Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Greenhouse Hurricanes

I noticed that almost every US government funded researcher has made the extra effort to point out that the 2005 major hurricanes were not a result of global warming because there are so many other variables to consider than SST's. It is almost as if they are all worried about the possibility that it is true, so they try to convince all of us not to worry about it.

But there is one characteristic about last year's major hurricanes that may someday be seen as proof to the contrary.

If lightning becomes more and more common in all future major hurricanes then we may soon begin to criticize these government funded researchers for waiting so long to place some blame on global warming. Marksda 19:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Lightning has nothing to do with global warming. It just only happens in rapidly intensifying hurricanes. — jdorje (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Hurricanes are more complex than you are giving them credit for. SSTs are very important, and global warming will have an effect on them. However, SSTs are also cyclic on a very long-term basis. My sense of the issue is there there are better indications of global warming, and that the "reaching" needed to associate the global warming and hurricane behavior is not needed. --EMS | Talk 23:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

CO2 has historically matched temperatures as they rise and fall. I don't know the relationship, but it may have something to do with CO2 amplifying temperatures via feedback. As temps rise more CO2 is released from the oceans and the land, and this CO2 encourages absorption of heat by the Earth. Now whether or not the present warming is manmade might not make much difference if an increase in the greenhouse effect changes the way hurricanes act on Earth.

What if a greater greenhouse effect yields a cooler stratosphere that allows for better cooling of hurricane eyes? Might not more ice form in future hurricanes to yield more friction and thus more lightning? Might a greenhouse effect be responsible for more intense hurricanes with lightning being the evidence of a future change in hurricane structure? Marksda 08:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Two more factors to consider: A recent PBS report claims that the rate of evaporation for pans left uncovered by farmers has been decreasing over most of the world over the last decade due to dimming from more clouds. It also seems from my personal visual inspection of annual lightning rate maps from NASA that annual lightning strikes have risen over the last decade. Water vapor levels generally are correlated with lightning strike frequency, so I am told. Global water vapor may have increased over the last decade. So a wetter atmosphere may yield more ice at the top of hurricanes to yield more eye wall lightning in 2006. Marksda 16:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

BAMS climate assess boulder water vapor 2002 - 2.png

This seems to confirm my suspicions. Hurricanes may be getting wetter. Here's a link to Wikipedia's page on Water_vapor. Marksda 23:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Aerosols have been creating global dimming by reducing the size of water droplets to make global haze. There may be more droplets, but they are smaller. Smaller droplets produce less rain and clouds live longer. Evaporation may be reduced but water stays in the atmosphere longer, so the water content of the atmosphere has risen. This year's hurricanes might yield more power when they condense the increased amount of water in the atmosphere. Marksda 09:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

New list rejected?

I heard somewhere that they are sticking with the Greek alphabet for 2006...I can't seem to find anything backing either side up. CrazyC83 20:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The NHC names list has been updated for the 2011 seasons now, it still makes reference to the use of the Greek alphabet as the backup. I think it looks like the list was rejected but until the WMO releases the final report for the meeting we probably won't know, it's not like the media care about it. Nilfanion 18:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


What if Gordon gets retired this year despite not being that notable (like Klaus for instance)? Would 1994 or 2006 get the main article for Hurricane Gordon? Come to think of it, what if Gordon gets retired as a tropical storm like Allison? This has the potential to cause a few headaches. Pobbie Rarr 02:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Then Hurricane Gordon becomes a disambiguation page. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The easiest way to solve it is to retire it as a result of 1994's Gordon. Likely not going to happen, but wishful thinking can help. Jake52
I would say Titoxd has the correct answer here, unless of course the new one is retired by a TS, in which case we could have articles both at TS and Hurr Gordon. --Golbez 19:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Beryl and Ernesto

So far, Beryl and Ernesto have both been used four times and all four times, the storms never reached hurricane strength. Could Ana lose its milestone as being the only name to be used hurricane-free five times in a row? Jake52

Very possible. There is a good chance that at least one of them won't be a hurricane (more likely Beryl as that would be a June or July storm most likely). CrazyC83 17:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

"Backup list"

According to the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season article, a "backup list" of names is supposed to be announced for 2006 in order to avoid having to use Greek names should the A-W list be exhausted again. But there's nothing mentioned about that in this article. If a back-up list is being planned, I think it should be referenced here; conversely, if the report of a backup list is erroneous the 2005 article will need to be adjusted accordingly. 23skidoo 05:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, although the website says something about a new backup list, it hasn't been announced yet (and might not be happening anymore). --AySz88^-^ 06:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
We're running out of April, so I suggest simply removing the mention of a new backup list until it is actually announced, since we don't know when it'll be announced, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Coredesat 10:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, as the NHC has updated their lists to show the 2005 retirements, but has retained the "greek alphabet to be used if needed", I suspect they failed to reach agreement at the WMO session on this. We won't know for sure what happened until the WMO publishes the report of the meeting, at some point this year. If you want crystal-balling, I think they agreed in principle to a new list, but postponed discussion of the details until next year.--Nilfanion 10:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe the backup list plan was voted down and they are sticking to Greek. CrazyC83 14:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Storm articles

Given what occured over on 2005, probably best to state something clear here before Alberto gets going. Are we going to give all 2006 storms an article? If so when? Personally I say as soon as Alberto forms we should create Tropical Storm Alberto (2006).--Nilfanion 10:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Before TCRs etc, right at the start of storms, there is little to no information to put down except latest information. I feel we should do as we did last year, post updates on the main season article, with the side article being a redirect until enough information, like landfalls, impact etc, is available. NSLE (T+C) at 11:10 UTC (2006-04-27)
Ooh, the big question. NSLE, great idea. Ultimately, every storm could have an article, but only storms with enough information could have an article operationally. Sorry Nilfanion, but how can you write a good article without good information? Hurricanehink 15:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with that I just thought best to bring this up now than have a debate when Alberto forms, and have people edit warring over redirects. Besides writing an article on a minor storm is probably easier from scratch, after the TCR. Does 2005 give a mandate for 2006 minor storm article creation after TCRs?--Nilfanion 16:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I believe the articles should be made at the moment it develops, to keep everything better organized and to minimize disputes. Otherwise, it is always a judgement call that always gets disputed... CrazyC83 01:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

To summarize, same criteria for active storm article creation as in the past. The "minor" storms can have articles after the TCR is released.--Nilfanion 21:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Didn't we promise ourselves that we would resolve this whole "should every storm have an article" thing over the winter? I still stick firmly by how we did it in 2004, when every storm had a section and to only create articles for storms we have enough information for. bob rulz 06:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The current conclusion on 2005 AHS, was that it is (just) possible to write enough on the minor storms. 2006 will likely appear similar to 2005 at the end of the year in terms of layout, irrespective of number of storms.--Nilfanion 11:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion people, comment on each bit seperately please:

  1. Have a 2005-esque layout to this article, not giving individual storms a section heading, and having a seasonal impact section etc.
  2. Have a (sub)section called "Current storms" which is is further divided into the active ones.
  3. When a (named) storm dissipates, if it hasn't already got article, its article can be created then. (The important thing for writing fishspinner articles, is knowing which discussions are "interesting", which cannot be determined until after the fact; the TCR will alter things subtly, but doesn't generally add information)--Nilfanion 11:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
1-No. I hate that format.
2-No, that sounds unorganized and messy. Then what would we do after they're not active anymore?
3-I don't think every storm should have its own article.
I still think we should go back to how it was pre-2005. I think the only reason we even had this problem in 2005 was because there were so many storms that the article became too long (in some people's eyes), even though I continually argued that article length is no reason to change a perfectly good format and that there's no such thing as an article that's "too long," and if there was, that that article certainly wasn't. Then we went and sacrificed all of the main content so that we could keep the larger sections that weren't as important as the storms larger instead of creating subpages (I think that was eventually resolved). The new format doesn't give enough attention to the storms, which are the meat of the season, the thing that makes the season exist.
So, basically, I don't like the format of the 2005 article, and I never will. I think that we should go back to creating headings for each and every storm, and give a description of the storm beneath it.
And on second thought on the storm articles, I actually don't mind if we create articles on every storm, as long as 1) there's enough information on them for the articles to be significantly larger than the heading, and 2) if there's headings on the main page for each and every storm. Then and only then, and there still has to be a good, informative summary of the storm on the main page. bob rulz 10:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
On (2) above, at that point they would go into the '05 style format and the info would go into the storms article. Did you miss the latest debate on 2005AHS (earlier this month)? This time the decision was the opposite of the winter ones. If you want to know what storm articles could be like compare the list page (which has the old format for the season storms section) to Tropical Storm Lee (2005) and Hurricane Irene (2005).--Nilfanion 15:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Bob rulz: I don't think "too long" is the reason why 2005AHS is the way it is, and you also might want to take a look at 2005AHS again, which is well on its way to FA status (overwhelmingly support on its FAC page, last I checked). Apparently, people do like the new organization. --AySz88^-^ 19:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I personally like List of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms better than the article on the hurricane season. - Bladeswin | Talk to me | 22:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the majority of people who would approve it for FA status know nothing of the other format and therefore wouldn't even know that a better option exists. Isn't each individual storm the most important thing about a season? Somebody from New Orleans is almost certainly not going to say "the 2005 season sucked" they would say "Hurricane Katrina sucked." People don't think of what hurricane season a powerful and destructive storm occurred in. The 2005 format takes away from the individuality of each storm and tries to focus on the season as a whole, not on each individual storm, which is what it should do. \
Also, I recall very well that there were several people arguing that under the old format the 2005 season article was much too long becuase it gave too much information on each individual storm. I brought up the point that that wouldn't have been an issue if the season was shorter, so why give this season different treatment just becuase its a record-setting and phenomenal season? It should be treated like all of the others. I still firmly believe that the 2004 format is much better than the 2005 format, and that article length is no reason for that article to be formatted differently than the other seasons. To be honest, I wouldn't vote for the 2005 article for FAC because I don't like the formatting and I don't think it gives enough information on the main page. It cordons too much of it off to subpages. The main page should give a general summary of each storm, and a general summary is much more than one sentence. The 2004 format is much better than the 2005 format in my eyes, and is, by far, the best hurricane season article on Wikipedia. I belive that 2006 should go back to the traditional pre-2005 format because of the reasons I've listed above. bob rulz 06:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
EDIT: On second observation, the main reason I don't like the 2005 season format is because it makes it seem as if each month is important within the hurricane season, when in fact it's the storms that are important. Nature has no sense of time. What month each one occurred in is mainly irrelevant and does nothing to define the season. It's the storms that define the season, not when the storms occurred. I hope that made sense and that I got my point across clearly. bob rulz 06:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The logic in the second paragraph seems backwards to me; the length being due to too much information doesn't imply that the length problem is more important than the too-much-information problem; I'd think it'd imply the opposite. (More later, maybe.) --AySz88^-^ 06:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd say that there isn't too much information. Explain to me how there was too much information? Hell, I never even mentioned anything about too much information. Yes, the main argument was that there was too much info, but that directly correlates to the length. My point is is that there wasn't too much information, and that the article wasn't too long. Please elaborate further on what you said, because that's about the best response I can come up with (fyi, I'm easily confused, so I like people to elaborate more). bob rulz 07:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The list article is mentioned on the 2005AHS FAC. Comments from "outside" editors there say don't merge the storms list in - it would get too long. The only real problem with the 2005 format is that the storms section is broken down by month rather than by storm. The reason for that is the ToC will be ugly; which leads to "inspired" custom ToCs. The too much info argument goes like this: "[Maria] gradually weakened and dropped to tropical storm strength on September 8" tell you anything about the season. Short answer no, apply summary style and put that in Maria's article.--Nilfanion 14:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it does mention the season. Without storms there wouldn't be a season. Storms are what make up the season. It's like saying that Watergate isn't important to the history of U.S. presidents. Why should "Maria dissipates at so and so time" be any less relevant than Katrina impacting the Gulf Coast in relation to the season? They're both part of the season, they both occurred in the season, they both had an impact on the season as a whole. You get where I'm going with this? bob rulz 01:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
For that analogy, if there were a History of the U.S. Presidency article, mentioning Watergate would probably be fine (just like Maria is mentioned now), but listing the 5 White House Plumbers or the Saturday night massacre or the exact date of Nixon's resignation would be too much detail for that article, just like that is too much for the season article. --AySz88^-^ 03:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually compare the list (the traditional format) to 2005AHS. This is Philippe I'm describing here, by way of concrete example. The season article basically says it "formed on Sep 17th, moved north, became cat 1 and dissipated on Sep 23rd". The list article adds some truly irrelevant trivia (Philippe was the 3rd P - how does that affect the season?) and a bit more detail on when the changes in the storm status occured, but how does H->TS transition really matter to the season? If we have an article on the storm; use summary style and get the minor stuff out of the season page. IMO that brief description of Philippe is fine.--Nilfanion 12:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
What if we adopt a policy of keeping the 2004 format unless we have over 25 named storms? Marksda 22:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The actual number isn't important, but I agree with it. Unless absolutely necessary, don't follow the 2005AHS format. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually that is half right. I say don't follow 2005 format on the storms section. Follow it on other stuff, there really should be a seasonal impact etc. --Nilfanion 23:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
That's what I meant. :) Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
What exactly does "keeping the 2004 format" mean? (Just for this article or for the overall organization?) If there aren't seperate articles, almost exactly the same problems will crop up again (except the length thing). --AySz88^-^ 23:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Mostly, avoid having List of 2006 Atlantic hurricane season storms. Articles for storms should be created if there's enough information to write more than several paragraphs about it on the Storms section of this article. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
It means using the storm names as sub headings, containing the infobox etc; but still having child articles. I have a feeling a heavy trimming of the list article in light of all storms would mean its length would become reasonable for a merge back into 2005AHS. The only problem then is the length of the ToC and "inspired" solutions to it. One thing I'm not convinced with in the infoboxes is do they really need the storms name at the top of them - if they are clearly in a section named for that storm? All storms getting articles would allow a shorter section in the season article, which is good on the size front.--Nilfanion 23:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, agreed, I think...but I think we'll end up with more than enough information for child articles anyway, though, as long as the storm's section doesn't keep getting trimmed of info from the advisories, like last season. Guess that's a wait-and-see.... --AySz88^-^ 23:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

My opinion: we should use a hybrid of both systems. We should follow the 2004 format for listing storms, however, the statistics page should be created when TD1 forms, as well as automatic articles for each storm that develops. There should be no "List of 2006 storms" article (I think we should get rid of it for 2005 and condense everything), but everything else should follow the 2005 format. CrazyC83 19:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this on all the points (merge 2005 list and stats), old format season storms section, incorporate the additions in 2005. However I think strongly that a storm shouldn't get an article until the TCR, if it wouldn't have got one at all under the "old rules" (complete change from earlier). My reason: Look at this diff on Hurricane Vince. I had to effectively rewrite the article to make the storm history flow. When the TCR came out people just added the new data instead of rewriting in light of it. This left a mess whch bounced around in time and went into too much detail, which was not even correct (the landfall time should have been CEST not AST).--Nilfanion 23:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Given that the "List of 2005 storms..." is already a Featured List, it's not a good idea to merge it into anything now (might as well consider it a reference on its own).
The spin-off probably isn't really necessary if each storm gets its own article anyway - if it's just a repeat of the season summary, it's probably better to merge for the sake of this article. But if it ends up being an intermediate level between the summary and the individual articles, it might be better to just leave it if it isn't really detracting from anything. --AySz88^-^ 02:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, just for reference, I never said that we should switch back to the 2004 format for everything, just for the storms section. I'm agreed on this. bob rulz 03:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Zeta's Infobox

I edited Zeta to have an info box, you guys can change it back if you want. I just think it's better this way. ~ Silence_Knight

New Colors

Some people don't like the new colors, so this part will last throught the year and then we'll comprimise on a new color at the end of the Hurricane Season.

Tropical Extratropical (#FFFFFF)
Tropical Depression (#00FFFF)
Tropical Storm (#7FFF00)
Cat. 1 Hurricane (#FFFF00)
Cat. 2 Hurricane (#FFA500)
Cat. 3 Hurricane (#FF0000)
Cat. 4 Hurricane (#FF00FF)
Cat. 5 Hurricane (#FFC0CB)
Tropical Extratropical (#AFEEEE)
Tropical Depression (#FFFACD)
Tropical Storm (#03C03C)
Cat. 1 Hurricane (#FF8C69)
Cat. 2 Hurricane (#CD853F)
Cat. 3 Hurricane (#8B00FF)
Cat. 4 Hurricane (#991199)
Cat. 5 Hurricane (#FF4D00)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tcatron565 (talkcontribs).

Oh not again, if people are still not happy perhaps time for an RfC? I'm just going to say here I like the current scheme--Nilfanion 23:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone is going to like a color scheme, so don't even try to get everyone to agree. Fableheroesguild 23:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and the majority seem to like the current one.--Nilfanion 23:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the current scheme is fine. I don't think it should change anytime soon. -- RattleMan 23:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen an alternate scale that mantains chromatic progression, is easily recognizable in track maps, in tables, in infoboxes, in button bars and in timelines, nor one that eliminates the use of pink, white, green, uses constant saturation values, and is discernible by color-blind people yet. Please, keep the current scale as-is, as this discussion has been had more than enough times. Plus, I don't think these two alternates look good. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yea these two alternates are bad, the first is waaay to vivid and has green and pink, the second one has blue in between two reddish shades, what is that about? The original marathon discussion is at Talk:2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season_statistics/Colors.--Nilfanion 23:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I like them the way it is now. CrazyC83 01:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

those are absolutely terrible.

The first scheme appears to be the Weather Underground scheme, which works fine for them because they use it on a blue background in their maps. Although recognizable to people who used that website, it would be too bright here. And for the second, there is not enough difference in the Cat 3 and Cat 4 colors, and no apparent pattern to the progression. PolitiCalypso 04:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

We might try to be consistent from year to year just in case the public is interested in observing any possible effects due to global warming. We should not change the maps so often. Marksda 05:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Leave the colors alone. They're fine the way they are. And no, this is not a vote, it's a suggestion. --Coredesat 08:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Those Colors are not "Internet Friendly", meaning that color-blind, bad-screens, and even normal people may have a hard time with them. Use soft Pastels with Black lettering. In fact, just don't mess with the colors at all ... SargeAbernathy 10:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

These colors are horrible, but please if you have any suggestions, use them. We just might ending up with a better arrangement. I mean you don't have to come down on me like that, it was just a suggestions. Jeesh. Tcatron565 7:31, 02 May 2006 (CST)

You need to realize that a lot of thought and debate went into the current color scheme. The current sequence may not be pretty, but it is effective, can be learned with a minimum of effort, and works in multiple contexts. It also incorporates a number of "leesons learned", which your proposals neglect, such as:
  • Green is not an acceptable color since its cultural significance is "OK", and things are not OK in a storm.
  • White is not acceptable since it is the best choice in a chart for field where the intensity data is not applicable.
  • Dark colors hide black letters. (For example, category 4 in possibility 2.) This can be corrected by using white letters, but our experience has been that this raises other issues.
  • A consistent progression of hues from the blue side (for depressions) to the red side (for category 5 hurricanes) is the most intuitive way of representing relative storm strengths.
I for one cannot see a better scheme being found by starting from scratch. Please see Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics/Colors for the contortions that we went through in creating the current scheme. --EMS | Talk 03:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I only have one peeve about our current color scheme. The colors for a Cat 1 and an Extratropical cyclone are too similar. Take, for instance, the track map (ours) of Fabian from 03. [[1]]. Note where Fabian transits from Cat 1 to Extratropical. Maybe we should just darken Ext a little bit more or make the map color for Category 1 the same as the one we have in the infobox (tan)... but that's just me. Jake52
That's the old color scheme. No track maps with the new scheme have been uploaded that I know of. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Four New Hurricane Forcasters and New Airplane

We take them for granted, but Lixion Avila, Jack Beven, James Franklin, Richard Knabb, Richard Pasch, and Stacy Stewart have helped us understand the winds of the Atlantic Ocean last year. They toiled for days and days from Arlene to Zeta in 2006 to give us reports at the NHC website. Once in awhile, when they could, they would break up the boring blandness of it all and crack a joke or make a witty comment. Many times we would catch that comment and have to smile.

They were overwhelmed last year even with an occasional helper, Chris Landsea. They all broke their fingers, I'm sure.

Now this year we have four new forcasters. As a result of the over productive 2005 season, money and interest when into the NHC and now they have new help. Eric Blake, Dan Brown, Michelle Mainelli, and Jamie Rhome have been signed on to create forcasts. Horray :)

They also have a new plane as well!

For more information, please visit Jeff Masters' blog over at under the tropical weather page. SargeAbernathy 20:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Is DaN Brown the author? Icelandic Hurricane #12 21:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
LOL. I doubt it. Cuiviénen, Thursday, 4 May 2006 @ 01:07 UTC
Ya ... Originally when I posted my message, his name linked to the author ^^. It was a bit awkward. James Franklin linked to an athlete, but I see someone made a page for him ... or found his page ...SargeAbernathy 09:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone notice that Michelle Mainelli would be the only female forecaster? Omni ND 10:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

What is this, the ACLU? bob rulz 19:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Might not even be true? Stacy Stewart sounds female to me. Cuiviénen (talkcontribs), Tuesday, 9 May 2006 @ 00:38 UTC
Stacy Stewart is male. [2] --Coredesat 02:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Test Storm?








FORECAST VALID 09/0600 UTC 18.1N 84.1W MAX WIND 30 KT...GUSTS 40 KT.

FORECAST VALID 09/1800 UTC 19.9N 84.3W MAX WIND 35 KT...GUSTS 45 KT. 34 KT...100NE 75SE 0SW 75NW.

FORECAST VALID 10/0600 UTC 22.2N 85.1W MAX WIND 45 KT...GUSTS 55 KT. 34 KT...100NE 75SE 0SW 75NW.

FORECAST VALID 10/1800 UTC 24.5N 86.3W MAX WIND 50 KT...GUSTS 60 KT. 50 KT... 25NE 25SE 0SW 25NW. 34 KT...125NE 100SE 50SW 100NW.

FORECAST VALID 11/1800 UTC 29.0N 88.5W MAX WIND 50 KT...GUSTS 60 KT. 50 KT... 25NE 25SE 0SW 25NW. 34 KT...125NE 100SE 50SW 100NW.








Pikachu9000 01:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was a test storm. The NHC did not intend to send it to so many people, however. —BazookaJoe 01:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Area of Interests

I think Area of Interests have gotten completely ridiculous now. They were an interesting tool for us but they've become completely nonsensical now, through the sheer number of them they are spamming this page; imagine what it will be like in September, the actual tropical cyclones and invests will be drowned out in pointless AoIs. I think what is happening here is people want to be the one to beat the NHC at its own game and be the first to identify a storm; thats not what it should be about. The TWD only really mentions the tropical wave near the equator at present and if the TWO was online at this time, the NHC probably would not mention it there. I don't have any training in meteorology, but I do know how to read the forecasts of models. Looking at satellite imagery and seeing a swirly thing in no way implies it has the slightest chance of development. AoIs have become too spammy for me to want to trawl through them and decide if theres anything remotely interesting, so they have become self-defeating. Can we stop creating them?--Nilfanion (talk) 08:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It's mostly the people who want to have their own make-believe hurricane seasons. Can we block any trivial ones for disruption? NSLE (T+C) at 09:50 UTC (2006-05-15)
People who are going to post AoIs need to check to make sure the sea is warmer than Hurricane Epsilon water, the shear will remain low for days, the convection is near or above 10N, and the convection is persistant before posting it and getting a no-brainer answer. —BazookaJoe 11:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I think 8N should be the southern boundary (to allow Ivan-like storms) and 50N the northern boundary. The water temperature shouldn't apply as they often move south into warmer water like Epsilon and Zeta which began in cold water. Any AoI south of 8N should be removed. That being said, look at the last Invest - it was in water about 16-18C, which no storm has ever developed in! CrazyC83 19:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
No - lets not make up rules, but apply common sense; people should look at the NHC's more advanced products for instance before posting. From that I can see that the thing in GoM almost certainly won't become anything, its about to be swept away by a cold front - it missed its best chance (as reflected in the TWD). And SSTs should be borne in mind as a factor, as should location, as should shear, as should the existence of circulation and the rest... if theres only one good thing don't post - have a number of reasons to say "this could do something".--Nilfanion (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I posted one or two in the past month or so, and I think that there's kind of a logic behind it. I'm just as guilty as the next person...but I feel that the person posting the AoI has to think through a few things before posting. "Is there any hope for this storm or is it just a short blurb with no hope?" The answer to this should be very clear and concise to everyone. The AoI's shouldn't be just a guess about potential and wait for other opinions from the better trackers among us. If there's a legitimate reason to give it an AoI, I think it's acceptable.
After that question, the person posting needs to think about Shear, Temp and Location. Obviously certain areas at this time of year are going to be more active than others. Thus logically, those in the extreme southern and northern areas aren't going to develop. Later in the year, they might. Right now though, I see a problem with the AoI system. It's a good way to try and beat the NHC, but realistically, wouldn't it be better to wait until the place shows at least some signs of development before posting? - Bladeswin | Talk to me | 19:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I think you just stated the problem I see with AoI - "It's a good way to try and beat the NHC". That's not what it should be about; any AoI which is realistic is going to be in the TWO or TWD before it becomes an INVEST. The NHC will mention it as soon as the professional meteorologists there think there is a slightest chance of development (they like to say "we predicted it well in advance"). On any serious development their first mention will probably be faster than us, as they get better data and they get it faster than us. AoI shouldn't be "beating the NHC" but reporting a possible TC development in the Atlantic; those are different, and the first concept encourages the more spurious ones - the ones the NHC doesn't consider yet; because there is nothing to consider about them.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
-I have never found any use for NHC's "advanced" products. THe only one I would call "advanced" and that I use is the SST analysis.
-As for the invests, I say anyone should be able to post any area of interest, especially now, because there is nothing else to look at. As long as they have an honest statement or question about it. Like that cluster in the gulf. I see reason that someone that doesn't understand shear well would pick that as a potential candidate.
-The one I posted west of Africa was a big thunderstorm cluster over 82 degree water, had no shear, and had outflow. I thought it was reasonable. Today, it is completely gone. Thats just how it goes. If you don't want to respond to them, then don't. But the AoIs are honest questions. They are just areas that interest people, they aren't "strong candidates for development."
---Winter123 21:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree they aren't much use but they are better than the AoI information typically. I think AoI's should belong in an off-topic discussion area, and only Invests or TCs discussed on the season page - they are only relevant to the season if they are "strong candidates for development" after all (If an AoI becomes something, transfer the discussion here). I strongly disagree with the thought that we should have more AoIs now, because nothing else is going on, we should have less, because nothing is going on...--Nilfanion (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
A sub page would work very well. I'm on it. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, there you go. Now, if an AoI becomes an invest, the previous discussion can be moved here, if necessary. The monthly archive will still exist, but that will be only for storm/invest discussions. Sounds good? Hurricanehink (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, sounds perfect. bob rulz 03:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sea Surface temps

Check out this [3] 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)

The Gulf of Mexico warmed up very quickly this past week. Thanks for the map, Omni. —BazookaJoe 19:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I think there is a good chance the Gulf will produce a May tropical storm or hurricane... CrazyC83 23:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
You could look at the Tropical Weather Discussion. That may show points of interest. -- RattleMan 07:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)

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



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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

I highly doubt that that would occur, and I doubt they have a backup plan for it. —CuiviénenT|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)

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? [[4]] - Marksda 06:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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)
A little more discussion at [5] though I don't think that will help you read the full paper. crandles 11:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
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 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)

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. NSLE (T+C) at 03:30 UTC (2006-05-23)

Maybe just "storms"? :p --AySz88^-^ 03:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
In that case, define "storms". Depressions are still called "storms", no? Just as hurricanes are called "storms"... NSLE (T+C) at 03:33 UTC (2006-05-23)

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

What do NOAA and Dr. Gray use? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

"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. —CuiviénenT|C, Tuesday, 23 May 2006 @ 11:56 UTC

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)

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)
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)
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. [6] 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)
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)
True, especially to the more damaging storms this season. Hurricanehink (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

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"

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

Yeah, that really sucks.--WmE 10:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
A bit of pressure. =) Thegreatdr 22:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)