Talk:2007 Atlantic hurricane season

Other basin talkpages (2007): Atlantic - W. Pacific - Central and East Pacific - N. Indian - S. Hemisphere

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]

May

Weeks 1 and 2

01L.Andrea

90L.INVEST

Storm discussion belongs at the Hurricane Wikia, thank you. – Chacor 23:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet named by NRL, but SSD has called it 90L initiating it at ST2.5/2.5 - this is the low in the western Atlantic. CrazyC83 18:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed the title in quotes because it hasn't been designated by NRL. No one's done anything wrong, but this is also a reminder that we're just documenting the invests/depressions/storms here - discussion takes place at the Wikia. See the discussion below for more info. --Core desat 18:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appeared on NRL 2007-05-08 around 1415z. Best status in ATL: 50kts, 998mb as an INVEST. SAB initiated Hebert-Poteat classifications at 07/0545Z. NHC issued special disturbance statement at 9:50 AM EDT May 8. Peak ST rating: ST2.5. – Chacor 14:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Hurricane Wikia: – Chacor 15:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should this become Andrea, I think Subtropical Storm Andrea (2007) (or Tropical Storm Andrea (2007) if that is what it is) should be immediately initiated as this is close to land and there have already been land impacts from the low. Also, the season should be declared underway (i.e. declared a current event and moved to Current-class status) even though it isn't officially. CrazyC83 15:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Please develop the season article first, if and when it develops. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should not be overly hasty with creating storm articles like we were last year - if the system is named, wait until after the storm dissipates (and has had significant land effects) before writing an article at all: see Typhoon Kong-rey (2007), which is a pretty good article. And no, the season is not current, because this is not a named storm. If and only if this invest becomes a named storm should the season become current. --Core desat 20:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time, we shouldn't let a repeat of Typhoon Durian or Hurricane Isaac (2006) happen... Timely articles are wanted, but not rushed.--Nilf anion (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What in God's name is the Hurricane Wikia and why can't we discuss storms here? Sounds kinda silly to me. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 21:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Wikia is here [5] . Talking happens there and not here because Wikipedia policy is that talk page are to be about discussing the actual content of the article, not a general forum about the article's topic. I'm not overly fond of the strict application of that policy, but it's clearly the way things are going here, and not really worth fighting over when there are alternatives. --65.94.14.100 21:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum or chat room. The discussion had to go sooner or later (this is why the tropical discussion subpages were deleted last year); there was a thread on project talk a while ago, and I tried to draw attention to it but to no avail. Most of the random chat here has nothing to do with building the article. --Core desat 22:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Homo Sapien is a social creature. They will talk and say that it's justified because it pertains to the subject of the article. And while I agree with whoever 65.94... is, I'm not going to pitch a fit about. I do wish that Wikipedia would be a little less like a government: too much formalites. Can't do squat about it though. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 22:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a formality, in my opinion; just consider your audience. Contributors to this article likely have interest in tropical weather but with varying degrees of interest. Anyone who is interested in weather discussion can seek those forums out and pick one to their liking, rather than having one vaulted at them. Just as discussion about the Wikipedia article would not be appropriate for those forums, this talk page should focus on the article itself. Are there going to be article-related discussions that are also meteorological discussions? Sure. Is there a hard line on what does and does not belong on the talk page? Of course not. All that is being asked for is for each editor to use judgment and discretion to keep our watchlists from going crazy over an ancillary discussion. Thanks, everyone, and I'm looking forward to productive conversations here this season. —Twigboy 02:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in re the Wikia stuff: During the late 2005 season, the talk page became absolutely unusable. Full of empty speculation, betting pools, and a widespread chicken-little mentality. Getting rid of all the fluff was the best thing to happen to the hurricane articles since they came to prominence in 2004. A betting pool does not assist in improving the article. Discussing ad nauseam a cloud puff that just left Africa does not assist in improving the article. What does is discussing recent releases from the NHC, on how to prepare for them to be in the article, or to discuss the scope presently required for them. We need to remain calm, civil, and professional. I essentially stopped working on the articles for a while because the signal:noise ratio was nonexistent. Now if only we could cut down on the people complaining about not being able to do all of the above, and we'd be in business. --Golbez 11:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Special tropical disturbance statement has been issued which points out that advisories will be initiated later this morning, if the recent trend continues. -- WmE 13:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

01L.ANDREA

After briefly becoming NONAME, it is now ANDREA. Decisions on the article lie ahead - also early conversions to current event, new templates and perhaps an article. CrazyC83 13:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No to an active article. We cannot jump the gun this year like we did last year. An article should only go up after the storm dissipates, and even then only if the storm has had significant impact. --Core desat 14:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started a sandbox article, just for the record. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, even though it is quite a ways away from being a solid article. CrazyC83 15:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to second the no to an active article at this point in time. The rush to create an article the moment that the NHC names/numbers a storm (and sometimes even before it becomes official) is inherently problematic. An article should probably wait until after the storm has dissipated and we all have a better grip on sources and information. I can forsee exceptions if an active storm is having an active impact on land, but not yet. Arkyan  ^(talk) 17:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plus this is a minor storm with minor impact. jj 17:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sandbox going though, even though it will (probably) be after dissipation when it is published. Impacts from the initial non-tropical low can and should be included as well. CrazyC83 17:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm about finished with the sandbox. What is the harm in publishing it now? Hurricanehink (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I for one like the sandbox article, it's actually very informative. I don't see why this shouldn't be published. -- WmE 17:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither. But what is there to talk about right now (early formation aside)? Andrea is brand new and in all likelihood will be inconsequential. We shouldn't worry too much about a separate article right now: there'll be plenty of time for that later. Keeping this article updated should be the main priority. Pobbie Rarr 17:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to keep the sandbox article updated. That way, the trivial information such as damage can be kept there, while the more important info can be kept here. I'm requesting a page move. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, just move it. It looks fine, and the level of detail currently in the storm article is far greater than the amount the season article should have. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't. There's a redirect. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That can easily be fixed. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever made that article: good job :) I wasn't really thinking article at this point... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CrazyC83 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 9 May 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 [6] article Andrea? If so, should the two missing kayakers (one of them later rescued) get a mention in the article?--65.94.35.23 22:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]