creations like this, which is actually worse in quality than the season's section on it.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about setting some conditions for starting independent articles? The following is one possible set of conditions.

Any Category 3 or higher hurricane gets an article, regardless of whether or not it makes or threatens landfall as a hurricane.
Any Category 2 hurricane for which a hurricane warning is posted, regardless of whether or not it makes landfall as a hurricane.
Any Category 1 hurricane which makes landfall as a hurricane.
Any tropical storm which causes 10 or more deaths.
Any storm which causes $1,000,000,000 or more in damage.

Comments? Caerwine Caerwhine 14:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like that criteria. I think I'll be sticking to storms that are not ongoing, just to avoid misinformation. We all know how the media operates nowadays. Thegreatdr 15:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it too.guitarhero777777 15:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that criterion for future articles or are we going to excise past aricles about ones that don't fit those criteria? 69.17.67.11 16:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not. Chacor 16:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Irene is notable because of her duration, so I can see adding that as another criterium, but I don't see anything notable about Philippe. Indeed, the only reason for having an article on him is if the criteria is every named storm gets an article. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Future articles. guitarhero777777 16:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the gap between the storm forming and the TCR, that is a reasonable guideline (the $1 billion is superfluous though). After the TCR anything goes.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think his point is is that Irene was able to make it to featured article status, and Philippe was able to become a good article. But still, I agree very loosely with the criteria above, but I think $1 billion is far too high of a lower limit (I think it should be about $100 million, if we have criteria at all). However, I still believe that if there's enough information on a tropical cyclone then you should write an article on it, regardless of how much damage it did or how much it threatened land, as long as there's more info on it than there is on the season page. bob rulz 19:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, Bob you slightly misunderstand what happened with Irene's FA. It was pretty strongly opposed on the "not long enough argument". The reason Philippe or Lee or any of the others is not an FA is we don't want to lose any goodwill for the project at FAC, not that they couldn't pass. I agree to these criteria for active storms. After the TCR - "it was named" is enough of a criterion for me.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um...huh? I never said anything about why Philippe didn't become an FA. Chacor's point was that we shouldn't do that to past articles because Irene became a featured article and Philippe became a good article...bob rulz 19:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crossed wires.. I think Chacor was responding to the anon's "excise past articles" - get rid of the ones which didn't meet the criteria. Chacor's comment had nothing to do with the FA/GA status of Philippe/Irene but to do with their existence.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I'll bet he chose those two for precisely that reason. He didn't mention it directly...but he implied it. Either that or it was just a coincedence. bob rulz 19:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those criteria work, sorta. I don't necessarily agree with the Category 3's. If it's approaching land, then it's fine, but if it's a fish Category 3+, like Karl (2004), it might be better to wait until it's done so we can get a good storm history. Also, if a Category 2 causes hurricane warnings but does not make landfall, it still might be better to wait. What about a storm like Hurricane Alex in 2004? The info wasn't really there operationally, and you never know what it's going to do. However, any landfalling hurricane is a decent criterion. Landfalling hurricanes would likely have preparations info (evacs and warnings), as well as damage fairly quickly due to local sources. The question is, when would we make the article? Would we make it once hurricane warnings are posted, once the center crosses a land mass, or once the final advisory is written? US storms should have more weight, due to NWS offices and newspapers. However, should other areas be different? What if a category 1 hurricane moved through the Lesser Antilles? It made landfall as a hurricane, but there might not be too much damage or information. The storm history would also be unknown as well. What if it dissipated and the storm did nothing? Sorry for all of the questions, but there are a lot of scenarios. I suppose it is a storm-by-storm basis, but we shouldn't have repeats of Beryl and Chris, which barely have enough information to justify keeping them. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If it dissapates and does nothing, (such as Lee and Chris) CHUNK IT, unless it's like Epsilon or Zeta. No need for another Lee. Lee, in my opinion, was the worst idea (but by no means the worst article, mind you) for a tropical cyclone article. It was a tropical storm for 12 hours, and was the very definition of fishspinner. Let's keep the ones we have now and try to control ourselves from having a seperate article on a depression that just formed and has exsisted for 6 hours, 1,000 miles from anywhere. →Cyclone1→ 22:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When we start getting preparations, or significant media attention, whichever comes first. Tito xd^(?!?) 06:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that works well. There could be the problem if a storm doesn't have much preparations or media attention but should certainly have an article (Stan last year), but for the most part I agree. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep them all - they make for a useful resource when researching storms of the past. Tropical Storm Lee (2005) is a very impressive article given the circumstances. Though I would say people have a point when they say we should wait until post-analysis before creating articles for lacklustre storms. Pobbie Rarr 16:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is only for future storms. Any existing storms will probably be kept. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we should wait until post-analysis with future Lees & Chrises. Pobbie Rarr 20:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I think on when to create, redirect and keep articles before the TCR (at which point articles are always created). An article should be created initially if:

At least a Tropical Storm Watch is issued.
The intensity reaches Category 3 or higher with the storm pointing towards land (to get the buildup factor).
The storm duration is at least 14 days (the Irene factor).
The length in the season section is too long.

The article should be redirected back (with the text saved for the TCR) if the storm does not make landfall or have significant land effects, unless it would be too long in the season section.

Remaining articles should be created when the TCR comes out. CrazyC83 21:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That could work, but there are too many cases when a tropical storm watch is issued without much, if any impact. The same goes for a tropical storm warning. Beryl and Chris barely have enough info justifying articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In those cases, redirect it back when the storm dies unless it meets another criteria. That criteria is for an initial (active storm) article before the TCR. CrazyC83 15:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I like it when EVERY storm has an artcle that I can click to. Even if it's short. -Winter123 22:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, but when a good storyline can be made - and that often requires the TCR. If Debby is named from TD4 and is a threat to Cape Verde, it is still land and should be made into an article. CrazyC83 19:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Think about it. What would the article say? We have no info on preparations on Cape Verde (except the TS warn), and no info on impact. It'd leave us with a very technical storm history, and that's all. Would hardly be a stub. – Ch acor 11:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with CrazyC83 and others. If it threatens the Cape Verde Islands it is land and article should be made for it. Tropical Storm Warning is enough criteria (as long as this becomes Tropical Storm Debby). Hello32020 11:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC) (I also think Watch is criteria Hello32020 12:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is better to have a well-written section in the seasonal article than a badly-written, quickly-put-together stub article. – Ch acor 12:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For once I actually agree with Chacor (shocking!). bob rulz 14:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. From WP:STUB: The community values stubs as useful first steps toward complete articles. I see no reason why we can't have a stub and a well-written section in the seasonal article. --Elliskev 14:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs are bad when that is all they will ever be. --Holderca1 14:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it was not a stub. It was a pretty well-written start. --Elliskev 14:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with all of these articles on these fishspinners is that there's hardly any information that can't be included in the summary on the main season page that can be included on the main page for the storm. I'm not necessarily opposed to them, I just don't really see a need for them. All we're doing is essentially rewriting the TCRs. bob rulz 16:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think the triggering point on whether an active storm gets its own article is if there are sources available other than the NHC. If the AP, Reuters, ect.. publish an article, then we should have enough information to create an article. Otherwise, the storm would wait until it dies to get an article if it warrants it. --Holderca1 13:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. Makes sense. If there's only one source, we're basically copying it but putting it into different words. I think a storm deserves an article when it has more than say.. 3 sources? However, there will obviously be some notable exceptions. Personally, I think it's a matter of common sense. Articles like Tropical Storm Lee (2005) can fit into the seasonal storms article perfectly. Sections such as "Naming and records" will not really be needed if the article was merged back into the 2005AHSS since there are numerous sections talking about records. Although this is a very debatable topic, I don't think non-notable storms with only the TCR as a source deserve articles. If they stay articles, it would be pretty much impossible to expand them further than a storm history which could fit into the seasonal article, an "impact" section that simply states "_____ did not make landfall.. no fatalities reported.. etc" and maybe a short naming section that only says "____ is the __th named storm." Honestly, it's like we're desperately trying to add more information to the article. -tcwd 01:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with part of that. An article that is only a rewrite of the TCR is not needed. However, if it uses the NHC advisories, in detail, I am fine with keeping no- to low-impact storm articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto TCR

It's out: [10]. --Ajm⁸¹ 20:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing surprising here. -- WmE 20:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually a bit disappointed how short it is. I know they're busy, but I expected a longer storm history, more meteorological details (North Carolina rainfall totals for example), and more damage info (damage amount, where it caused the death). Oh well, I suppose I'm too used to Wikipedia ;) Hurricanehink (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is one surprising bit: it only mentions 1 indirect death. Not anything major, but before we thought it was 2. bob rulz 20:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but you can't say for sure that this plane crash was caused by Alberto. He could also have had a heart attack or something. -- WmE 21:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no hard damages figure. The only thing they say is that property damage was "small", and I can't find anything to give me any numbers yet... Tito xd^(?!?) 06:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disappointed at all! I think the documentation of tropical storms and hurricanes here in the English wikipedia is sensational! Many people seem to be involved in checking any source of information very closely, NOAA and everything. It seems like the gargantuan effort to document everything regarding tropical storms and hurricanes is made quite easy by so many people working together! Thanks for your hard work! ;) --Maxl 21:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems odd; back in the old days (2004), none of them would be out until after the season was over. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 21:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 2004 does seem like the old days now doesn't it? It might have something to do with the fact that the first storm formed so late that year. I think Arlene's TCR came out early, too. bob rulz 21:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before the season was over, but not until November, IIRC. —Cuiviénen 15:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well those were the days when the NHC was tracking a storm a week. That was probably the reason for report lateness last year. I think the late start in '04 and the fact that NHC was still using HTML at that time to post reports was the reason for the delays prior to '05. They take longer than PDFs to put together. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 23:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issuing a TCR a month or two after a storm event is nothing new. In previous seasons, TPC/NHC has been relatively timely after the event for storms early in the season, only falling behind once the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific seasons get active. There has certainly been time to write this report, though no final rainfall totals from NCDC will be available for Alberto for another month. Everything is quite preliminary at this point. Remember, 10 specialists (instead of 5) means half the work load for each forecaster TCR-wise than was true in 2005 and before. Thegreatdr 17:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, they've expanded their staff. Well that certainly helps. It also seems that we have a lineage going on: Jack Beven's son, John Beven II did the report for Frances in '04. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 21:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This TCR was released WAY too earlyStormChaser666 19:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any why is that? bob rulz 20:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that these reports can be updated at any time. Maybe there was already a bit of public interest in the TCR. If they issue all their TCRs this early, keep in mind that it will trump the wikipedia reference for that storm in the June Monthly Tropical Cyclone Summary. I doubt this was any consideration though. Some specialists are just quick to issue TCRs. Thegreatdr 17:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed article naming policy

When a storm is new and active and we have an article on it, unless there's a specific conflict with an existing article, the new one should NOT have the year disambiguator. For example (and I just did this), Ernesto should be at Hurricane Ernesto. *after* the storm has passed, we should move it to Hurricane Ernesto (2006). I did this to simplify things for people looking for quick info on this page, because we all know that happens. But while a storm is live, we should name the article by the principle of least surprise. This is only to assist readers who are looking to us for information. No one will be confused by the lack of disambiguator.

Comments? --Golbez 09:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like it. Not all active storms are going to get articles, and those who type(D!) in Hurricane Ernesto would've hit a disambig page that would have brought them to the 2006 Ernesto article. I think you should revert. – Ch acor 10:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't like it. Remember, it requires an admin to clean up afterwards and move the dab back to the correct location. If something is temporary, let the dab do its job. If Ernesto qualifys for the main article, then that is different, but "being active" doesn't meet that.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, a hurricane ONLY qualifies for the main article if the name is retired or is likely to be retired. Ernesto is not likely going to be retired based on the current forecast unless it stalls and unleashes a flood disaster. Article-worthy, definitely. Main article-worthy, no. CrazyC83 20:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

k --Golbez 10:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does everybody keep saying that it requires an admin? I'm not an admin and I can move articles without any problems or loss of data. bob rulz 20:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It requires an admin to move over an existing article. The exception is when the destination article has one version in its history - a redirect to the source article.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. Thanks for the clarification. bob rulz 21:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say only if the storm gets enough media attention should it not get tagged the year. Notable examples include Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita, Hurricane Wilma. A year from now, would people mark it as "the day Hurricane Ernesto (2006) made landfall?" I don't think so. Whereas in Katrina's case, a year later, there is still a lot of attention. Now, a storm doesn't have to be like Katrina to take out the year, but at least somewhat notable. Even while active, Ernesto wasn't too notable.. and I'm sure people are smart enough to click Hurricane Ernesto (2006) instead of other years.. especially since it's also bolded and says "currently active." -Tcwd 21:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Media notability is not a point of reference IMO, as is introducing bias for no reason. Hurricane Ernesto has probably got greater media coverage than Hurricane Stan did, but Stan was a very significant storm which was retired. Retirement (will the name be used again?) is the determining factor for giving a storm the main article.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, and Ernesto is certainly not worthy of retirement at this point. The disambiguation page is there to guide people to this page, or to another Ernesto. It is simply a judgement call that we make (sometimes we make the wrong move, i.e. with Emily which most of us thought would be retired but wasn't). CrazyC83 03:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, changing the name of a page may not break our internal link scheme (as we can always update it after a move), but it can break external sites linking to our articles. While usually this wouldn't be a problem (link to a redirect would work fine), this page would not get a redirect, it would get a disambiguation page, so external sites would be linking to a comparatively-wimpy page with a few sentences about unrelated storms. So, I don't think it is a good idea, solely because of that. Tito xd^(?!?) 20:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane to Storm to Depression to Storm

In this type of fluctuation, where a previously named storm weakens to a depression, then regains strength to a Tropical storm, isn't the storm supposed to be renamed, as in Ernesto would become Florence? It has always been my understanding that this would happen. Could it be because it fluctuated within a 25 minute period that it didn't get renamed? That still doesn't seem like the NOAA, though. → JARED ^(t) 14:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... no? – Ch acor 14:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto (to Chacor) Hello32020 14:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. As long as the NHC determines that a system keeps its identity, a tropical storm could degenerate even to a tropical wave, then restrengthen, and be known by the same name. See 2004's Hurricane Ivan for an example. Runningonbrains 15:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then what about Hurricane Klaus which degerated into a tropical wave and regerated as Tropical Storm Marco. Storm05 15:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were determined to be two different systems. – Ch acor 15:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus and Marco were like TD10 and 12 (Katrina) of 2005.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus and Marco were like Josephine and Lili of 1990, since we're going to pick a couple to compare it to. The mid-upper level cyclone that sheared Klaus to death eventually developed into a tropical cyclone named Marco. Also, another parallel is Gordon I (the Caribbean tropical cyclone that raced northeast into the Bahamas) and Gordon II (the subtropical cyclone that formed near Cuba and moved west) of 1994. This database reanalysis can't be done fast enough. Thegreatdr 21:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)More accurately, it was determined that the remnants of Klaus combined with another system to create Marco, thus with a separate identity. This is similar to the TD10, TD12 (future Hurricane Katrina) debate of last year. The system must remain seperate and intact, but does not necesarily have to remain a tropical cyclone for its duration to be considered the same system. -Runningonbrains 15:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(2nd edit conflict)It all depends on thr NHC... how many storms and depressions have we assumed would be named, only to be "ignored" by those in the know? Ernesto may well have fluctuated, but not to the satisfaction of the NHC. doktorb _words^deeds 15:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly correct. "Fluctuations" don't cause name changes. – Ch acor 17:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe you are missing the point, Doktorbuk. Once a storm is named, it keeps that name until it dissipates or is absorbed into another system. Even if Ernesto had degenerated into a tropical disturbance over Florida, with no closed area of low pressure, once it restrengthened to depression status it would have re-assumed the name. The NHC doesn't arbitrarily decide to change the name of an active system. -Runningonbrains 18:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be very clear, it is the low-level circulation that matters in terms of identity. —AySz88 \^-^ 21:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The best examples are indeed Ivan and TD10/12. --Golbez 20:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beryl TCR

It's out. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 20:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Always be sure to post a link to it :) -- RattleMan 23:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that we don't appreciate the notice anyway. :) —AySz88 \^-^ 00:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not working for me. --Thelb⁴ 07:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link: [11] Template:PDF Tito xd^(?!?) 07:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.Gray's September update

New numbers are 13/5/2 -- WmE 15:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...talk about lowering the forecast. They're down to about average now. bob rulz 23:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It also mentions that a mild El-Nino has formed or is currently forming. bob rulz 23:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YAY!!! They've lowered it, good news!!!!! RaNdOm26 06:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All it takes is ONE bad storm to be seen as a bad year. Remember Hurricane Andrew formed in a season with only seven storms and no other major hurricanes... CrazyC83 17:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep (to Crazy). --IrfanFaiz 00:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I knew it was an El Nino year! I KNEW IT! Since Chris, I've known it. →Cyclone1→ 00:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grr...not El Nino, just shitty upper level conditions. El Nino has to do with ocean temperatures: Pacific gets warmer and Atlantic gets cooler. The Atlantic's been plenty warm this season. The wind shear's just been high, not all seasons are 2004 or 2005. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 18:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Storms Section ToC

2005 has a Storms Section ToC, and I've been maintaining one for 2006. Anyone think we should add it yet? True, as a template it would only be used in one place, just as the template for 2005 is only used in one place (that I know of). Or, we could add it, but not as a template - but that might make the page a little confusing, as I have future weeks in place already, just commented out. Thoughts. Jerry 23:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With only 5-6 storms, no. --Golbez 23:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per Golbez. The TOC in 2005 was because the Wiki-generated TOC was incredibly long and needed shortening. A combination of creating individual articles for all storms and creating a storms TOC solved that problem, which currently doesn't exist for 2006 (yet). --tomf688 (talk - email) 00:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding the timeline

In the timelines, if a tropical storm forms from a low level centre, it is bolded. So why not bold TD formations as well? To take a quote from Hink in IRC, "TD's should be bolded, as they are the impetus of every storm, weak or strong". – Ch acor 02:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why not. Pobbie Rarr 03:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re my quote. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you go back and bold them in the last two years. --Golbez 03:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do so later today. – Ch acor 03:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. 2004 AHS, 2004 PHS, 2005 AHS, 2005 PHS, 2005 PTS, 2006 PTS, 2006 PHS and 2006 AHS. – Ch acor 13:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also do it on the timelines within the current season articles? — Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 16:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seperate issue I should bring up, about commas in (0300 UTC, next day) - I think (0300 UTC next day) is more grammatically correct. I'll get to work on the current timelines if I haven't already touched them lol. – Ch acor 16:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those commas are actually my fault. Cosmetically, I think, it appears better with the comma. But I'm sure that's up for some scrutiny. Do what you wish. — Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 23:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Debby article

Why doesn't Debby get a separate article from the main article for this season?? Please explain. Georgia guy 16:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it didn't do anything. --Holderca1 16:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually Debby will get an article, though not until the Tropical Cyclone Report is released. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will it? This isn't 2005 any more, not all storms need articles, especially if nothing new comes from the TCR. This isn't like Epsilon or Zeta where we can quote forecaster's frustrations. I don't know, very dubious to me. – Ch acor 17:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it deserves an article if all we are doing is rewording/summarizing the TCR. There are several articles on storms that I believe that should be merged, I don't care how well written they are. The bias on Atlantic storms is impossible to overlook. 2005 Atlantic storms 27/27 have articles. 2005 Pacific storms 1/15 have articles. They all have TCRs. Why the difference? --Holderca1 17:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We already agreed that all future storms, at least eventually, will get their own article. We also agreed that the criteria for storms is information, not necessarily notability. The reason for the bias for the Atlantic is A) because more storms do hit land and B) there is more interest. For the 2005 EPHS, it would get too repetitive to have all articles for the storms. However, if someone wanted to do it, I'd be fine with it, provided they use more than just the TCR. I'm sure there could be an article for Kristy this year, provided someone goes through the available information. Sure, it might only be a storm history, but if it can be a good length and be well-written, what is the harm in having it? It doesn't take away from the season articles. The season articles are for the entire season, which also includes the storms. The storm articles is only for the storms. There is a difference. If you want to discuss it again, go ahead, but I don't think we should merge articles like Irene, Lee, and Philippe simply because they didn't affect land much. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your first two sentences contradict each other. I completely agree that information is the criteria, but not all of the 2005 AHS storms meet that criteria. A single source article is not a good thing, try to get away with that in a college course. 95% of the TS Lee article can be found in its TCR. Not a good way to write an article. --Holderca1 18:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. I agree that information is criteria, and, by definition, the discussions, which Nilfanion used in the Lee article, are information outside the TCR. Sure, 95% of the info can be found in the TCR, but the other 5% is why the article should be kept. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But 5% accounts for a couple sentences. But the discussions are from the same source as the TCR, the NHC. Still have the single source issue. --Holderca1 19:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are people who would want Lee merged. The fact that Lee is a good article, though, complicates that. – Ch acor 18:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are also a lot of people who think all storm should have articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the complication. Whether an article is well written or not is not criteria for having a seperate article. So it's a good article that can be merged and form a good section of an another article. --Holderca1 19:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean good as in I was judging it; I meant it's a WP:GA. – Ch acor 19:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I knew what you meant. --Holderca1 19:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If enough information is out there, the article should be created. There will, of course, likely be some revert wars in the meantime, but at some point people will settle down and we will move on to 2007. --tomf688 (talk - email) 18:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We already discussed this ad nauseam. :( We decided that if there is enough information available to overwhelm the season article (and a decent storm history section would be enough to accomplish that), it was going to be split into storm and season articles. The summary that would stay here would be the same length regardless of anything, and if someone wants to burn their time in creating a storm article, they're welcome to do it. By default, all Atlantic storms would have articles because there is more interest; the same may become true for other basins as we go along. Tito xd^(?!?) 19:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with the inconsistency. If the information is there, then the article should exist. There may be more interest in the Atlantic basin, but not all the storms have the same interest. Now you can't tell me there is more interest in TS Lee than there was in Hurricane John. John was a major hurricane threating to make landfall with several news articles available, yet many were still saying that it shouldn't get an article. A fishspinner in the Atlantic is no more interesting than a fishspinner in the Pacific. --Holderca1 19:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep absolutely. I think people just have to remember "storm deserving an article" != "currently active storm deserving an article NOW". Now are we done? :)--Nilfanion (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think so, now everyone scroll up, there is an active tropical storm in the Atlantic that wants an article. ;-) --Holderca1 19:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To see the shell of a Debby article (still needs work), it is at User:CrazyC83/Debby06. Also I am going to start a Florence shell; it may or may not be needed eventually depending on track - but certainly not necessary right now. CrazyC83 21:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's done. Tropical Storm Debby (2006) To you naysayers, I ask you these questions. 1) Is there more info in the storm article than the season article? 2) Is it well-written? 3) Does it have info other than what would be a rewrite of the TCR? Hurricanehink (talk) 01:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Not really, it is longer, but there is very little additional information. Longer does not equal more information. 2) Personnally I think it is overdone. The storm history section is about twice as long as it needs to be. Ditto for the prep and impact section. For a storm that did very little of both, the section talks more about the hypothetical worst case scenario of what could of happened rather than what did happen. This article should of waited for the TCR, the reference section is rediculously long, the TCR would of covered the information of most of the sources. Seems this article was written to make a point. 3) Impossible to say until it comes out. But, I suspect it will be similar to the TCR since most of this article is the storm history. I gave up on this fight last year, quit the tropical cyclone project and took a ~6 month break. Seems nothing has changed. --Holderca1 14:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, as long as nothing is exactly repeated, longer does mean more information. The article provides a thorough storm history, which I don't think is overdone. Nowhere else online, at least to my knowledge, has a thorough storm history for Debby. All I did was use the resources available. Some, but probably not all of the information from the TCR, and who knows how long we'll have to wait. I'll say it again, Wikipedia now is the only place that has a centralized data center for Tropical Storm Debby. Nothing has changed last year because most people think all storms in recent time periods should have articles. Let me ask you this, what is the harm in having a Debby article? By deleting it, we'll only have a short section for the storm. I think we should continue the discussion at the Debby talk page. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to the topic creator, the reason Debby didn't have an article is because no one wanted to go through the available information to make it. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact that the Lee article is well done shows that a good article can be made about any storm if your mind is put to it. Debby at least approached Cape Verde, so that alone makes her more notable than Lee. I don't see the point of spending ages building a consensus only to have it questioned constantly. Pobbie Rarr 16:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beryl's track

Why is the track of Beryl on the page the non-updated track. If you click on it, you can see the new updated track, but on the page it still shows the old one. What's up with that? →Cyclone1→ 00:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CACHE --Ajm⁸¹ 01:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry is that just me? Ok, it's no problem, then. →Cyclone1→ 01:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]