Talk:2007 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 1

Merge

Is it really necessary to start a page that we won't see any development on for a whole year? Plus, all the info here can easily fit into the Post-2006 article. Alas, I would merge this back into the Post-2006 article, but I need to hear the opinions of the others first. What do you think? Jake52 22 April 2006

I vote yes on merge, but others might disagree. Hurricanehink 01:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have made this page myself, but after CrazyC83 made it I think we might as well keep it; removing and then replacing it would take more effort than it is worth and it is pretty certain the article will be needed eventually. We should probably try to agree on set criteria on when a season page should be created, though. — jdorje (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about when the first storm of the previous season forms? Like for 2007, if Alberto forms on July 8, we would wait until July 8 to make the 2007 article. How's that? Hurricanehink 20:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 2006 season page was initiated well before the 2005 season started. Best to keep one year into the future - but no more. CrazyC83 21:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i would vote to keep it up especially as This Year We had a Tropical Storm (Zeta) extended in to this season User:Jason Rees 23:49 BST, 14 September 2006 (UTC+1)

Dr. Gray's prediction

When does the initial come out? Should be interesting to see... CrazyC83 05:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006-12-08 --Ajm⁸¹ 05:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Wiki prediction article allowed this year? doktorb _words^deeds 10:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per the 2006 MFDs, keep it either on user subpages or [even more recommended] totally off-wiki. Perhaps start an invisionfree board or something for it if you want them. – Ch acor 10:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geo-earth.com has a great tropical weather forum geared for things like this. --Golbez 20:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers are out: 14-7-3. --Ajm⁸¹ 16:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had a strong feeling that, despite this years activity (er, lack of), Dr. Gray would predict an above average season. I did. →Cyclone1→ 23:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. The El Nino may suppress activity early on, but it should be gone by mid-season. CrazyC83 04:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really really weak El Niño so far, so I think, if it doesn't pick up this winter, I think it could be gone by April. →Cyclone1→ 01:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TSR December outlook

The first forecast for the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season has been posted by Tropical Storm Risk - 16 named, 9 hurricanes, 4 major hurricanes. --Core desat 18:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the past we've only used NOAA and CSU forecasts on the article. IMO we should limit it to those two, or otherwise have some guidelines on which forecasts should be included. There are many forecasts made for every season and not every one needs to be mentioned in the article. --Ajm⁸¹ 19:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January

Unlike last year, we don't have anything to follow right now. And likely won't be with El Nino firmly entrenched. This should stay as a Future event until June 1 unless there is a pre-season storm. CrazyC83 17:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgotten about el nino. I was wondering if with all this warm weather that some of the Atlantic might become "hurricane-ready" earlier than usual. We have daffoldils and crocuses poking out of a snow-less ground ... in VERMONT. If el nino weakened soon, could there be tropical or sub tropical formations in february, march, or april? SargeAbernathy 07:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daffodils breaking through here in the UK too, but no chance of Andrea hitting yet... is there? doktorb _words^deeds 10:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really our place to speculate. There are a couple of off-wiki sites dedicated to tropical weather, so if you look around them you may find something. – Ch acor 10:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess anyhting's possible. →Cyclone1→ 22:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way the UK has been battered these past two days I wondered if Andrea was on her way early....doktorb _words^deeds 07:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just something i have been thinking about the last few days if andrea should hit the UK or any other T storm who do we go by NHC or the met office? Jason Rees 15:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The NHC is the official basin for the Atlantic. As shown by Hurricane Vince in 2005 and Hurricane Debbie in 1961, the NHC maintains tracking Atlantic hurricanes until they become extratropical, regardless of location. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure both would cover it though. Cryomaniac 13:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt UKMET would issue separate analyses, though. The NHC is pretty much acknowledged as the authority on the North Atlantic, and they'd probably just reissue the American reports with their own safety warnings. —Cuiviénen 16:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February

La Niña?

La Niña may be arriving: [1] -- RattleMan 00:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The next CPC update is scheduled for March 7. Conveniently, the BOM update is scheduled for March 8 local time, so they will essentially be on the same day. --Core desat 00:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, Thanks. Yeah, I heard about La Nina. →Cyclone1→ 14:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive! -- WmE 21:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even more so the latest image (24th March)[2]. Who officially decides whether or not there are El Niño/La Niña conditions in effect? That's a VERY blue strip off the coast of Ecuador... Pobbie Rarr 21:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting colder and spreading west. [3] Data is from 30 March. Cainer⁹¹ 23:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March

Once again, Tropical Storm Risk has increased it's forecast for the 2007 AHS. It's now up to 17 named storms, 9 hurricanes, and 4 major hurricanes. Quite similar to the preliminary forecasts for last season. Hmm... Cainer⁹¹ 21:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's where your wrong. By this time last year, the predictions... were going down. →Cyclone1→ 23:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CPC ENSO Report

Just released today, view it here. -- RattleMan 21:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just got a really bad omen... Sundance Head got booted off of American Idol before he made it to the top 12. It's a sign of the the apocalypse... Even worse, If Sanjaya wins Idol in May, expect the worst season ever, and the eventual downfall of mankind.... →Cyclone1→ 15:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the pending hurricanes watch American Idol, and besides, there are several other shows in the basin. But anyway, La Nina should enhance activity, but the shear and dry air may hold it down some early. 2005 will be very tough to beat, as every wave has to become a storm practically... CrazyC83 18:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was just releasing my anger towards America's voters for not.... I'm way off topic. I think this season will be more '69-ish or '95-ish more than '05-ish. But, there's no way of knowing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cyclone1 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Dang it, why can't I remember to sign anymore? →Cyclone1→ 19:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there are mixed signals out there. The water is definitely warmer than at this time last year, but shear and dry air are also greater. However, hurricane season is still 2 1/2 months away, so much can change in the spring. CrazyC83 14:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QuikScat

[4]
Wow, that sounds scary! -- WmE 12:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

16% less acurate? Oh, geez, let's hope it doesn't fail. →Cyclone1→ 00:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All QuikScat does is estimate intensity of winds and determine closed circulations. It should have no bearing (or little bearing) on track forecasts. Media hype, as always. – Chacor 01:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they're getting their numbers out of thin air. "Without the satellite providing key data, Proenza said, both two- and three-day forecasts of a storm's path would be affected. The two-day forecast could be 10 percent worse while the three-day one could be affected up to 16 percent, Proenza said." Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, quickscat is not a track-forecasting mechanism. It's only used for intensity. – Chacor 01:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a complete misunderstanding of QuikScat. The primary function of QuikScat is to give the wind field across a swathe; not the intensity of a storm. The intensity can be determined, but it is one of many things (and Dvorak is better for that purpose). Knowing what the winds are doing, you can then work out what pressure is up to. The centre of the circulation can be identified from that, which is not always easy to do by other satellite methods for weak storms. Another thing, and of key importance to working out the track: QuikScat gives the groundspeed of the winds. This scan of Rita shows the strongest winds are westerlies to the north of the centre. From that I can deduce, as someone with no met training but merely an understanding of the principles, that the storm is heading west. A pro-met could obtain a lot more from the data; they could get an estimate of the forward speed of the cyclone for example. In short, QuikScat gives estimates to all of the following: The centre of circulation, the direction of motion and the speed of the storms motion. These are all pretty crucial to track forecasting. On that basis, I find the report credible - I cannot comment on the accuracy Proenza's numbers but the loss of QuikScat would have an impact.--Nilf anion (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A loss of QuicScat would also make it harder to determine wheter a system is just an open wave or a storm with closed circulation. Thus weaker system are harder to classify. -- WmE 19:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Losing QS wouldn't set us back too much. We would essentially be going back to 1998 or 1999 in terms of forecasting, and we would need to rely more on surface observations and recon (the latter being, in my opinion, better than QS for closing off circulations). At worst, warning areas would have to be enlarged by the proportion by which forecast error is increased (10-16%, judging from the article). --Core desat 22:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do have to remember that expanding the evacuation area means that more people are evacuated, and consequently, more people evacuated that will not be affected by a storm's landfall. Those people begin getting used to "false alarms", to call them that, and if history is any indication, "hurricane fatigue" makes warnings much less effective. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, not a lot of people realize that evacuation is expensive. It can cost up to a million dollars to evacuate 1 mile of coastline. 1 mile. 5,280 feet. And if the west coast of Florida from Ft. Lauderdale to the Miami-Dade is evactuated, and the 'cane suddenly heads to the Keys instead, that's a lot of money lost for such a flase alarm. So, even 10-16% more of a swath of can be a lot more expensive. At least, that's what I've heard. →Cyclone1→ 19:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RA IV Hurricane Committee 29th session

Working documents for the 29th session of the RA IV hurricane committee can be found here. A few of those documents can actually be used to add info to some of last season's articles, btw. – Chacor 16:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No word on retirement; the silence suggests no names were retired, but the 2012 list needs to come out on the NHC site. CrazyC83 00:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next forecasts

The next official forecasts come out 4-3-07, and according to my signature, that's (sorta) today. The suspense is killing me. →Cyclone1→ 00:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forecasts, not predictions. :P – Chacor 02:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now out: 17/9/5. – Chacor 14:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, forecasts. Whatever you call them, they're getting higher... →Cyclone1→ 18:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No offense to the forecasters, but I've found forecasts to be almost entirely useless. They're frequently way off. They are simply forecasts; about as accurate as any general weather forecast from that far out. bob rulz 05:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Risk, Inc.

The pre-season forecasts included on this page are currently limited to CSU and NOAA. Is there a reason, other than "it hasn't been done in the past" not to open this up to others? Tropical Storm Risk, Inc., forecasts have been discussed here on this discussion page. Why not bring that out to the main page? My personal opinion is: the more forecasts presented, the better, as long as the forecaster is credible. The Interloafer 22:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Risk is a commercial entity. While it used to be an official UK Met Office project, it now run by various insurance groups to do forecasts for other insurance and risk assessment firms, and their forecasts aren't used or endorsed by any of the RSMCs. Therefore, we don't post them here. On a minor note, they also aren't exactly clear, as they classify major hurricanes as storms with winds of 95 kt or higher (as opposed to 100 kt or higher). --Core desat 23:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it matters who makes the forecast, government or otherwise. If you're going to include any forecasts on the page, it's only fair to include private company's forecasts on this page. It might make them more accountable if they knew people were keeping track. Thegreatdr 00:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the criterion of notability then? There are plenty of private companies which issues forecasts. – Chacor 02:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The talk pages

I'm posting this from the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season talk page. Judging from the activity already on this talk page, it bears including into the 2007 talk page. Thegreatdr 20:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thaks Thegreatdr... I was a stupid idiot and meant to post here but not to 2006...--Nilf anion (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many people will be contributing to this talk page when the seasonal activity picks up. However, please remember that WP:NOT a soapbox, nor is it a discussion forum. Several sites exist for the latter activity. This page is supposed to be about the upkeep of the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season, the page, not discussion about the season. Looking at it from a strictly editorial matter:

INVESTs and TCFAs are an irrelevance, the editors who watch the season know when they exist. We don't need to say so.
If a new depression forms, it doesn't need a post here. Just add it to the article.
Ditto any new information regarding the system as its life develops.
Speculation about what NHC discussions mean isn't relevant to the upkeep of the article.

So please before posting a comment regarding an active storm, consider the question: "Does this matter to the upkeep of the Wikipedia article?". If the answer is yes, is a talk-page post needed? Odds are all that is needed is an edit to the article. If the answer is no, why bother posting at all? Take it to a webforum, there are many places which would be happy for that. The same applies to the other basins.--Nilf anion (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's no fun. →Cyclone1→ 19:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't about fun. If you want random discussion, we do have our own IRC channel. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're right... →Cyclone1→ 19:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or we can have a random discussion on another wiki (like wikia) rather than the IRC. Storm05 12:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either one works, really. Just as long as the chat room-like discussion here is toned down. There is a defunct hurricane wiki on Wikia that could be used to that end if you don't want to use IRC. --Core desat 13:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we? That way maybe AoI's could make a return (if they're reasonable, none of that, "Theres a cloud north of Nova Scotia. I give it a 45% chance of developing" type of stuff). I could move the Betting Pools there, too. →Cyclone1→ 20:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't a webforum developed for that last year? Hurricanehink (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, but it's non-Wikipedia format made it not as enjoyable. →Cyclone1→ 21:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repurposing the Hurricane Wikia

There's currently a discussion going on here about repurposing the hurricane Wikia to serve purposes that we can't on Wikipedia. I know there are a lot of people who read this talk page but do not otherwise participate in the project - this might interest you. --Core desat 20:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm one of them (sadly). Anyway, let's do it! I love the idea! →Cyclone1→ 23:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subtropical Storm Andrea

Perhaps someone should write about this? An early start to the season! Matt2h 14:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. First, it isn't official. Once it is, it can be put into the season article. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, now it's good. :) Hurricanehink (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the official season has not begun, would it be appropriate given that Andrea is active to add the current event tag now? (My apologies if a policy against it was decided). (Also, I completely lost track of my user name and password, and since the only article I'm liable to comment on is this one...too much of a hassle reregistering)--65.94.35.23 16:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's appropriate, in fact the tag is up there right now - {{ongoing weather}} RaNdOm26 16:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on the topic of Andrea, why was a sub-tropical storm given a name? Lord Bodak 17:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's NHC policy. They name all subtropical storms if they are identified as such at the time. Pobbie Rarr 17:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it became policy in 2002. Previously, they were separated. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the low system offshore mentioned in this [5] article Andrea? If so, should the two missing kayakers (one of them later rescued [6]) get a mention in the article?--65.94.35.23 22:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, and I possibly. --Golbez 00:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Button bar

There has only been one storm - do we really need a button bar? It has been shown in 1914 Atlantic hurricane season that button bars are completely useless in cases where the season only has one storm. I have commented it out for now; it's a good idea only to remove the comments after there have been a few more storms. --Core desat 15:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motto

I removed the {{Motd plain}} template. I don't believe this belongs in the article space. Johntex\^talk 19:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user who added it was blocked indef as a vandalism-only account, so it shouldn't be an issue at this point. --Core desat 20:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Season start

The official NHC stance - which we as an encyclopedia should not deviate from - is that the season start date remains June 1 regardless of any pre-season storm. Certainly the official end to the 05 season was Nov 30 even though Zeta lasted into January. TWOs are only released during hurricane season - that's the best way to judge it - even during active off-season storms no TWOs are issued.

Also, when the season does officially get underway, please remember to convert the season infobox to {{infobox hurricane season active}}. – Chacor 12:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i do agree with you there Chacor Unless the NHC Declare another storm befoe june 1st in the Atlantic we should list this page category as future class and even if there is another storm like the NHC is hinting towards in their last set of products on Andrea we should go back to future class after the storm Ends Jason Rees 18:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the article be future class if the low which was once Andrea is still in existence, and trying to become tropical? I can almost see your case if Andrea wasn't still around. Thegreatdr 19:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the NHC have released their last Advisory on it for now. When and If the low of Andrea goes Tropical and the NHC restart Advisories then the season would convert to Active Jason Rees 20:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC) EDIT ive just been to the NHC website and they have now issued a Tropical Disturbance Summuary on the remants of Andrea so if a Plane does go out tommorrow and comes back with it Becoming either Andrea or Barry then i will be happy to upgrade this page back to Current class Jason Rees 20:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, people remember the article-class is about 2007 Atlantic hurricane season not the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season. As the article covers a past event and future events it really should be considered a current-class article. As an aside I favour abandoning current and future classes replacing them with a single "unstable-class".--Nilf anion (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's such a thing as unstable class? Thegreatdr 21:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its a wiki, we can make it ;) As a practical matter neither future or current class have any real purpose beyond a placeholder here.--Nilf anion (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks for the info. Thegreatdr 21:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Future-class" and "Current-class" were created specifically for unstable (or to-be-unstable) articles of future and current events. That is because future events are pure reference or placeholders, and current events are unstable and change too often to be rated. CrazyC83 00:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, neither is necessary. They are just a placeholder class saying this article cannot be assessed on the assessment scale at this time. Instead of quibbling about what sort of event it is...--Nilf anion (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still take issue to saying the season officially started June 1 every season and ended November 30 every season. These are just arbitrary, entirely variable delineations of when most tropical cyclones occur, on average, not when they actually occur. The season doesn't stay within the bounds of June 1 - November 30. The only reason that's the season is because the NHC says so, but since when did nature care about what the NHC said? bob rulz 04:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, Bob. A hurricane season is first and foremost a natural phenomenon, not a bureaucratic one. Kosebamse 13:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. And remember this is about 2007 Atlantic hurricane season not the "2007 Atlantic hurricane season as defined by the WMO in the operational plan". This article covers a past event and future events - therefore it is current surely?--Nilf anion (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say so. Thegreatdr 17:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have always had a problem with the standard "this season officially began June 1 and ended November 30" and "these dates conventionally delimit the period of each year when most tropical cyclones form in the Atlantic basin" sentences that are present in every single Atlantic hurricane season article. I agree with what bob said; these are natural phenomena and should be treated as such. I would also suggest that the June 1 and November 30 dates not have such emphasis. For example, in the current article, these comments are the second sentence in the lead, and they also use "official" to make these dates seem inflexible, which is simply not true. These dates aren't important. However, what is important is what time of year they occur, i.e. late spring/early summer to late fall/early winter. --Tom (talk - email) 18:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding the use of the {{current}} template, are we going to change from {{future}} to {{current}} every time a storm forms and dissipates? That's just silly. Per the above commentary, the dates that "conventionally delimit" activity should not be treated as inflexible. There seems to be a consensus, so I'm changing it back. --Tom (talk - email) 18:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, where is Suzie's stapler when we need it? Storms that form after November 30 are still included in seasonal articles; Epsilon and Zeta were not shoved off to Tropical cyclones that formed after the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season's conclusion. For the same reason, this page should be cataloged as {{Current-Class}}, and the template on the article should be {{current}}. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. While for our internal purposes the article may be rated as a current-class article (i.e. on this talk page) the main article itself imo should reflect the official status of the season, i.e. not active until June 1 or until a storm forms. – Chacor 02:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The keyword there is "imo", and many on this talk page have indicated that they don't agree with you. Stop reverting. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you look carefully you'll see that I'm not the only one taking this stance. And I've already indicated that I've stopped reverting, so why don't you check first before giving orders? – Chacor 04:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hink reverted per 2006 AHS. But wait - after Zeta ended the 2006 AHS wasn't marked current. A storm could've formed after Zeta and become part of the 2006 AHS, much like you're all arguing now. So why wasn't that marked current? And if your argument is that nature has no bounds and a storm could form at any time, why do we only mark season articles current on June 1 or May 15 if there are no pre-season storms? Why do they stop being current on November 30? Give me a good reason for both. The NHC themselves say that the Atlantic hurricane season "begins June 1st". A storm before June 1 counts towards the Atlantic hurricane season but does not begin the season; there's a difference. I have no problem with this being current-class internally but the article itself should reflect the actual season, which officially hasn't yet begun. I think this sufficiently explains my position. And if any of you are wondering, this already has a spot on WP:LAME. – Chacor 03:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I wouldn't have minded if 2006 AHS was current since Jan. 1 due to Zeta. However, my biggest reasoning for keeping it current (after a pre-season storm formed) is because pre-season storms are the exception, not the norm. If there are no storms, then it should stop being current after November 30 because no storms are expected. Similarly, season articles are current on June 1/May 15 because, again, pre-season storms are the exception. If something happened before, great; it's part of the season, and thus the article (not necessarily officially designated season but article) is underway. If nothing happened before, then is right to keep it future until June 1/May 15. Calling it future/current isn't ideal, as mentioned above, but the 2007 AHS article shouldn't be future with a storm already formed. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It makes the most sense for the season to be marked current after the first storm forms since the article is about the current hurricane season, not the artificial political bounds ascribed to such. With Zeta, we had explicit wording from NHC that it was the last storm of the 2005 season. Technically, the hurricane season begins with the formation of the first tropical or subtropical depression/cyclone, and ends with the dissipation of the last tropical or subtropical tropical depression/cyclone. Thegreatdr 09:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could rebut that last sentence further, but I won't , because it's the sentence has made the most sense. Thank you for putting it that way and clearing that. – Chacor 12:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of finding common ground, I agree with Chacor — when he included this on WP:LAME. The {{future}} designation is to indicate that the article is essentially subjective because nothing has happened. Once there is activity, there is more objective material, and therefore a current event. The {{current}} tag should not be interpreted as a flag that "It's hurricane season" — rather that "This article is getting new information now." Read the subtext of each template for guidance. With my emphasis added, {{future}} states: "It may contain tentative information; the content may change as the event approaches and more information becomes available." The {{current}} template, which the subtext is more applicable to the current situation states: "Information may change rapidly as the event progresses." Rather than the article having the boilerplate waiting-for-the-season-to-start text, it has a subtropical storm listed in the article (which is subject to change). Again, the tag is about the article not the status of the season. That said, if there is reason to believe the article may change after Nov. 30 (waiting for a post-storm report for a major November storm), then the {{current}} tag should still remain.—Twigboy 13:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I could see the logic in not having the article current if there are no current changes to the article. Thegreatdr

MfD on discussion archives

Hi, just drawing attention to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Tropical cyclone discussion archives. Up for deletion are all the archives of discussion about tropical cyclones on the seasonal pages, as opposed to the archives of Wikipedia-related discussion. See the nomination for the rationale for deletion. The thoughts of contributors here be appreciated on the discussion.--Nilf anion (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result was "keep". --Tom (talk - email) 18:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fatalities

The NHC just issued their first Tropical Weather Outlook of the season. This article lists 2 deaths as a result of Andrea. However, the NHC statement says "ANDREA WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR NO DIRECT DEATHS...ALTHOUGH 5 PEOPLE DROWNED AS A RESULT OF THE PRECURSOR EXTRATROPICAL SYSTEM." So, shouldn't the article list either 0 or 5? Search 4 Lancer 15:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Likely it should list 5, but mention within the main text it was due to the precursor extratropical cyclone. This topic has already been broached within the Andrea article. Thegreatdr 15:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be 5, as we include numbers from extratropical and pre-tropical phases (and while a wave or low) since they were related to the tropical cyclone. It is mentioned by the NHC so it should be the actual number. 2005 was a classic example of the discrepancy (particularly with Hurricane Stan where the NHC's official number was 80 but it was related to over 1,600 and used by most other sources). CrazyC83 16:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand why they didn't go with the high number for Stan. It's not like another cyclone at the surface led to that flooding. Thegreatdr 19:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Shouldn't it be 6? I heard, earlier on this page, that there was one other fatality from andrea in the Southeastern US. Shouldn't that be mentioned as well? Also, what about the fire smoke that andrea brought into Georgia and Florida? Shouldn't that be mentioned as well? Also, Barry is supposed to merge with another low pressure system and bring heavy rain to Eastern US and Canada. Is the extratropical or possibly depression part of the storm going to be mentioned? What about the forecasts for Barry? Thanks. -- A stroHurricane00 1^(T+C+U) 17:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watch and warning maps

You guys used to put up the NHC watch and warning maps for current storms. Was there a decision to forego them? --Elliskev 21:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They've been available for half an hour, we're only human. --Golbez 21:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. That wasn't meant as it came off. I was thinking of adding it myself, but wanted to run it by the veterans here. --Elliskev 00:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ACE

The NOAA has an ACE value for SS Andrea, and this is counting towards this years total, i was unsure why it was not calculated on the talk page for ACE values. I realise that it was a sub tropical storm but it was still a named storm. Seddon69 10:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can Thegreatdr confirm if subtrops have ACE counted? – Chacor 14:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/2007-atlantic-trop-cyclones.html

is that good enough for evidence?Seddon69 17:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding, it is calculated for fully tropical storms only. For example, Nicole (in 2004) was a sub-tropical storm but did not have an ACE value. ---CWY2190^T^C 18:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just looked it up. [7] This link has SS Nicole with a ACE value of 1.1625 x 10⁴. The 2004 Atlantic hurricane season has Nicole with no ACE value. So I think Wikipedia is wrong about Nicole. ---CWY2190^T^C 18:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I guess there are conflicting sources. Some say sts's have no ACE, some say they do. Well, if you can find it somewhere, and it's a reliable source (I think noaa should be counted as reliable), you could probably add it to the article. Due to the source above, I have added the ACE for Andrea. However, I have not recalculated the season ACE figure, because I'm still waiting for approval. If someone agrees with my edit, could they recalculate the figures? Thanks. -- A stroHurricane00 1^(T+C+U) 18:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the official NOAA definition of the ACE Index does not include those periods when the system is characterized as sub-tropical. [8] So are we using the official ACE or not?--Ajm⁸¹ 18:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard similarly confusing things about Gray's tropical cyclone forecast verification (some years it includes STs, others it does not.) If there is an official NOAA definition, we should go by it...even with the pre-1968 ST problem existing. Thegreatdr 21:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we put the reasoning then on the page to show why andrea asit is a subtropical storm it does not count towards the total ACE then have a link to the NOAA site as evidence. Or we could put the ACE value in the table and put a * next to the value and underneath a reasoning for why it is not included in the total. I have a feeling alot of people are going to be confused by having a zero value for andreaSeddon69 10:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Andrea is not going to included in the ACE totals, why should she even be listed in the table? Surely it would be better to list only Barry for now rather than give Andrea a false value of 0.000 in the table. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"False value"? 0.000 is the correct value for Andrea, it's not "false". – Chacor 05:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a false value because a value of 0.000 is not the same as having no value, and by the NOAA definition Andrea doesn't have an ACE at all. It would be like including Uzbekistan (a doubly landlocked country) in a list of world navies as having 0 ships. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I wouldn't mind seeing Andrea removed from the ACE list, with a note in prose in the paragraph. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it makes sense to remove it from the list as well, per seddon/hink's suggestion. Thegreatdr 17:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara

If Barbara should happen to survive and reform in the Gulf of Mexico, would it go on this page as well? (I assume that should it do something so remarkable it would have an article of its own of course.) If so, how should two B storms in the same year be dealt with in {{2007 Atlantic hurricane season buttons}}? BA and BP? B♂ and B♀? B1 and B2? Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would indeed be handled in this article, and it would certainly get its own article then. As for the bar, I don't think that's a problem - storms usually get a new name when they change basins. See Earl from 2004 (became Frank in the Pacific), and Cesar from 1996 (became Douglas in the Pacific). Note that these were the next names on the list in the Pacific, it's just coincidence they were also the next letter up. So if Barbara somehow makes it here, it would become Chantal (unless that forms before then, in which case, Dean, and so on). --Golbez 22:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, I was just reading the 2007 National Hurricane Operations Plan yesterday:

" Within a basin, if the remnant of a tropical cyclone redevelops into a tropical cyclone, it is assigned its original number or name. If the remnants of a former tropical cyclone regenerate in a new basin, the regenerated tropical cyclone will be given a new designation."

– Chacor 01:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In order to retain its name cross-basins, a storm has to survive as at least a tropical depression. Barbara has dissipated. —Cuiviénen 02:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it barbara for example crossed from the pacific into the atlantic as a TS or higher there is one possible outcome. If it came in to the atlantic basin as a tropical depression it would simply be referred to as TD 3 and then if it intesified it would then be referred to as TS/Hurricane Chantel. I have extrapolated this from previous instances eg. Hurricane Gert Hurricane Greta-olivia Seddon69 12:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. If it crossed into the Atlantic as a TD or higher it would remain TD2-E, Barbara, and would not be called TD3/Chantal. – Chacor 15:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the Joan-Miriam transition in 1988. In real time, they called the system Joan until it regained tropical storm strength in the eastern Pacific. That was before the rule change involing the maintenance of the same name when systems cross basins was enacted. It would have needed to remain at least a tropical depression to keep the name Barbara in the Atlantic basin. Thegreatdr 14:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the crux of it. The rules were changed some time in the 1990s (not sure which year). Systems now always retain their name as long as they do not dissipate. Moot point anyway; Barbara's not regenerating. —Cuiviénen 20:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barry TCR

Located here. Max winds bumped up to 50kt! -- RattleMan 20:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to change the track on the rainfall graphic slightly. It doesn't look like I smoothed the track enough. Thegreatdr 14:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea TCR

NHC must have loads of time on their hands... oh wait, they do. [9] – Chacor 15:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, yeah. Glad they took time out of they're busy squedule tracking all the rigourous storms to write this report. :P Cyclone1(00:22-3-07-2007)

It would have been Hurricane Andrea if it had tropical characteristics from the start...interesting, I never thought the non-tropical low was THAT strong... CrazyC83 18:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So... is anybody gonna change Andrea's and Barry's tracks? Cyclone1(23:03-9-07-2007)

Revolt

Something on CNN about a revolt at the hurricane center; apparently a bunch of the senior analysts have no confidence in the current director. --Golbez 23:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those that want the link, there ya go. Oy vey. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been building for some weeks now. Thegreatdr 01:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The revolt has a casualty now. Mr. Proenza has been "temporarily reassigned", and Edward Rappaport is the acting head.[10][11] Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiousity, what does this discussion have to do with the article?guitarhero777777 23:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Well, it has potentially to do with the quality and timeliness of advisories and reports, I might think. We are only as reliable as our sources, and if there's a crisis of confidence in our sources, it needs to be considered. In fact, I would not be surprised if - and I would support doing this - we add a section on this little revolt in the article. --Golbez 00:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I just ask to make sure that this discussion didn't violate the Wiki forum rule. guitarhero777777 01:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ive just found this on the good old BBC it expalins all about the situatation with Mr Proensa and apparently he is due to go up before congress soon - [12]Jason Rees 18:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is incredibly difficult to imagine that the hurricane products would not have gone out the door with Proenza still in charge. It's not like the hurricane specialists suddenly forgot how to do their job. It certainly didn't affect them during Andrea, Barry, Alvin, and Barbara. At least one of his changes (a big positive) has been enacted, the graphical tropical weather outlook. This is a similar concept to what HPC is trying to with its Model Diagnostic Discussion, creating a graphical product that helps tell its user what they need to know quickly. Thegreatdr 23:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Activity?

I know you all aren't experts, but I question why both last season and this season we predicted to be the most active ever, and yet there's nothing going on. Is this coincidence, or can people just not get their figures straight? Fearing for your safety and knowing you're safe are on two different ends of the spectrum, and so far, predictions suggest the former, yet actuality suggests the latter. And I don't know how to understand this. Jared (t) 15:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I will attempt to reply, and I hope this doesn't violate not a forum rules. The thing is, earlier this season it has been active, but now it isn't and the pacific is more active. This suggests a weak El Nino trying to form. However, there is currently an invest near Bermuda. Remember 2004? It didn't see a single storm until August. I'd still be surprised, however, if at least a depression doesn't form this July. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 16:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither this season nor last season were predicted to "be the most active season ever"; this year predictions maxed out at 17, an above average year, with last year as the same. 17 is above average, but certainly not within the realms of most active season ever, which was 28 in 2005. The fact is, we're in an above active cycle, so 17 storms isn't terribly unthinkable; five of the last 8 seasons had 15 or more storms. I also wouldn't call having two named storms "nothing going on". June and July are typically inactive, and in an average (long-term average) year typically just one named storm forms before August 1. One shouldn't fear for their safety due to above average numbers, but as we are in an active cycle we certainly shouldn't be complacent. Additionally, one shouldn't assess an entire season based on early activity. Within the first two weeks of the season, 2005, 2006, and 2007 were all very similar, with a tropical depression forming in the western Caribbean and becoming a tropical storm before making landfall on the Gulf Coast. Seasonal hurricane forecasting isn't an exact science, and significant changes can occur within a season; 2006 had 10 storms by the end of September, and probably would have been considered an average season (by very modern standards) had there not been a late season shutoff. I hope this provides a better picture, and the key is to be prepared, not scared. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be concerned that the seasonal predictions were off if we went through August without another named storm. The 1984 season didn't have a named storm until the end of August, when three formed at once. That season ended up with 13, including the ST. Thegreatdr 23:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, activity (or lack of) in July has little meaning of the activity to come. July is typically one of the most inactive months during the hurricane season, so it can be very misleading. Like AstroHurricane001 mentioned, 2004 only had it's first storm on July 31, and we all know what happened then. Also, 2001 had only 4 storms and no hurricanes going into September, but it also ended up with 15 named storms. So, all the inactivity across the Atlantic Basin is quite normal for this time of year, and it gives no real indication of whats to come. We could end up with less than 10 storms, but we could also end up with much more. Cainer⁹¹ 12:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Met Office data

Currently the page has the following

On June 19, 2007, The United Kingdom Met Office released[7] predictions for the remainder of the season based on a new prediction model. The Met Office predicted 10 named storms, not including Andrea and Barry, with a 70% chance of 7–13 named storms. The forecast did not include predictions for hurricanes or major hurricanes.[7]

This is not the way I read the Press Release. I read it as a prediction of 7-13 named storms (or greater) with 70% confidence. ie, - 7-13 before Andrea and Barry does NOT mean 9-15 after them. (As reported in the table) - 7-13 also does NOT mean 10 - I think that in the UKMO definition. "Named Storms" include ones that become hurricanes. I suspect that the table may be blurring the definition of Named Storms, with some of the data including hurricanes and some excluding it. Andrew 10:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing blurring. Named storms do include hurricanes. Named storms is taken to mean tropical storm force strength and above. However the UKMO forecast does not identify how many of their predicted named storms will become hurricanes. Granted it could be worded better.

Also, you're missing a key point of the release: "remainder of the season". Therefore a prediction "not including Andrea and Barry" for the "remainder of the season", when expanded to include the whole season including the two storms, would result in the current displayed numbers of 9-15. – Chacor 11:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chantal's pressure

I think Chantal's lowest pressure listed should be 999 mbar. 994 was with the last advisory, and while it was already becoming a powerful extratropical storm. – Chacor 02:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is hard to say. It says in the discussion it was not quite fully extratropical yet (but quickly becoming such). This is a rare case of reaching maximum intensity on the last advisory. CrazyC83 02:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Becoming a strong extratropical storm will obviously result in a lower pressure. I think it should list the lowest pressure while Chantal was definitely fully tropical. – Chacor 02:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Chacor that we should use 999, although it might also be a good idea just to hold off until the TCR comes out, since that should clarify which pressure we should use. --Core desat 02:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We this TCR will take a while since they have to see if it was tropical as much as 18 hours before they finally made it TD3. ---CWY2190^T^C 02:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The TCR will tell us everything, or at least the monthly update. But if it was 999 at 5 pm and 994 now, it was obviously deepening over the last 6 hours (so it could be anywhere in there), which is why I think 994 is correct. That is just my view though. CrazyC83 02:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as of 11 PM EDT, it was still considered Tropical Storm Chantal; still as a tropical cyclone, its minimum pressure was 994 mbar. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. ---CWY2190^T^C 03:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless whether or not it was extratropical the NHC would still call it "Tropical Storm Chantal" in the advisory. See also Helene from last year. It was still called "Tropical Storm Helene" in the last advisory when it was extratropical. – Chacor 03:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, but the key difference is that Chantal was not yet (considered) extratropical. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...Chantal rapidly becoming extratropical..." would suggest the storm was not a tropical cyclone by definition. – Chacor 07:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rapidly becoming extratropical, yes, but not yet extratropical - "INITIAL 01/0300Z 43.6N 58.5W 45 KT" The initial advisory did not indicate it was extratropical. Hurricanehink (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. That means in both the season article and the Chantal article when completed, 994 should be listed if the TCR is not available. CrazyC83 20:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Chantal need an article? ---CWY2190^T^C 20:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely not imminent anyway, but eventually it will get one. CrazyC83 20:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should have previous storms to compare to. ---CWY2190^T^C 02:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One most keep in mind that becoming extratropical means exactly that. It is not a given that the header will say tropical storm once a system becomes fully extratropical. The central pressure during its tropical, and transition phase was 994 hPa. This could change with the TCR. Thegreatdr 22:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is an invest?

Hi. Is an invest a system recognised in the NHC's basin outlook, or is it something else? Should there be an article or Wiktionary definiton on an invest, to make it clear? I've never heard the NHC calling tropical waves "invests", so where does one get the actual info on the invest, or to update it? It doesn't seem like just any storm in the atlantic outlook, because there is one invest and three storms in the graphical outlook. There doesn't seem to be even a slight mention of the term invest from the nhc, so you must have gotten all this info somewhere else. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 17:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NRL carries them. DOD or NWS declare invests for NRL to put up. – Chacor 17:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is determined by NHC, CPHC, or JTWC, and is normally a tropical disturbance mentioned in the TWO or corresponding outlook. The number, determined by ATCF software of the affected warning center, is between 86 and 99, but normally in the 90's. Thegreatdr 22:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1-49 are actual storms, 50-69 are reserved for special use (Cyclone Catarina was 50L), 70-79 are for training purposes, 80-89 are test invests and 90-99 are operational use for potential systems. CrazyC83 01:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We were using numbers in the 50s, 60s, and 70s for test/training purposes this year. Thegreatdr 12:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We know we have a 99.L, right? Well, this says storm 99, and it is 99L. However, here's the problem. There're also storms98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, and 90. What are those? I know those are not invests other than 99, but are those storms recognised only by the sfwmd as potential for development, and develops models? What is the sfwmd? Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 13:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The others are previous tropical disturbances. One or two might have been for Chantal during its formative stage. SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District) is one of many end users of products issued by NHC. They're using the compute data, and embedded guidance, to plot the potential path of tropical disturbances. In AWIPS/AFOS the header is CHGHUR, but the product also has a WMO header used when the data is disseminated. The initial position for the compute data is entered into ATCF software at one of the warning centers and then the text product is issued after running through the supercomputer, and for the Atlantic Basin, it is determined by NHC (HPC during backup). There is no real rhyme or reason as to which number in the 90s is used. If one develops into a sub/tropical depression/storm, the designation is reassigned to the next number in that basin's series (04L in the Atlantic and 09E in the eastern pacific), which is simply done within ATCF. Thegreatdr 15:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Chantal?

Environment Canada upgraded Chantal to Hurricane status at 3:00am ADT early August 1st, here is the reference. Between 3:00am ADT and the following statement issued at 9:00am ADT, it had lost all of its tropical characteristics, thus becoming a strong north Atlantic storm. Therefore Chantal is the first Atlantic Hurricane of the 2007 season. I am waiting on an email from the NHC to see if they will also confirm this indeed was the first Hurricane, a forcaster wrote me stating they will confirm it later this evening. YUL_0001

Environment Canada is not the official warning centre.
The storm was already extratropical at the time.
Check the windspeeds - 45 kt. Hurricanes are 64 kt and above. A corrected advisory was issued at 061030. – Chacor 00:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also i have just Checked the July Tropical weather summuary and they are sayin that Chantell had Peek winds of 50 Mph which is still a tropical storm. Jason Rees 00:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was definitely an error. It was never even close to becoming a hurricane. 45 kt is a lower-end tropical storm. CrazyC83 01:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gray?

Hasn't Klotzbach taken over now that Gray is retired? Or is he still holding on? --Kim D. Petersen 17:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Klotzbach has taken over the Predictions but Gray is still there. Jason Rees 23:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - that explains this sentence: "Forecasts of hurricane activity are issued before each hurricane season by noted hurricane experts Philip J. Klotzbach, Dr. William M. Gray, and their associates at Colorado State University; and separately by NOAA forecasters." - i thought it might have been carried over from a copy of an older hurricane season page (ie. copied as template). --Kim D. Petersen 23:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i would guess if it had ben copied then it would off only been copied from last seasons page Jason Rees 20:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And your point being? Since the previous season has the exact same wording. (which was exactly the reason that i inquired...) --Kim D. Petersen 21:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was copied from last season's wording, yes. Gray is still there as secondary author of the forecasts however. – Chacor 02:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TD 5 Sandbox

Seeing as it is a threat to land, I've made a sandbox for TD 5, so it can be published once it gets to TS status. It is located here. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of creating an article while a storm is active? Is just makes it harder to update. ---CWY2190^T^C 03:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That someone will create it anyways. Also, the information in the season article should not be too heavy towards any particular storm, so the storm article receives most of the current event updates. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. TD5/Erin (if named) will need it first. Dean can wait a bit as it is quite a ways from land, despite its frightening potential... CrazyC83 03:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I also have a sandbox for Dean located here, but I won't publish it for a few days. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to co-ordinate efforts. – Chacor 04:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Plasticup/Sandbox Dean was more for practice than anything else, but I do rather like my Storm History. Feel free to use it. Plasticup ^T/C 10:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. TD5 is threatentening oil supplies in the Gulf of Mexico. They raised the price of oil even before formation. Please include it in the sandbox as well, and find a better source. You said that Chris raised the price of oil last year. Well, this should be included as well. I saw this on TV, but I think there should be better sources. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 14:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erin [...] is not expected to have much impact on [oil] production Plasticup ^T/C 17:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Sandbox

I have been working on a sandbox for Dean. Right now I am working under the assumption that it will become a hurricane before it needs an independent article. If we need the article before then I will obviously have to modify the introduction, but otherwise I think my sandbox version is fairly good. Of course, input is always appreciated and you should feel free to make changes to it if you think you can help. I only joined WPTC a couple weeks ago and am still learning the ropes. Plasticup ^T/C 14:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job so far, and I have a few comments for future reference. First, and its a personal preference, but typically the first paragraph of the storm history goes from the impetus to TD status, which mirrors the NHC tropical cyclone report. Next, directions are usually spelled out in the prose of the article (WSW would be west-southwest). If possible, for all units, could you include metric units in parenthesis (this site has easy conversions)? Additionally, while doing that, could you include a non-breaking space between the units? The command for non-breaking spaces (which would combine the number and unit) is , so 100 miles would show up as 100 miles. Also, it's understandable that you're planning on publishing this after it becomes a hurricane. However, since there is a possibility it does not strengthen before an article should be made, you might want to put the links back as Tropical Storm Dean. Some of the article could use some re-wording (satellite images of microwave should be microwave satellite images), but all in all not bad. Keep it up. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I have been prowling your past FAs looking for style tips... Plasticup ^T/C 16:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why there isn't code to not execute a non-breaking space. The non-breaking space should look like this:
 
(copy it as you see it normally; don't copy it from the edit window). -- RattleMan 16:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the difference between copying from the edit window or directly from the talk page... were you worried that I would copy the <tt> tags? Plasticup ^T/C 16:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's a difference between typing the text out and typing the HTML code for it out - the HTML code won't render into the non-breaking space. – Chacor 16:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No. The problem here is that you can't write a non-breaking space without executing it. To circumvent that, I used the code for an ampersand ("&" + "amp;"). It renders as & when viewed normally. The code needs to be "&" and not "& amp;" for it to work right. -- RattleMan 16:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Dean 145mph

[13]

Ouch. Need it updated in km/h.

Aborlan 01:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well okay.. its about 235 km/h. -- グリフオーザー 04:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 warnings?

Do we need both warnings at the top of the page? I would just remove the one that says "this is about an ongoing meteorological phenomenon" as that's more or less stated by the second (more urgent) warning, that information may not be current... Evercat 15:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first isn't a warning, it's a tag equivalent to {{current}}. – Chacor 15:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I don't see that you need both... Evercat 16:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first is up all season, the second is up only when watches/warnings are out. ---CWY2190^T^C 18:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GIF vs. PNG

Wikipedia seems to be placing a strong suggestion that all GIF images on the site should be converted to PNG, in the form of a warning attached to all GIF images. Since it takes about 5 seconds to convert the NHC's "5-day track" GIF to PNG using PNGOUT, I figured I'd comply with that (rather intrusive) request and drag all future copies onto PNGOUT before uploading them. It's still the work of a U.S. Government agency, but it gets rid of the GIF/JPG warning message. Any objections to me continuing to upload PNG versions of the 5-day track? DOSGuy 17:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dean coordinates/strength table

Can I ask editors who are updating the Hurricane Dean page with the new coordinates and information from the newest advisory to update the table on the hurricane season page here too? I've had to update the information twice in the last 24 hours because we had the updated information on the Dean article but hours-old information on the season article. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 19:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah i will always Try to update the seasonal article and Dean when i am on Jason Rees 21:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good storm track comparison tool

I'm not sure if it is a candidate as an external link, but I find the website http://html.wesh.com/sh/idi/weather/hurricanes/hurricanetracker.html is a good way to compare the tracks of current and historical named storms. - Bevo 17:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice, but is it useful? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it because it shows the pace of a storm. You see how it slows down and speeds up as it progresses. Position, strength, velocity for known data. Position probabilities for projections to current storms. Plus you can overlay one storm on another to see how similar to a point one is to another (that may not be useful, but I heard NASA folks say they look at that aspect anyway when they do planning). - Bevo 20:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dean's image.

Why is Dean's main image a satellite shot of Dean at cat 4 strength? Shouldn't it be an image of it's landfall? Cyclone1, logged out. 21:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

ive jsut found this image on the BBC News website BBC NEWS Jason Rees 17:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erin

Normally I would wait to bring about this kind of change to a recent TC article, but why wait if the only reason it was operationally not brought up to 45 knots by HPC was a policy issue between NHC and HPC? SPC has a stake in the outcome this time, due to the type of warnings the WFOs were forced to issue, and the fact that it occurred in their backyard. No one doubts the data quality of the OK mesonet and the sustained winds of 50 mph reported at Watonga, as well as a few other sites that reported sustained winds of 40 mph...the data is not what is in dispute. Thegreatdr 13:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that no NHC or HPC advisory mentioned 45 kt winds it would not be right to list max winds at 45 - especially if the TCR comes out saying 35 in the end. – Chacor 13:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two references saying otherwise aren't good enough in the meantime, eh? I think people understand that the status of any of these systems can change between the real-time advisory and the TCR. Besides, it is highly likely this information will make the monthly global TC summary between now and then, which could also preempt the timing of the TCR. Will that not be good enough either? Let's shift this debate into the main TC project web page. Thegreatdr 15:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the NHC lists 50 mph in its monthly summary table at the bottom of the TWSes, then fine, use 45 kt. But until then these readings were not in any official advisory. – Chacor 15:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Nhc Summuary says that Erin was a 35kts (40MPH) Storm with Post Storm Annayliss still Going on. so untill the TCR coems out we keep it at 40 mph Jason Rees 15:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Connection to Midwest Flooding

Hi. This comment is unrelated, but the remnants of Tropical Depression Erin is partially responsible for the flooding caused by the 2007 Midwest flooding. One, the remnants of erin clearly merged with the storms responsible for this flooding. Two, most TV news broadcasting stations cite the remnants of Erin as embedded within this storm responsible for the 40+ deaths (and ~$100 million in damage) and bringing rain to the continental US and even parts of southern ontario, which is why the ground here is still partially wet. Three, the HPC tracked Erin until it merged with the low pressure system responsible for the Midwest flooding. So, should the deaths for Erin include the indirect deaths caused while over land in the central areas of the US? Even Andrea has the deaths included which it caused while extratropical. So, although the storm would have caused deaths anyway without Erin as the ground in the areas it affected were already soaked, the remnants of Erin made it worse than it would have been. Even the article an the US flooding (which is now on the main page) mentions the deaths cuased by Erin. It may seem unrelated, but the broader low pressure area which includes both Erin and the storms which casued the flooding, merged with parts of itself and is thus responsible for all the deaths from both Erin and the storm in the continental US. I mean, who is going to track both Erin and this storm separately on radar/satellite, and attempt to distinguish the two systems from each other? Even this storm which caused the flooding in the US had many periodic reigons of convectivity, Erin being one of them, and if you look at a satellite still of this storm a few days ago, it would be pretty hard to distinguish the convection from the remnants of Erin from the other areas of convection in this storm. Unless you have the expertise of tracking the exact location of the remnants of Erin apart from this low which caused the flooding, and are able to hold your patience with the malfunctioning satellite loops, it would be pretty hard for an average person to distinguish the two. No, Erin did not dissipate when it hit this storm, it merged. Even the track for the remnants of Erin takes is across 9 US states and out to sea, including ones affected by the midwest flooding. Should the two articles associate and link to each other? Also, it appears the remnants of Dean has also merged with this system. This system which caused the flooding and its remnants is a very large one, and after Dean became 93.L invest in the Pacific, the main part of its convection travelled across Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, etc, and apparently partially merged with part of the system responsible for the flooding, which it and its remnants seemingly stretches from California to New England to Mexico to Newfoundland. Should the articles, the 2007 season, the Erin article, the US flooding article, and maybe even the hurricane Dean article, etc, mention and link to each other? Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 18:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The low associated with Erin dissipated as it entered Missouri. Its remnant mid-level circulation moved east across northern Kentucky and dropped ESE through Virginia. It did not become a frontal wave nor was it absorbed by a frontal zone located to its north. The daily rainfall maps, for the most part, show the separation between the precipitation directly associated with Erin and that along the frontal boundary. It was not directly associated with the Midwest Floods. However, the frontal zone where the heavy rains focused had a moisture fetch from Erin (a short tropical connection) which led to significant PRE-style rains (indirect). And...Erin can only be partially blamed for the rain that occurred from the 18-21st, which only covers about half the Midwest rainfall event. One could argue either way...but there is more support in handling the flooding as a separate event, with some influence from Erin for a few days. Even the HPC storm summaries on the Midwest Flooding bear this idea out, although it was briefly included into the Erin advisories that were issued in real-time. Thegreatdr 22:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invests

We now have 4 invests. Why does Wikipedia have only 1 up? Weatherlover819 14:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. For some weird reason, there are only 2 invests on NAVY, 94 and 95. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 15:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center (FNMOC) is not updating, if you're using that site. - グリフオーザー 21:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AccuWeather's graphics from late this morning

Should we acknowledge, if this system is eventually recognized by TPC, that AccuWeather called this system Tropical Depression #6 at 11 am this morning? If we do, how do we handle it? Their central pressure was about 22 hPa too low, equivalent to a borderline TS/Hurricane. Thegreatdr 19:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. It is no different that myself recognizing this system at 11am. ---CWY2190^T^C 19:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, since there is currently a reference online, though it would likely disappear sometime soon, one way or the other. Thegreatdr 19:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i would wait as NRL are now showing 06L so The TPC are bound to put it up 2100 Jason Rees 20:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]