Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about 2006 Atlantic hurricane season. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Alberto TCR

It's out: [1]. --Ajm⁸¹ 20:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Before the season was over, but not until November, IIRC. —Cuivi é nen 15:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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. -- §Hurricane E RIC § archive 23:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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. -- §Hurricane E RIC § archive 21:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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)

Debby article?

The sandbox article - since TD4/Debby is near land, it should be initiated when it becomes TS Debby - is at User:CrazyC83/Debby06. CrazyC83 03:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. We've made that clear with Chris, for storms that do little. There will be little info out of Cape Verde for now, and perhaps we should wait until it threatens more land - this could still well be a fishie. – Ch acor 03:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So the Cape Verde islands aren't land? Cryomaniac 06:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"more land". – Ch acor 06:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily, Chacor. If it causes extensive damage or loss of life in Cape Verde, then it is not a fish-spinner, so it should get an article. It's as simple as that. Tito xd^(?!?) 07:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't my point. The point is, we won't be getting much info out of CVI for now, and we should wait until we get any indication it did serious damage. – Ch acor 07:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Why are all of you calling cyclones 'fishspinners'? I have never heard the word 'fishspinner' before. RaNdOm26 08:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

'Fish Spinners' are cyclones that stay over open water, I believe. Since they don't affect land, all they do is spin fish around a bit. --PK9 09:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Well that's the weirdest name I have seen to call a cyclone. RaNdOm26 09:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Every single storm in 2005 had an article. And when/if (though very likely when) this becomes an storm it should have an article. Hello32020 11:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

NO. That mentality needs to be stopped. See the discussion below. – Ch acor 11:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep position except Tropical Storm Watch/Warning has to be issued. Hello32020 11:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Dvorak estimates now T2.5/2.5 = 35kts. -- WmE 13:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Held at 30 kt. – Ch acor 15:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

With TS Warnings discontinued and the storm not forecast to affect land, I must once again question the usefulness an article would bring (for now). – Ch acor 16:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Now it is not in article position since it is sitting on its own out there. CrazyC83 18:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is when I think an article should be created, if it is created initially:

If a new tropical storm or hurricane watch or warning is issued (unlikely for at least 5-7 days).
If the storm strengthens to a major hurricane (115 mph+) while pointing towards land (with at least an outside chance of land impact) to get the buildup factor ahead of the storm.
If new surprise damage reports come in.

Otherwise, there should be no article until the TCR as Cape Verde is clear. (Regardless, I will keep the sandbox going in userspace as something to base off of) CrazyC83 19:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

and Ernesto?

Does anyone think we should move it over now to a separate article? It seems like it is going to be a bad storm. CrazyC83 14:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Not just YET. To date, there is little info (maybe a bit on preps, but not much else). It may also pull a Chris and fizzle out, so we should wait. – Ch acor 14:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea mentioned previously, where we would split it once the first hurricane warning is issued (or when it becomes a major hurricane, whichever comes first) Runningonbrains 15:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

We're getting there, we just have to see intensity increases verified 1st. Remember, before this enters the gulf it is forecast to be a 'cane. "Hold your horses." Later today, if we have a 50kt or 55kt storm--which we may have all too soon-- and continued forecasting H by Mon., yes, it seem fitting. but for now, the article can be long within this. the NHC holds it at 45knts for now, but wait and see. It could do a Chris and weaken. later today though, maybe. jj 15:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

How do we make it so that we can move User:CrazyC83/Ernesto06 to Tropical Storm Ernesto (2006) when the time comes? CrazyC83 16:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Remember to get an admin to do it. – Ch acor 16:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Latest blog from Wunderground guy Cwolfsheep 16:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hold off on the article. You should wait until there's some decent damage info, though hopefully there'll won't be any damage. The last thing the GOM needs is another hurricane. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

One of the criteria has been met. According to the Weather Channel, hurricane warnings are posted for Jamaica and Grand Cayman. guitarhero777777 17:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Which is false. There's only tropical storm warnings and hurricane watches. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, read the NHC advisory, only H Watches. – Ch acor 17:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the map, you will see that there are tropical storm warnings as well. --tomf688 (talk - email) 18:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably said watch, but I mistook it for warning. guitarhero777777 18:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

No hurricane warnings yet, but new watches out. I am adding a bit more to the sandbox page to prepare for the move. CrazyC83 21:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Prominently featured on the media, and evacuations issued in Haiti. As discussed on IRC, I've moved the subpage to Tropical Storm Ernesto (2006). Tito xd^(?!?) 00:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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." -Tc w d 21:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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)

(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)

(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)

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

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)

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

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

Beryl TCR

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

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

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

Not working for me. --Thelb ⁴ 07:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Link: "[2]". {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)[3] (488 KiB) Tito xd^(?!?) 07:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

Dr.Gray's September update

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

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

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

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

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)

Yep (to Crazy). --Irfan Faiz 00:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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. -- §Hurricane E RIC § archive 18:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. El Nino does affect upper-level winds. In fact, that's the primary reason the 1997 season was so inactive; strong shear caused by an El Nino. El Nino causes unusually strong upper-level winds in the Atlantic basin. El Nino causes very warm ocean temperatures off the coast of Peru, which is caused partially by warm water being pushed there by easterly prevailing winds as opposed to the normal westersy. This easterly prevailing wind translates into the Atlantic, where it shears most of the systems moving across the Atlantic Ocean. bob rulz 05:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Where did you hear that? -- §Hurricane E RIC § archive 21:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure some of it is in the El Nino article...other things I've heard mostly from the Storm2k forums from people who know what they're talking about. I can't give any specific source, but 1997 was not inactive because of low SSTs, it was inactive mainly because every system that tried to develop got sheared apart. 1997 was on its way to a record season before that El Nino kicked in before the peak of the season; I don't think the seas just suddenly got a whole lot colder. Yes, El Nino cools down the SSTs, but it's the powerful upper-level winds that really kill the systems. bob rulz 22:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

1997 was not destined to be active. Sure they had an active July, but the strongest of those storms was Danny with 80 mph winds. The Pacific was off the charts. The Pacific in 1997 was at least as ridiculous as 2005 in the Atlantic. And I still don't believe this is El Nino. I think that the conditions just weren't as favorable as they have been for the past 3 years. The water has been plenty warm, but Saharan Dust was kicked up in extranious amounts (I think that has something to do with the wind shear) and thunderstorm activity over Africa has been lower than it was in '03-'05. -- §Hurricane E RIC § archive 22:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do you dispute Dr. Gray's official update that El Nino is forming and a mild El Nino may have already begun? And 1997, if I remember correctly, still held the record for the earliest-forming 4th storm on record until 2005 came along. By the end of July they had had 4 storms and 2 depressions, and they ended up with 3 storms the rest of the season, only one of which was significant in any way. If you look at this year, when many of the experts agree than an El Nino is forming, the SSTs are still above average; it's the shear that's killing these systems. Sure, we're still near average, but in an active cycle such as this, having shear killing these systems like they have been is unusual, not to mention the low number of storms compared to recent seasons. Not to mention that spate of rapidly-intensifying East Pacific hurricanes, and especially Ioke. I'd say that by the end of this year we could be having some violent storms in the West Pacific (since the latest theories say that El Nino affects the East Pacific first and its effects sort of "spread" out from there). Either way I don't see how you can dispute than El Nino is forming, even contradicting the experts on the matter. bob rulz 22:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The primary way that El Nino works is through increasing upper-level westerlies and wind shear; I'm sure Dr. Masters too has described it as such in the past, and someone with better search skills may be able to dig it up. There's even a brief mention of that mechanism in the El Nino article. I'm not sure whether it would also generate stronger lower-level winds or something of the sort, as that induces evaporative cooling - but it's possible. I'm sure that's not the main mechanism though. —AySz88 \^-^ 00:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read Gray's report. If he thinks it's El Nino then he probably has a good reason. All I'm saying is, that it sounds far-fetched to have an El Nino right after a La Nina. That said, comparison to 1997 should not be being made anyway. '97 was the strongest El Nino in a long time. I don't know what this is, but it sure as hell isn't 1997. I don't even think this compares to 2002, but I won't be able to say for sure until the end of the season. I do agree with you (Bob) that El Ninos do seem to slowly progress from the Pacific to the Atlantic. To make a 1997 reference, 1996 in the West Pacific was very active in terms of numbers (something like 36 storms formed) but average in terms of intensity. This seems like a prelude to the 1997 season, and we all know about the mindboggling numbers that Pacific season put up. I just find it hard to believe that an El Nino can so closely follow a La Nina. -- §Hurricane E RIC § archive 23:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Err, what about 1997 after 1996's La Nina? 2002's El nino after 2001's La Nina? Even a weak El nino could shut off activity, like in October and November, like 2004. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Florence: 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)

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

Just to let you know, officials plan to issue a tropical storm warning within 24 hours, not a hurricane anything. [4] What if Florence doesn't become a hurricane until after passing near Bermuda? Hurricanehink (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Well, it strengthened again. I think the article should be split ASAP. -Runningonbrains 07:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think so too. However, that is up to an administrator. CrazyC83 15:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Florence's category

This article says that Florence belongs in category #1, but that the speed is fast enough for it to be in category #2 according to what the article about the categories says. Any faulty info?? Georgia guy 16:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You looking at gusts. The category of a hurricane is based on sustained winds, which this falls into a category 1. guitarhero777777 16:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well the NHC is expecting Category 2 at 50% within the next 12 hours. — § Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody _{(T + U + E + C)} - (Remembering 9/11) 02:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'd take it back, no Category 2 signs anymore. Begun to weaken. — § Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody _{(T + U + E + C)} - (Remembering 9/11) 03:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Calculating ACE, and where's the info on gusts?

I see Accumulated Cyclone Energy, but can you explain it to someone who barely recalls the summation symbol, so I can help add the ACE when doing an update?

Where's the info on current max gusts? Usually the public advisory just says "higher gusts", with an occasional example like "58mph", but the current Florence iinfobox says 115mph, and I haven't changed that statistic.

Also, why does the advisory say "MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS REMAIN NEAR 90 MPH...150 KM/HR". At first I thought it was a typo, but the past several advisories say the same. Isn't 90mph approx 145 km/h? TransUtopian 01:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The NHC probably calculate in knots, then do the necessary conversions and rounding up/down, hence the discrepancy. Gusts are found in knots in the Forecast/Advisories. ACE = (MSW (kt)/100)². Remember that 1 kt is exactly equal to 1.852 km/h. – Ch acor 01:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. And I see the latest forecast/advisory is still 2100UTC, so no change yet. Still curious on ACE. TransUtopian 02:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

ACE is calculated by taking maximum sustained winds (in knots) of full advisories, divided by 100, with that result squared. Hence a 100-kt advisory would get (100/100)² = 1.000 – Ch acor 02:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Knots are only in the forecast advisories, which hasn't been updated since this diff, so no change yet either. 80 kt/100 = 0.8. Squaring that gives me 0.64, which is exactly the amount Keith Edkins added. Learned something new. Thanks. TransUtopian 02:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Template troubles

I'm trying to add Image:TD72006atlantic.gif to the TD7 section, but it won't go into the template. Any help? --Thelb ⁴ 06:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

TD7 currently uses HurricaneActive. Use IHC. I'll do it. – Ch acor 06:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Thelb ⁴ 06:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Warning Graphic

Is it just me or is this warning graphic getting out of hand. Unless we are reaching out to the fish, sharks, and other aquatic life, do we need to list all of the active systems? Wouldn't it be better to list the system when a watch or warning actually exists? --Holderca1 15:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It does appear to be getting a bit large and over blown. Maybe, if we need it at all, "residents of [countries affected]" rather than "residents affected by Hurricane Julie-Anna, Kieran, and LilliBob-Jo." After all, I would rather know where the storm is going to hit, not what it's called..... doktorb _words^deeds 15:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

We did not use that graphic for Ioke, because while it threatened land no person was (known to be) intentionally in its way. It should be modified for just Florence (NS and NL) and TD-8 (Cape Verde). – Ch acor 15:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There could easily be ships out there in line for the storms... CrazyC83 16:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Scratches head, a ship out in the middle of the Atlantic that is using Wikipedia for guidance on where to sail. I hope you are kidding. --Holderca1 16:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Rofflez. Crazy, you are Krazy. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 16:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. That's absurd. Per WP:BOLD, I have changed the header to the following. – Ch acor 16:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That works for me, plus one less thing we need to keep updated. --Holderca1 17:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

A warning sign is fine, but isn't that a bit overdone? The font doesn't have to be larger or italics. The octagonal sign with a cross resembles stop sign is definitely wrong (usually used in error messages on computers). An exlamation mark surrounded by a triangle is much better.--JyriL ^talk 22:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all that Jyril said. The warning box has always annoyed the hell out of me; there's no reason for it to be that large. It's great to have one, but it's incredibly distracting when you come to the page. bob rulz 22:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

OK then, check out my toned down version!Anarchist42 23:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, much better. Not only it is less distracting, it's aesthetically pleasing as well. Thanks for the upgrade. bob rulz 02:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

TS Alberto ACE

I've been in a little conflict over the ACE total for TS Alberto, and so I brought the issue here in hopes of avoiding an edit war less than a week after creating an account here.

Yesterday, I noticed that the ACE total for TS Alberto was listed as 2.76, yet the ACE calcs page states that it was actually 2.51. Confirming the value of 2.51 against NHC discussions, I changed the value on the ACE table on the main page to match the value on the calcs page.

However, I noticed today that TS Alberto's ACE had been changed back to 2.76. I attempted to fix the value again, but my edits were reverted within minutes of my making the correction. Can anybody please check over TS Alberto's ACE and determine the correct value? --LordAkanata 02:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season/ACE calcs says that best-track noted 2.76. Best track > operational. – Ch acor 03:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Chacor. I completely overlooked the best-track in my ignorance. --LordAkanata 03:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)