Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Another bright side to a quiet year...

There is one bright side: it really allows us to catch up on everything. I think we should only focus on getting this page to GA-class after the season ends, and get more notable seasons up higher first. This will certainly NOT be modelled after the 2005 page. If it was to be graded now, I would assess it at Start or low-end B-class personally (but it isn't over). CrazyC83 03:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, assuming we're going to do articles for all storms, should we wait to do articles for the remaining storms? While we can certainly do work now, it would really be much easier waiting for all of the TCR's before we do anything, basically. I don't know, we could base it after the 2005 page, albeit to a much lesser extent (there wasn't as much seasonal impact and few, if any records), but we could reiterate the low-activity that way (instead of doing storm by storm by storm). The 2005 form is much more interesting. By doing it that way, we could say that it was the first time since 1993 that no storms existed after October started (presumably). Hurricanehink (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That's true. It would be much easier to wait for the TCR's for Helene and Isaac, and I am not going to write them until they come out. Having said that, if someone else wants to (and makes them decent), they can go ahead...I'll just keep writing on older events and storms. CrazyC83 16:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Isaac briefly existed at the beginning of October. Pobbie Rarr 19:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh yea, forgot about that. Well, barring no activity for the rest of the year, it will be the first season since 1994 that no tropical cyclones formed after October 1. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Strike 2 :P - Gordon formed in November of that year. I think you mean 1993. Pobbie Rarr 04:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

...Yea, wow. I gotta brush up on my Atlantic hurricane seasons. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

What about 2002? Kyle and Lili persisted into October but formed in September so I think the introductory paragraph needs changing. crandles 11:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The citation is very clear, first time no TCs - including TDs - formed in October since 1994. Nothing wrong there. 2002 saw TD14 form in October, but no formation of named storms. – Chacor 13:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This season was about as stunningly quiet as 2005 was stunningly active. 2006 (9-5-2) stands as the quietest hurricane season since the monster El Nino of 1997. Since the active cycle began, that 1997 season (8-3-1) was the only one quieter than '06 so far. It can stay that way as far as I'm concerned; I'm kind of enjoying the gas prices right now and the absence of people's ruined homes on the 6 o'clock news. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 03:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm rather enjoying that, too. It's given me time to broaden my interests, focus on other weather events, and not have to worry about tracking hurricanes all the time. Pre-season predictions were a total bust, and that's a good thing. bob rulz 05:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that you brought that up. I don't think the pre-season predictions have been this wrong in a while. Usually they foresee an El Nino, especially one this prominent, and forecast accordingly. I would think that this would be especially true nowadays with the better forecasting equipment. But aparently not. I think the Atlantic has hit all the ways to prove us wrong now, giving us two of the most contrasting seasons in history. The Louisiana coroners can finally get some sleep now. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 23:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Maximum Wind & Central Pressure

What is the guideline for Tropical Storms articles regarding central pressure. Should we take the central pressure when the Tropical Storm atains maximum winds or take the minimum central pressure even though the winds may not be at the maximum? An example is Tropical Storm Beryl. It atained maximum winds and minimum central pressure at different times.--Ugaap 16:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

We do minimum pressure in general. In some older cases, there was incomplete pressure readings, so we took the lowest known amount. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think what Hurricanelink means a lack of Dvorak-related pressure estimates every six hours before the late 1970's. =) Thegreatdr 18:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Beryl 2006 atained maximum wind speed of 50 knots(60 mph) between 19th July 2006 1800 UTC and 20th July 1200 UTC and the lowest central pressure was 1001 mbars on 20th July 600 UTC. However, the lowest central pressure of 1000 mbars which was recorded on 21st July 600UTC has been taken for the article, though the wind speed then was mere 35 knots and the Storm itself had become Extra Tropical.--Ugaap 01:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it hadn't. Look at what you're reading. Minimum pressure does not necessarily correspond to strongest winds. Extratropicality was at 211800UTC. Minimum pressure was achieved at 210600UTC while winds were 45 kt, and it was still tropical. – Chacor 02:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

1000 mbars was achieved twice so oversight.--Ugaap 02:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Start-Class

I've graded the article as Start-Class because it lacks a season summary. Overall, the rest of the article is excellent, but we should be starting on writing the wrap-up on the season. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should put it as start class yet. Sure, we haven't had a storm for two months, but the season technically is still ongoing. We should wait for December 1 until the season is officially over. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, we're not tracking current storms, or doing anything remotely close to what we would do for an ongoing hurricane season... so shouldn't we just assess it as such? Titoxd^(?!?) 22:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You could say the same thing in any November. It's not a big deal, either way, but the article is still technically current. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about pushing this to FA fast, as this was a ho-hum season. I'd rather focus on other legendary seasons like 1969 and 1995. CrazyC83 06:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. →Cyclone1→ 19:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd go ahead and treat it like it's over. Any season summery starts at the beginning and goes to the end, so if by some miracle a storm manages to form in 80-knot shear, little or no revising would be nessesary because that part of the summery probably wouldn't even be written yet. I'd rather this season prove us wrong and make us revise some things than just assume another storm is going to form and leave the article inactive and incomplete. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 16:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I set it back to current-class. I know the Atlantic is full of shear right now. However, the season is not over until the NHC says it is. The NHC has not somehow declared the season over, and just because TCRs are coming out does not mean the season is over. The season does not end until November 30, and until then, the article is current-class. The article does not have to be a start for people to be able to work on it. --Coredesat 19:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

ill just point one thing out to you guys all the 2005 season didnt end till 1/1/06 even though we are not expecting another Zeta its best to keep it as current clas untill the 1st of january just in cvase we do have a zeta like storm—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.74.19.173 (talk • contribs).

er...No as it seems really unlikely especially since before Zeta, this only happened once before between 1954 and 1955. My recomendation (pardon the spelling) is to keep it as current class until Nov. 30 as with the wind shear, it is unlikely for the Atlantic to spit out another storm, let alone a Zeta-like storm. platyfish625 02:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Especially if the model guidance is correct about a deep cyclone dropping down to the Gulf Stream in 120 hours, and sitting there for a couple days. One never knows where Joyce may come from. No harm in keeping the article current. Thegreatdr 21:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Gordon's TCR

Gordon's TCR is now out. [1] -- WmE 15:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

He, he. The speed of Wikipedia kills me. Sometimes I think we know it's coming before it's even posted. This is a good report. That picture at the end is nice. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 16:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, look at that! It looped around near Europe! Can't wait to see the new and improved Gordon track. →Cyclone1→ 01:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW everyone, in the report the term "England" is used erroneously instead of Great Britain (Wales, England, Scotland). For instance, Gordon actually dissipated between Ireland and Wales, not Ireland and England. Pobbie Rarr 03:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The picture is fantastic, and the track surprises me. I had no idea he "looped" near Ireland (although living in Lancashire, I got the consequential storms soon enough:)) doktorb _words^deeds 08:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Umm, the storm did dissipate between Ireland and England, the NHC was correct there (it was between southernmost Ireland and SW England...).--Nilfanion (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

ill just say that wikipedia should refer to it as the United Kingdom as its better than Great Britan Jason Rees 20:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

... unless we're talking about the islands, not the countries, in which case Great Britain is the accurate term. --Golbez 21:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops, that is indeed England (Cornwall). I was thinking of SW Wales. In any case, the liberal misuse of the word "England" to describe the UK disappoints me, not least when coming from a source such as the NHC. Pobbie Rarr 03:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

links to reports

ive added a link to albertos reportJason Rees 20:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Helene's TCR

It's now up! [2] -- RattleMan 23:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Intriguing. Peak intensity has been reduced from 110kt/954mb to 105kt/955mb - exactly the same as Gordon. Which was the stronger of the two? Pobbie Rarr 03:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say Helene, since IMO the ACE is the second tiebreaker. However, that is arguable. CrazyC83 03:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think both should be listed. There's no problems with a tie. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree since it is so rare and so arguable. This season was so like 1997. CrazyC83 03:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's not say things we can't take back :P At least this season had 2 majors, 2 U.S. landfalling storms, and no storms that never affected land in their entire lifetimes (including extratropical). How many seasons can say that? Hurricanehink (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That's true; there were no "true" fish-spinners this year. Last year, there were several - Irene the most notable. Once this severe weather event is settled, I might write up the Helene article. CrazyC83 04:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Isaac's TCR

link Does 75 knots round up to 90 mph? Good kitty 17:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

75kt=85mph Pobbie Rarr 17:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

CSU Season Summary

It's out! --Ajm⁸¹ 16:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats WAY to early for them to do season assessments as the 2006 season is not over yet. Storm05 16:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

They can do as they like, you shouldn't have any problem with them doing so. Their prerogative. – Chacor 17:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, what do you know: "18.25 hurricane days occurred in September 2006. This is more than were observed in September 2005 (16.75 hurricane days). " -- RattleMan 21:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You can't blame them for over-forecasting; we all did. In the spring, no one saw the increasingly hostile conditions coming. I'd be curious to see their 2007 prediction. CrazyC83 04:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, most of us over predicted. However, I recall someone on the hurricane predictions page we had predicting the season to end at Isaac. His prediction got mocked by people saying "Betting on a sudden El Niño?". Interesting how stuff works out for the underdog sometimes. →Cyclone1→ 21:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Te he. Sounds like that guy got the last laugh. We did predict an active season; but largely because they did. They have all that advanced forcasting equipment. We have them. It's been a year for underdogs, Cyclone1 (St. Louis would be the first to tell you that); it's been a year of surprises. I was very surprised by that stat RattleMan pointed out. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 00:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not that surprising if you think about it - during September 2006 one storm tended to form just as another was dissipating, thus keeping the run going. Come to think of it, September 2005 wasn't really that bad by 2005 standards: it would have been a very average month without Rita. Pobbie Rarr 03:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to read the whole article again, but my impression was that basically this year (except for September?) consistently strong west-to-east winds blew storms apart before they could coalesce (also making for a possibly-record warm year for the US). Shouldn't this be summarized in the preface? Simesa 04:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

If it's in line with what the CSU guys said, absolutely. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 23:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Mention in Klotzbach and Gray report

http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/Forecasts/2006/nov2006/ Quote: "Online entries from Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org) were very helpful in putting together this tropical cyclone summary." :) crandles 19:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You just beat me to posting that. This should probably be included in our next newsletter, and it might possibly be worth sending to the Wikipedia Signpost, given how prominent Klotzbach and Gray are in the tropical cyclone forecasting community. --Coredesat 20:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Where, exactly, in the report is this citation? It would be cool to actually see something you've worked on cited by one of the most respected minds on the subject. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 23:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

In the "Individual Tropical cyclone characteristics" section. By the way, read the Signpost's brief mention of it... Titoxd^(?!?) 06:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

An Inconvenient Prediction

This small paragraph captures the mood, is wry, and just encyclopedic enough to give the wiki-reader a wider perspective on this subject, especially the media hoopla at start the 2006 season (since 2005 produced Katrina et al.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.19.237.239 (talk) 21:57, 28 November, 2006 (UTC)

the paragraph in dispute: make edits here (if you must) we will take a look at it in mid-December

By the end of May 2006, the number of media stories about the 2006 hurricane season was at a fever pitch. The public was convinced that the consensus of the weather scientists was that East Coast would essentially lay in ruins by December 2006. This was fueled in part by the May 2006 release of Al Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth". [3]. But, by all accounting, and for all the dire predictions, the 2006 season was very mild. [4] [5] [6] [7] (note to Miss Madeline: take your objections to the discussion page) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.19.237.239 (talk) 22:00, 28 November, 2006 (UTC)

Except that the text, as it stood (since I took it out again), gave the impression that the hoopla was due to Al Gore's movie. There's no cause and effect relationship between the two, so we cannot make that statement. As for the other text, I'd rather have it weaved into the rest of the Seasonal forecasts sections, rather than a new section by itself. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

the text clearly states that the hoopla was fueled IN PART by the release of A.I.T.

This is defensible by the the sheer numbers of news reports that can be clearly cited. The pleading of Cause and Effect seems a stretch, especially when the end result is ro kill the information. Your preference for weaving it into (reducing its presence?) in another section is noted. As to you your 'taking it out again', why do you feel the need to be the PC police on this small paragraph? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.19.237.239 (talk) 22:22, 28 November, 2006 (UTC)

Except the "clearly" part is nowhere to be found. Find a reliable source that stands behind that, or otherwise it constitutes original research. The currently cited explanation was that the interest in the season was due to the doomsday forecasts published by CSU and NOAA. The reason the two sections should be combined is that they're redundant, and that the information that should be included (that there was significant interest in the season) fits perfectly there. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not 'encyclopaedic' enough for wiki - you say 'fever pitch', and that the 'east coast would essentially lay in ruins'. Not only did no one predict that, but none of those terms are appropriate. Something like "the season was much milder than expected" would be fine. (But not 'wry' enough for you, I'm sure.) Iorek85 22:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This is way too POV. Leave it out. Good kitty 00:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Too POV. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think so, too. →Cyclone1→ 13:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There are about 5 or more spots on that single message that would essentially completely alter the neutriality of the article. If you can fix/remove them (nah, too much work for one day), then you can add it back to the article. Otherwise, it would be to POV. Usually you just remove the bias and keep the content. If the bias vows to stay in the content, however, it should not be in the article. Other than that, I agree, it's too POV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AstroHurricane001 (talk • contribs).

<rant>

Here's my problem, one that I've had for about a year now on Wikipedia and only from the Hurricane-related articles—nowhere else: I feel that most of the people who edit these pages feel they own the pages and do not like to take the ideas/contributions of other less-acclaimed editors. I do not wish to name any users, but merely wish to convey to those who look at this page often enough to know that I just typed this that users who wish to edit this page can edit it freely as long as it's within the guidelines of WP and other logical sources (a wikiproject, NOAA, etc.). When I or other users are flat-out reverted because of one flaw in an edit, that is ignorance. A recent contribution of mine involving speculation of retirement was fully reverted, when part of the edit could have stayed. I would like very much to have my view equally weighed against those who edit here often; I look to reach a happy compromise with those who edit here most. As an editor mainly to Olympics pages, I know we all have our niches here in WP but you have to understand that other people who edit have good intentions and if you just work with them maybe you can come up with a solution totally different from what you as an avid hurricane-page editor would have come up with.

I am not looking for a response from anyone here. I'd just hope that those people to whom this refers understand where I'm coming from and maybe take this into consideration next time you come into a predicament on this realm of Wikipedia. → JARED ^(t)  02:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the retirement bit, we don't allow speculation. Regarding the rest, that's not true. The reason it might seem "we don't take ideas/contributions of other less-acclaimed editors" is because we have a good system. This Wikiproject has been recognized in Wikipedia and outside of here as a leading source of tropical cyclone information. Our system works, so we are hesistant to change it. If you would like to contribute ideas, you should propose them first, so we can see the benifits and problems of them. The project has made some changes due to ideas from "less-acclaimed editors" in the past. The first thing that comes to mind is the small infobox with the track map and picture, which IIRC was from a "less-acclaimed editor". I think the button bars were, as well. I'd just hope that those who don't know how our project functions would take the time to understand our rules and ask around the next time one comes into a predicament on this realm of Wikipedia. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The truth is, editors may come to Wikipedia not knowing anything. So likewise they'd have no idea about your "good system." Sure articles should have some governance but one cannot go overboard. I'd urge you to take a look at the talk page of WP:OLYMPICS. For a few weeks now, the other users on the project, random project-goers, and I have been discussing greatly and it has definitely paid off. Sometimes people will not know how we do things, but I will always either explain it to them, or help them out. Case and point. Anyway, it wasn't just this incident that I'm worried about. I've had multiple incidents regarding templates, etc. in the past. It's just that I reached the boiling point today. Please atleast think about what I've said, and I'll leave you to your business. Thanks for talking it out. → JARED ^(t)  03:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Your suggested edit violated Wikipedia policy, there was nothing that we could "explain [...] to [you]" - it isn't a Wikiproject guideline we're concerned about here - it's Wiki policy. – Chacor 03:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Except that the edit shouldn't have been reverted outright, as there was useful information to recover there. He does have a point. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

(response to original message) Although the word choices you have used seem to be very non-speculative, I don't see how much it would hurt to wait until spring, when the WMO decides on the retired names (if any). Maybe if a major source speculated about this, then we could add it in. -tcwd 04:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Clumsiness

WRT this: I was not removing anything. Everybody knows what a season is, and the one fact that I left out (the "annual cycle") could easily be integrated in the new wording. I think that many hurricane fans here tend to think in their own terminology, where "hurricane season" has a well-defined technical meaning, forgetting that most readers will not see it that way. Which may explain Chacor's way of thinking. The phrasing to which he reverted makes sense in the technical sphere, as it defines a technical meaning of "2006 Atlantic hurricane season", but for the general readership it would make more sense to assume that people know what a season is an then go on to explain what "hurricane season" means to the experts. 91.64.30.17 07:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That section of the article you changed is not clumsy, and there was no point of removing the statement. The definition of a hurricane season is important because even though you and a lot of other people know what a hurricane season is, someone who doesn't understand the terminology might not. The only part of the edit you made that I think shouldn't have been reverted is the link to the tropical cyclones article, because links often help to improve articles (although I wouldn't reccomend putting double brackets on every word you type). Even though you might assume that everyone knows what a hurricane season is, it's not really something that everyone reading the article would know, because not everyone is an expert on the subject when they read an article. However, someone could probably easily find the hurricane season article and use it to define what a hurricane season is, (or then could use Wiktionary) if they don't already know. AstroHurricane001 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Retirement

If it wasn't already clear from last season, we are not in a position to speculate about (non-)retirement of storms in the article. – Chacor 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for not being with this set of articles last year, but when there is sufficient evidence to back up a statement, one cannot just ignore it because it is just "speculation." An allusion needs to be made to the fact that since there were no storms this season that would have ever in the past qualified for retirement, then don't get your hopes up for retirement this year. It's simple logic. → JARED ^(t)  02:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

We are not in a place to decide that. Ernesto caused $500 mn damage, that's significantly more than Fabian or Juan in 2003, and killed more people than those two storms too. We CANNOT make any such indication, because we're not the experts and we cannot predict the future. – Chacor 02:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Completely agreed. It is way to speculative, and should remain as it is until we get word from the WMO. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The very best compromise I can see, from this version of the 2005 AHS, is:

"It is possible no names will be retired, in which case it would be the first time since 1997, although any statement made before the WMO meeting is purely speculative."

– Chacor 02:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That could work as a compromise, if a compromise is needed, though I think it might be better to start with, "In the event no names are retired." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hurricanehink (talk • contribs) 03:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

My response to retirement is that no information about retirement of names should be mentioned, as Wikipedia should not include any speculations. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Only include information that is confirmed by a source. RaNdOm26 05:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what we did last year, too, I think that's best. – Chacor 07:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It was so obvious last year though. I am one of the worst at jumping the gun I will admit - I think the list will be intact for 2012. That is also why it says if any. That has been there since before the season began. CrazyC83 05:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your comment (it appears unlikely there will be any retired names), as Ernesto is certainly possible. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Our track maps - used by a NOAA agency!

National Climatic Data Center has used our track maps, with our color scheme! It also mentions us as an unofficial link. CrazyC83 14:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, most of us found out a while back, and WP:POST covered it. WPTC talk archive 9. – Chacor 14:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I never noticed it until now. The Pacific is also covered by our track maps on there as well. CrazyC83 17:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't either. Hey, I also cropped those pics of Debbie & Chris Good kitty 18:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, is there anyone else who can make track maps? I can't run Jdorje's track map generator. Good kitty 18:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I can make em. --Ajm⁸¹ 20:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

We'll miss ya, Max

Bill Proenza? Has anyone ever heard of this guy? Hmm... Oh well, we'll see how the NHC is improved (if it is) by this new guy. Kinda expected Franklin or Pasch or Avila or someone to be the new director. →Cyclone1→ 19:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link to the official announcement. Also, Avila declined the offer. --Coredesat 20:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Really? He would have been a good director. →Cyclone1→ 20:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

He's certainly interesting to listen to. Mayfield was there 34 years, he's served us well. Cheers, Max. *tips cap* -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 01:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Class in question

What will happen if a storm forms at this minute, would we revert everyting back to current class or stay the course as of now?Storm05 17:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it would go back to current class until the storm dissipated/became extratropical. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, should a storm form between now and December 31st, it's not a lot of work to change it back to current-class. --Coredesat 21:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ernesto

Most seasons, we traditionally award the year's most destructive hurricane that designation in the season summery. Seeing as Ernesto was the most destructive hurricane of '06 (as low a bar as that is), should we not denote that? -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 01:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose we should wait for the TCRs, but if we were to use the November TWS, then yeah, $500 million (that's a lot of money, more than some others!) – Chacor 01:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, since we have the TWS, I think we can use it. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ernesto wasn't all that destructive. It only reached hurricane status for a few hours, and Fabian and Juan were retired because their impact to places like Bermuda and Nova Scotia as a Cat 2-3 was rare. AstroHurricane001 00:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, wait, because otherwise, you'd just be speculating, and that would be unacceptable. → JARED ^(t)  00:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not speculation when it's been mentioned by a reliable source. – Chacor 09:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible July Subtropical Storm

Eric Blake, a forcaster and Hurricane Specialist at NHC, mentioned that this storm is currently under review to determine whether or not this storm was extratropical or subtropical. It formed from the same low that produced Beryl, on July 17. Unfortunately, I can't find the link where Blake said this, so we'll just have to wait for official word, I suppose. Image from Weather Underground. Cainer⁹¹ 02:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

We would have had to wait for the official word anyways, but thanks for the tip. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It was covered in Padgett's August summary. – Chacor 02:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The final TWSAT:

IN ADDITION...A JULY WEATHER SYSTEM OVER THE ATLANTIC SOUTH OF NOVA
SCOTIA IS BEING REEXAMINED BY THE NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER...AS
PART OF ITS STANDARD POST-STORM ANALYSIS PROCESS...TO DETERMINE
WHETHER IT QUALIFIES AS AN UNNAMED TROPICAL CYCLONE.

– Chacor 15:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at satellite views, it looked fully tropical to me, but we need to wait and see. Also the near-miss off the NC coast in late June seems like a good candidate too IMO. CrazyC83 16:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I've seen a copy of the report. It is about to be submitted for consideration...we should know something more certain in the next couple months. Looks like T.D. #5 of 1988...a possible tropical storm that also gained TS status at the last possible moment. Thegreatdr 17:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

See, its their fault (the NHC) that two or more storms have gone by undectected. If I was the directer of the NHC, I would surely slap a name or two on those storms right away. Its a shame that the NHC would let those storms go by only to wait for the season to end and say "oprationally we treated this as a low" or "at the time we didnt treat it b/c it didnt have a closed circulation" and all that other nonsense excuses that pop up in their head. The season would have eleven named storm if I was in charge of the NHC. Storm05 17:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That is absolutely irrelevant and at this point useless attacks against the NHC. – Chacor 17:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry (my frustration may have got the best of me) but this the second time this had happened and I think this might impact how NHC's treat storms with questiable formations (possibly when their new forecast models become operational in 2007). Storm05 17:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how relevent the Hurricane WRF is to whether or not a tropical cyclone warning center issues advisories on a system already escaping into the Westerlies. It might impact the forecasts, but not actual operations. A look at HURDAT tells you how often a system has been diagnosed as a subtropical or tropical cyclone after the fact. Look at the Unnamed storms, particularly since 1950, or if you'd like, since 1980. Either way, you'll see this is not the second time this has happenned. Thegreatdr 17:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ether way, it shows that more is needed to prevent this from happening again other wise people will start complaining. Storm05 17:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If it doesn't affect land, it doesn't really matter that much. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Woot! I knew this storm would be picked up by someone. →Cyclone1→ 19:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Storm05, if a storm doesn't have a closed circulation, it's not a tropical cyclone. It's not "nonsense" to use that as an excuse for not naming something as a tropical cyclone. It's nonsense to think that it would be named as a tropical cyclone if it didn't have a closed circulation. Just thought I'd let you know. bob rulz 06:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that's a tropical storm. How could NHC have missed that? That storm has a tight circulation, I can pick out the center even in GIBBS low-def pic. It has well defined banding featured and good outflow. I'd say that's at least a 50 knot tropical storm. Storms that do not have a closed circulation usually look like they have multiple centers. The clouds are very ermine and dishevled and look like they're dancing around the center. I don't see how this is not a well established tropical cyclone, or how anyone with NHC's technology could miss that. That's like the equivelant of not identifying Mars as a planet with the Hubble Telescope. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 00:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That storm looks like the other half of Beryl that didn't quite form, because it was too far north. I'd label it as a subtropical depression. AstroHurricane001 18:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right, that is the storm that developed from the same system as Beryl did. Per Storm2k.org, one professional met believed it would be reclassified as a subtropical storm. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

FINALLY! I was among a small group of people that actually notced this storm. It was clearly subtropical at least. -Winter123 00:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much everyone noticed it. Many meteorologists were baffled as to why the NHC didn't classify it as such. Pobbie Rarr 00:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That's good to know. Here's the full loop if it hasn't been posted (sorry if it has) -Winter123 00:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)