Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:58, 2 June 2006

Please remember to sign your comments using "~~~~"! (This request includes anonymous users.) Discussion should be limited to the article and related issues (like the season itself). For off-topic discussion and others, see below for special discussion areas.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4.

Monthly Event Archives: January, February, March, April, May
Tropical Discussion Archives: May, June
Storm Event Archives: none
Specialized Discussion: ACE calcs, Betting Pools, Off-topic, Predictions

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

June

Week 1

Welcome the official start of the season. NSL E _(T+C) at 00:05 UTC (2006-06-01)

Indeed, welcome! -- RattleMan 00:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And *gasp* no tropical cyclones to date! Who would have thought that there would have been no cyclones in the off-season, unheard of isn't it?--Nilfanion (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, cyclones in the off-season? Tropical Storm Zeta (2005) ;) NSL E _(T+C) at 00:49 UTC (2006-06-01)

Sorry, I was half asleep I meant no pre-season activity... and how many AoI's "with a 90% chance of development" did we have?--Nilfanion (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be too sure Nilfanion. There is ongoing discussion of the tropical depression-like entity that struck Texas on May 31st with 32 mph sustained winds at Corpus Christi, and up to 14 inches of rain over the past 2-3 days which is drifting through southern Texas at this time. Apparently one of the C-man stations reported tropical storm force winds. I'll be curious to see the post-season/post-June evaluation of this system, if it doesn't sneak back into the Gulf of Mexico in the next 24 hours. Thegreatdr 22:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for my *shock* comment was more to do with the tendency of editors here to try and find storms out of nothing than any real comment on off-season activity; when you see 20 "this one could be Alberto's" you get a bit fed up. Check the "Tropical Discussions" and "Predictions" subpages to this article, for a bit of entertainment...--Nilfanion (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy smokes! I remember making predictions vaguely like those before I graduated. Unfortunately, whether it is true or not, it gives people the impression that you look for wonton destruction when you make forecasts of major hurricanes making landfall. At least one of their "forecasts" may come to pass, but it would be random chance. Thegreatdr 22:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, 2005 didn't show us climatolgy means little. The forecast verification says that climatology was better than the NHC forecast for (non-landfall) 120 hour intensity predictions. I'm not going to claim the NHC means little though!--Nilfanion (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It just shows up the climatology is incomplete or not over a long enough time period. Wait til you see the 1951 re-analysis...a January tropical storm and a December hurricane appear likely to be added for that season. =) Thegreatdr 22:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds interesting, do you know when the next lot of reanalysis will be released then?--Nilfanion (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at the moment. The extended 2005 season ate into most of the time when another group of re-analyses would have been finished. I could let you all know when they're out though. It will likely cover the rest of the 1910's and 1920's. Thegreatdr 22:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 looks to be an interesting year. I'm up here in New England and I remember hearing that hurricanes may be hitting the east coast. Any more news on this? SargeAbernathy 17:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeta was 2005, not 2006, technically. Anyway, welcome to the new season! I wonder how many showed up at the welcome center to get the necessities? All signs point to a long season ahead...so be ready for ANYTHING!!! 2005 showed us climatology means little. Every storm is different!!! CrazyC83 01:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first Atlantic TWO is out, two "highlights":

TROPICAL CYCLONE FORMATION IS NOT EXPECTED THROUGH FRIDAY. THE GREEK ALPHABET IS USED SHOULD THE STANDARD LIST OF NAMES BE EXHAUSTED...AS IT WAS LAST YEAR.

We know that for sure now...--Nilfanion (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If an TWO shows potential for development, would it be appropiate to discuss it here rather than the subpage? This makes sense, as TWOs are official, unlike AoIs.--JasonJack 1:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really, the TWO is an abbreviated form of the TWD and AoI's cover the same things as that. Reason for not bringing up TWOs here in general is the same as for no AoI's - we would just clog this page up.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, INVESTs only. The rest should go on the appropriate subpage. --Ajm⁸¹ 14:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Surface temps

Check out this [1] SST anomaly map. You can see that the Gulf of Mexico is very warm for this time of year and that there is a warm spot just south of New England. For some reason, the ocean near Newfoundland has a large warm pool for this time of year. Also, the area just south of Cape Verde is warm, as is most of the tropical Atlantic, with an average of 1 degree above average. Finally, near the bottom left corner, you can see that La Nina is still going strong. This hurricane season is going to hurt badly.Omni ND 18:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Gulf of Mexico warmed up very quickly this past week. Thanks for the map, Omni. —BazookaJoe 19:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a good chance the Gulf will produce a May tropical storm or hurricane... CrazyC83 23:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the NWS doesn't do their outlook until 1 June, where would I look to find predictions for potential storms this month? Ardric47 06:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could look at the Tropical Weather Discussion. That may show points of interest. -- RattleMan 07:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...that seems to just be saying what's going on and not considering the possibility of cyclone formation at all. I guess it's still too early? Ardric47 00:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...there's still a month to go until hurricane season. It's possible that a storm will form in May, but that doesn't mean one will. We still might have to wait a while for the first storm. bob rulz 02:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TWDs can hold information about potentional cyclones. Check out this TWD from December 30th, before Zeta formed:

...SPECIAL FEATURE...

1006 MB GALE LOW IS NEAR 24N36W IN THE NE ATLC MOVING WNW 5-10 KT. WELL-PLACED BUOY OBSERVATIONS NEAR THE CENTER INDICATE A MINIMUM PRESSURE OF 1006.7 MB AT 8Z WHEN THE SYSTEM PASSED... FALLING RAPIDLY FROM 0Z AND 10.1 MB IN THE PAST 24 HOURS. FIRST VISIBLE IMAGES SHOW DEEP CONVECTION ORGANIZING IN BANDS AROUND THE CENTER AND IT IS NOT INCONCEIVABLE THAT THIS SYSTEM COULD BECOME "ZETA" BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR. [...]

-- RattleMan 06:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this map is terribly misleading. The warm Gulf waters are near the northern shore. However, most of the "action" in the Gulf is a result of the Gulf loop current, which is only slightly warmer than average. Indeed, the greatest warming anomalies are in areas that typically have the coldest water, and so cannot be drivers of tropical storm development. Overall, the anomaly speaks of a somewhat warmer-then-normal ocean, and so enhanced tropical cyclone development is to be expected, with the being further enhanced by La Nina. --EMS | Talk 03:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The SSTs, and particularly the Loop Current's, do seem to drive the strength of Gulf storms. Looking at the NDBC data buoys, what I thought I saw was that 80 degree F water supported a TS, 81 a Cat 1 and so on to 85 a Cat 5 - so a 1 degree difference is significant. The maps in the LC article show wind speeds accelerating and decelerating with sea surface height, a proxy for water temperature. Simesa 00:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeta and Timeline

Perhaps this discussion has already been had, but I don't think Zeta belongs in the 2006 Atlantic Hurricane season article has it was part of the 2005 atlantic huricane season. I think we should get rid of it. TimL 01:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference, there infact WAS a previous dicussion on this topic. My personal opinion is that it should be kept. -- RattleMan 04:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it belongs there either...people might get confused--HurricaneRo 13:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it's more confusing to keep Zeta in as a storm of the 2006 season (as it stands now). It makes more sense to keep Zeta in the timeline, but remove it from the Storms section. It really doesnt belong there since it's not a storm of the 2006 season. But it does have a place in the timeline as it is relevant to 2006 (and the 2006 preseason which began in January) --Tarkadal 15:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invest question

What happens if one invest is long-lasting, and many develop so fast, that a number to be repeated is active? (For example, 90L lasts so long and 10 more develop while it is still active that what would be another 90L is declared) How would they treat such, skip to 91L? CrazyC83 03:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt that that would occur, and I doubt they have a backup plan for it. —Cuiviénen^T|C, Sunday, 21 May 2006 @ 15:00 UTC

They would probably call it 80L.invest or 91L.invest something similar. It's just a number to distinguish the storm. --tomf688 (talk - email) 02:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dimming? Brightening? What is it now?

Does anyone have open source data confirming recent brightening? I have read a report of data showing dimming has reversed in the last decade but the original abstract is not publicly displayed. I find the quick counter argument to global dimming to be suspicious as it came out about a month after the dimming argument went mainstream. How is it that water vapor seems to be going up now while the sky clears? [[2]] - Marksda 06:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, shouldn't you have asked on global dimming, climate change or a related article? I can't see how that directly matters to hurricanes... In answer to the question, I think it is because the paper suggests the reduction in dimming is due to a fall in particles, not water, in the atmosphere.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little more discussion at [3] though I don't think that will help you read the full paper. crandles 11:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I should have placed the question in context. It is my view that after SST's, global water vapor may be the second most important contributor to an increase in hurricane activity globally. Hurricanes weaken if they pull in too much dry air. This may be observed by watching cyclones on the wv loops at nhc.noaa.gov. On the other hand, global water vapor levels may simply be following the rise in average global temperature. So we may never know whether it is global water vapor or global SST's that is more influential to hurricane development. Marksda 13:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Named storms vs. Tropical Storms

In the article, there's a minor prblem with the box re. number of storms. Should it read "named storms" or "tropical storms", or neither? I understand concerns that "named storms" produces (while it would cover both subtropical and tropical storms, unnamed storms are a problem here), and at the same time "tropical" is problematic with subtropical systems. A compromise has to be reached. I've temporarily left it as "named" as subtropical storms are far more likely to occur than unnamed storms. NSL E _(T+C) at 03:30 UTC (2006-05-23)

Maybe just "storms"? :p --AySz88 ^-^ 03:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, define "storms". Depressions are still called "storms", no? Just as hurricanes are called "storms"... NSL E _(T+C) at 03:33 UTC (2006-05-23)

What about "nameable storms"? --Ajm⁸¹ 03:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do NOAA and Dr. Gray use? Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both use "named storms", as seen in the forecasts. But as stated previously, this is a problem for unnamed storms. After some thought, I'd say leave it as is and worry about it if we get an unnamed storm. --Ajm⁸¹ 05:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that if we have a problem, we can blame it on them. Leave it as "named storms", because we also don't know if they willingly did not take unnamed storms into account. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The weather channel has been refering to all 28 storms in 2005 as "named storms" even though one was unnnamed. in my opinion "named storm" would be any storm that would be named if it were known about.Enigmar 08:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way around it is that the NHC were a bit late in naming the subtropical storm and its official name is "Unnamed Subtropical Storm". That leaves the problem of what if there were 2 unnamed storms. Another issue is what if a TS is downgraded to a TD? It will be named but not be a (sub)tropical storm. If we just use "storm" in the sense of having peak 1-min sustained winds of at least 35 knots, that covers it doesn't it?--Nilfanion (talk) 09:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the 1969 season in the HURDAT sourcecode to see what would happen. They would all be called either UNNAMED SUBTROPICAL STORM, or just UNNAMED. The 1992 season is likely to give us two more UNNAMEDs; one the polar low-like creature that went up the Chesapeake in January and the other a bona-fine hurricane that struck Sable Island as it had weakened into a tropical storm. Thegreatdr 22:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Tropical storm" is much more recognisable than the ambiguous "named storms", which doesn't really tell anything (particularly if we include unnamed storms). In any case, we can be no more sure that subtropical storms will form than that unnamed storms will form; in 2005, the only subtropical storm was also unnamed! Since the public recognises "tropical" but won't immediately understand the significance of "named" (I've heard people asking what the name for the 2006 Nor'easter was), we should use tropical. —Cuiviénen^T|C, Tuesday, 23 May 2006 @ 11:56 UTC

Category 6?

There have been rumors that the NHC is planning to add a sixth category to the Saffur Simpson Hurricane Scale, is that rumour true? Storm05 17:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rumors? Started by whom? (In other words, 100% certainly not.) —Cuiviénen^T|C, Tuesday, 23 May 2006 @ 18:43 UTC

It was on the Dellnet by MSN homepage yesterday as the title of a link to a video feed discussing tropical weather. I didn't have the capability to watch the video, but that's where the talk originated. --PK9 20:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the NHC probably has no power over the SS scale. Even if they did there would be precious few hurricanes in the sixth category.WotGoPlunk 20:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source: http://www.woai.com/news/national/story.aspx?content_id=4474C1F4-BE22-44B9-B26D-5002867C9F50 --PK9 20:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"U.S. government forecasters at the National Hurricane Forecast Center in Miami didn't well predict the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, partly because of their unfamiliarity with global warming."; who writes this stuff?. TimL 21:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would pay it no mind - it seems like an op-ed article disguised as a legitimate news story. --Coredesat 22:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Bill Blakemore of abcnews writes this stuff. Sensationalist/worthless journalism. TimL 01:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a category 6 would be a stupid mistake. It would just dilute the strength more. Already people see a Cat 2 coming and think, it's a weak hurricane, it won't do much. "Category 5" has a certain strength to it, a strength that would be diluted by it no longer being the strongest category. And, finally, it's purely academic - the damage done by a Category 6 is not much more than that done by a category 5, because Cat 5 is already devastating. You can't destroy something even harder than that, it's already broked. --Golbez 20:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. What's worse than "catastrophic" damage? --Coredesat 22:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an example of a typical press rumor, isn't it? It's not enough that last season had 4 cat 5 storms, sensationalism demands higher categories. It's not like they are keen to accept that Katrina was actually category 3 at landfall, a cat 3 couldn't possibly do that much damage, right?--Nilfanion (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you understand? We desperately need a Category 6 so we can get to Category 7: The End of the World! --Kardax 22:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, its an evil plot by the NHC to take over the world by declaring a certain storm to be category 10 which will umm, err...--Nilfanion (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That storm is anticyclonic. The Saffir-Simpson scale can only be used in cyclonic storms. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think I disagree with what you said there; first "cyclonic storms" includes Plainfield Tornado, second we don't know what powers that storm - perhaps all we can see is the upper-level anticyclonic outflow and we need dropsonde or radar data to find the cyclone underneath? In any case speculation on this storm is as sensible as the rumors on Cat 6.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category 5 should range from 156 mph to 175 mph, and 176 or more should be cat. 6. They could make it. They just may not need to. Icelandic Hurricane #12_(talk) 23:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

category definitely not needed, > 155 mph should be good enough information (VOFFA 07:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I agree, there is no need for a Cat 6 storm. People don't take non-major storms seriously enough. Don't give them any more reason to think a Cat 2 hurricane is nothing. Someone else mentioned how the damage between Cat 5&6 would be minimal. It's the same thing with tornados. There has never been a recorded F-6 tornado, maybe because it's never happened, or maybe because you can't tell a difference in damage between an F-5 and F-6. Because nothing is left by both. -Code1390 02:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There really was discussion about the Category 6 possibility, but from outside hurricane circles, which entered hurricane circles last week. I shouldn't and won't say much about it. Just know many in the hurricane community were not a fan of it, and that it did not emminate from NHC. After all, category 5 does state there is complete destruction. What would category 6 hurricanes do? Burrow into the ground? Thegreatdr 22:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overview on this

When the WMO meets again, will they discuss of retiring Emily, find a better replacement names for Katrina and Rita and figure out a backup list incase all 21 names are exhausted again. Also, if the WMO rejects that idea, will they add the X,Y, and Z names just like they did in the East Pacific in 1985 and why dont they take into account about out of season storms because all the media says is that hurricane season starts june 1st and everyone is should be prepared but they did DO NOT even BOTHER menitoning of what will happen if a storm forms before the season starts or when the season end and do not take into account about the people living well inland (i.e Ohio Valley, Inalnd Mid Atlantic and Upper Midwest). In addtion, Did the NHC find any more storms that they missed because im thinking there are more that went undetected before, during and after the 2005 season. All that said above was NEVER mentioned by the media, why's that? With all the talk of hurricane awarness, should the media be reporting on what I mention above or they just b.s. it and just say a short blurb here and there and nobody will get the full scope of hurricanes and naming policy (note the naming policy is the least reported by the media). Storm05 16:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the WMO concluded, we have to wait for the report from the meeting to be published (it will be available eventually, patience). When that comes out we will know about Emily and the backup list. Odds are Emily was not retired because Mexico didn't request it and the replacement names for Katrina and Rita are going to stick. There was only one storm in the 2005 season that the NHC missed operationally, if they had found any more we would know about it by now. The emphasis on the season is purely because off season storms are rare. If the media made a big thing of them, when they don't occur, people would over-prepare in the off-season and underprepare during the season.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but still, lots of things can happen, likw what if a cat 2 hurricane is approching the east coast of the united states in December like it did in 1925 or a hurricane brings devastation to the upper midwest but did little damage to the coast. Also, sooner or later someone in the WMO will find out that the two current replacement names (Katia and Rina) will not fly and will object and call an emergancy meeting which will result the WMO to go over with the replacement names again and check to see if Mexico did request the name name Emily to be retired. Plus, the media is NILL about the naming policy, during the 2005 season , all they said about the policy is that when the 21 names run up the NHC will use the greek alphabet or ...after Wilma it will be the greek alphabet or something like that. The media DID NOT mention any thing about the draw back about the greek alphabet or hurricane naming partically and they did not mention about the backup list. Whats the deal?!?!. Storm05 17:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought tey did a good job with the naming. The drawbacks of the greek alphabet weren't fully thought of then, and the backup list wasn't and still doesn't exist. Off-seasons are extremely rare, and the 1925 storm wasn't even that bad. It killed most people from boat sinkings, something which wouldn't likely happen today. Also, it wasn't even a hurricane. Curtosy of an early revision of the 1925 season, the system peaked as a tropical storm. [4] You're right, though. Things can happen. What if Odette travelled slower, causing more damage and deaths? Hopefully, governmental officials will act as well as they have in the past. Odette was given sufficient warning for D.R. citizens, and as a result only 8 people died. Most storms don't cause a lot of damage further inland, but storms like Tropical Storm Allison can catch people off-guard. Regardless, those rare examples shouldn't be mentioned for the reasons Nilfanion said. People will become complacent for when it doesn't happen, and not be ready for when it does. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, how could they "not notice" if Mexico asked for Emily to be retired? And why are people so content that Emily should be retired? It really didn't do a lot of damage. bob rulz 06:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, especially to the more damaging storms this season. Hurricanehink (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FSU Cyclone Page Gone

"Notice: Florida State University has mandated effective 24 May 2006 that no real-time weather forecasts relating potentially in any way to hurricanes are to be disseminated by faculty or students at FSU due to liability concerns. Consequently, this web page has been shut down UFN.

The authors of these web pages realize the value of these pages, do not agree with the decision, and are working hard to resolve this issue by friday.

Thank you for your patience.

Bob Hart"

http://moe.met.fsu.edu/cyclonephase/

Interesting notice I found when I went to look at their awesome information. - Bladeswin | Talk to me | 01:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that really sucks.--WmE 10:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back up today, but seems like FSU's trying to cover their respective asses. Wonder what it took to get the page back up... - Bladeswin | Talk to me | 16:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of pressure. =) Thegreatdr 22:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basin boundaries

Is there a northern and a southern boundary for the NHC to issue warnings in the Atlantic basin? I know that the eastern and western boundaries are the landmasses... CrazyC83 04:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to say 0ºN is the limit for the NHC vertically...after that, it's the Southern Atlantic. -- RattleMan 05:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought. If anything (by a freak of nature) enters the Arctic Ocean (it has happened exactly once), does it remain under NHC control? CrazyC83 15:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Faith, which I assume you were talking about, wasn't tropical in the artic circle, but if somehow something tropical entered the article circle, I would imagine it would remain the NHC's until it became extratropical. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it would then become the AHC's- The Arctic Hurricane Center- run by Santa Claus at the North pole. Hey, he has to do SOMETHING in the offseason. :P -Winter123 19:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If by some random chance a storm managed to track from north to south of the Equator in the Atlantic, it'd still be the responsibility of the NHC, seeing as there isn't an organization in control of forecasting tropical systems in the South Atlantic. --Patteroast 15:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would need more than random chance, it would need a miracle; so far as I know, no cyclone at all has ever crossed the equator. --Golbez 07:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Agni got close... but anyway, my point is that since there's no organization responsible for the South Atlantic, there's probably not really a firm southern boundary either. --Patteroast 14:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6/6/06

Wouldn't it be funny (and a little bit weird) if the first storm of the season formed on June 6? --Revolución hablar ver 22:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely possible based on the model I've seen. It also has a 50% chance of forming at the 6:00 advisory if it forms! How crazy would that be??

Isn't that also when some horror movie comes out? --Winter123 01:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Omen. NSL E _(T+C) at 02:00 UTC (2006-06-02)

I have been thinking about this too. It's possible for a TC to form on that day but what will it do? Hit Florida as a sign of things to come in the 2006 atlantic hurricane season? 216.110.254.167 02:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GOSH MAYBE --Golbez 03:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't matter. It's "really" 2012 (probably)...see Chronology of Jesus. Ardric47 03:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know the Mayans counted based on Jesus. --Golbez 04:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it obvious? The storm of 6/6/6 will somehow destabilize the orbit of the Moon. On the Mayan "end of the world" in 2012, the erratically orbiting Moon will collide with the Earth.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OMFG HOW DID I NOT REALIZE THAT BEFORE!?!!?!??!??!? IT'S THE END!?!?!?!?!? I'm going to go drink myself to death for the next 6 years now. -Winter123 18:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject newsletter

The Tropical Cyclones WikiProject is preparing a newsletter for its members and will be spamming its member list on Sunday. It will give news on the goings-on within the project as well as a summary of the previous months cyclone activity. If you are a member of the wikiproject could you please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list. If you are not a member of the project and would like to receive it, join the wikiproject or at least opt-in on the mailing list. Also there are votes currently open to determine the title of the newsletter and the "Member of the month". If you are a WikiProject member please participate in both these votes (note, new nominations will not be accepted now).--Nilfanion (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 ::::: Don't be too sure Nilfanion.  There is ongoing discussion of the tropical depression-like entity that struck Texas on May 31st with 32 mph sustained winds at Corpus Christi, and up to 14 inches of rain over the past 2-3 days which is drifting through southern Texas at this time.  Apparently one of the C-man stations reported tropical storm force winds.  I'll be curious to see the post-season/post-June evaluation of this system, if it doesn't sneak back into the Gulf of Mexico in the next 24 hours.  [[User:Thegreatdr|Thegreatdr]] 22:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 ::::::The reason for my *shock* comment was more to do with the tendency of editors here to try and find storms out of nothing than any real comment on off-season activity; when you see 20 "this one could be Alberto's" you get a bit fed up. Check the "Tropical Discussions" and "Predictions" subpages to this article, for a bit of entertainment...--[[User:Nilfanion|Nilfanion]] ([[User talk:Nilfanion|talk]]) 22:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
+:::::::Holy smokes!  I remember making predictions vaguely like those before I graduated.  Unfortunately, whether it is true or not, it gives people the impression that you look for wonton destruction when you make forecasts of major hurricanes making landfall.  At least one of their "forecasts" may come to pass, but it would be random chance.  [[User:Thegreatdr|Thegreatdr]] 22:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 :Um, 2005 didn't show us climatolgy means little. The [http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/verification/pdfs/Verification_2005.pdf forecast verification] says that climatology was ''better'' than the NHC forecast for (non-landfall) 120 hour intensity predictions. I'm not going to claim the NHC means little though!--[[User:Nilfanion|Nilfanion]] ([[User talk:Nilfanion|talk]]) 07:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 ::It just shows up the climatology is incomplete or not over a long enough time period.  Wait til you see the 1951 re-analysis...a January tropical storm and a December hurricane appear likely to be added for that season.  =)  [[User:Thegreatdr|Thegreatdr]] 22:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 :::That sounds interesting, do you know when the next lot of reanalysis will be released then?--[[User:Nilfanion|Nilfanion]] ([[User talk:Nilfanion|talk]]) 22:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
+::::Not at the moment.  The extended 2005 season ate into most of the time when another group of re-analyses would have been finished.  I could let you all know when they're out though.  It will likely cover the rest of the 1910's and 1920's.  [[User:Thegreatdr|Thegreatdr]] 22:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 :2006 looks to be an interesting year.  I'm up here in New England and I remember hearing that hurricanes may be hitting the east coast.  Any more news on this? [[User:SargeAbernathy|SargeAbernathy]] 17:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 Zeta was 2005, not 2006, technically. Anyway, welcome to the new season! I wonder how many showed up at the welcome center to get the necessities? All signs point to a long season ahead...so be ready for ANYTHING!!! 2005 showed us climatology means little. Every storm is different!!! [[User:CrazyC83|CrazyC83]] 01:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)