Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season

Please remember to sign your comments using "~~~~"! (This request includes anonymous users.) Discussion should be limited to this article and related articles. Please keep off-topic discussion to a minimum.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

Monthly Event Archives: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, June, July, August Storm Event Archives: Alberto, Beryl, Chris Specialized Discussion: ACE calcs, Zeta, Re: AoIs

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

August

Week 4

04L.NONAME

96L.INVEST

New Invest up. [1] --Ajm⁸¹ 00:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Whereabouts is it? I can't see an image yet. Pobbie Rarr 00:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting - just off the coast of Africa. – Chacor 00:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This thing looks very impressive. As long as it avoids that dry air to the north I think it has a fair shot at developing. bob rulz 03:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The SSTs off to the west do not look good to me. If it develops quickly it may hang together as it crosses the tongue of colder water west of tbe Cape Verde Islands and make it to the Carribean (where it could become a hurricane). More likely it will stagnate and fizzle out.

Overall, the cold water upwelling that I noticed earlier this year may have finally dissipated, but numerous other upwellings and a serious one off of the NW coast of Africa are holding down the SSTs and suppressing cyclogenesis in the Atlantic this year. This may be an amazingly mild storm season this year, especially in comparison to last year's season. --EMS | Talk 03:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Most seasons would be mild compared to last year Cryomaniac 06:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks pretty impressive for a invest. Look here [2] --Irfanfaiz 10:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That came out of nowhere! It looks quite impressive! SST's could hinder development though. CrazyC83 15:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of the models are forecasting a more northerly turn... – Chacor 15:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Add - GFDL makes this a hurricane. – Chacor 15:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

T-numbers at 1.5/1.5. -- RattleMan 18:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

NHC has it on its tropical cyclone danger area graphic Jamie|C 19:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Tropical Cyclone Formation Alert has been issued -- グリフオーザー 19:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

04L.NONAME

Just appeared. -- WmE 19:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait for the NHC to confirm that. -- WmE 19:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it's going to be a fishspinner based on the models.--Holderca1 19:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

A Cat 3 fishspinner? -- RattleMan 19:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I can see such happening, but there are too many variables. Nonetheless, I think it is 95% sure this will be a fishie. CrazyC83 19:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Tropical Depression Four

Confirmation of the NHC! -- WmE 20:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep! It's TD4! Cape Verde has come alive! CrazyC83 20:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Long term model (unofficial) has it making landfall somewhere in New England the Friday following this Friday (the Friday before Labor Day weekend). Everyone better keep their eyes on this one. Hello32020 21:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This reminds me more of a recent D-storm than anything... CrazyC83 21:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes! Finally, another storm to track in the Atlantic. bob rulz 21:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah ha! The silence is broken! I also see that the models take it over open waters [3] so we can root for intensification. Hmmm...Debby, damnit, the girls are doing it again! ;) -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 21:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well XTRP has a southern track, but you're probably right. I wouldn't let my guard down though. Hello32020 21:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

XTRP isn't a model, it means extrapolation ;) Hurricanehink (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Still don't let your guard down. Hello32020 21:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is an observation site that will be important in the next 24 hours. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well this seems to be worth watching. Alastor Moody _(talk) 23:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

From what I've seen, the current model & forecast tracks take it away from the SAL which lies to the north. The subtropical ridge is in an easterly position, so it's not going to threaten the Caribbean like some people seem to think. Pobbie Rarr 22:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, how many TS have actually hit the Cape Verde Islands? There can't be that many in recorded history. Pobbie Rarr 23:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone have a guess to why NOAA didn't put a Tropical Storm Warning on the track map. Hello32020 23:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Too small to bother with? Pobbie Rarr 23:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

8 PM AST advisory out. The only change is that the center reformed more to the south. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess the atlantic season is trying to catch up the now so active pacific hurricane season. --Irfanfaiz 01:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Still has a long way to go in that regard. bob rulz 02:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to be prematurely alarmist, but the path looks a bit like that "New York City hurricane" scenario they've been anticipating for a while. --Revolución hablar ver 02:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The discussion does have some very interesting wording saying that the models have been wrong and that it looks more and more like it's going to go west...I guess we'll just have to wait and see. I love it, though, excellently wrong, haha. bob rulz 03:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

04L.DEBBY

The NRL has 35 kt and 1003 mbar. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 01:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

97L.INVEST

Central Atlantic, 10N 47W. -- RattleMan 18:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's about time. If this wave can escape the huge SAL layer nearby I think it has potential. bob rulz 18:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

NOAA August update & Gray-Klotzbach forecast

Just posting a note here that the August update of NOAA's tropical cyclone forecast comes out on August 8th. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 23:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

And on that note, Dr. Gray and Dr. Klotzbach have released their updated forecast to a Florida news station. They've lowered their numbers (13 named storms, 7 hurricanes, 3 major). It will be officially published tomorrow. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 23:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

To prevent confusion, it's 13 for just the rest of the season, not including the 2 already, which makes a total of 15. —AySz88\^-^ 16:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. What period does the forecast cover exactly? Is Chris included implicitly like Beryl (making the total 16 - that a big drop of 1) or is it the first of the 13?--Nilfanion (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh it is 15. The official forecast from the CSU is here. They've dropped the TS/H/IH predictions by two across the board.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

NOAA August outlook

The NOAA's August mid-season outlook is now out. No major changes from the start; "NOAA scientists warn this year's relatively quiet start is not an indication of what the remainder of the season has in store." Chacor 15:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Am I missing the point?

Am I missing something here. I thought Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season is supposed to be about 2006 Atlantic hurricane season and not the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season. Those two entities are different, aren't they?--Nilfanion (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, though it's best to keep an eye on 91L as it could become TD4 very soon. Pobbie Rarr 18:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head, Nilfanion. However, I don't see a problem with discussing Invests, if only because it signifies a possible move by the NHC, and we publish moves by the NHC. However, the obsession with clouds exiting Africa with no official designation is way too much. I would be happy to never see the term "AoI" on this page again. --Golbez 18:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait, now I see what you meant in the other discussion: I thought by AOI you simply meant Invest. And yeah, just AOIs on their own should not be discussed. Pobbie Rarr 18:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User:Nilfanion. It's another semantic debate. To take the other side for a moment, it appears that the inclusion of preseason predictions on the main page have led to predictions being posted on the discussion page. Perhaps the way of dealing with this issue would be to remove the preseason predictions from the main article at some point. I believe that if predictions aren't in the main article, they wouldn't be on the discussion page since predictions would no longer be relevant to the article's content. A prediction page could include all predictions, both "officially" made forecasts, and forecasts made by the users on this page and be used like a bulletin board system, or weblog/blog. Each user could have their own section on the prediction page when they feel they need to air out an opinion on a tropical cyclone forecast.

Should all hurricane-related articles be treated like a current event, or an encyclopedia entry? If the article is a current event, it should probably be treated like a current event which may include predictions. If it is in the past, perhaps all predictions in the main article should be removed and thrown on the prediction page since they are no longer relevent, with all predictions in the discussion page being removed once the event is over and thrown onto the prediction page as well (in this case, January 1, 2007.) Thegreatdr 19:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

They should be encyclopedic current event articles. Sourced predictions should be just fine, assuming the source is relevant. I'd say that the predictions could even be carried on post-storm, if they add to the article.

Regarding irrelevant predictions on the talk page, it is a current event article and it's futile to try to eliminate speculation and cruft. Wikipedia editors come from all kinds of places. I kinda like it that way. --Elliskev 20:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree serious predictions by meteorologists are fine for the article. It also is impossible to eliminate predictions cruft from this kind of article, anyone passing through could say "is this going to be the next big one?". However, I feel it has gotten out of hand, if we move the predictions to a WikiProject subpage thats probably a fair solution for all, and will mean this page will stay useable.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What about comparisons? I see a lot of that here, too. "This is looking just like <Insert pet storm name here>..." type stuff. No matter what you do, you're going to get excited people making bold and exciting statements. Might it be better to just POLITELY point out that we all should "just wait and see"? Creating a special place just kinda seems like an endorsement. --Elliskev 20:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. The problem is it has got so excessive that some good editors have been driven away from this page by it. Moving it to somewhere else is not an endorsement of it, but allows those who want to discuss the storms to do so (it is sometimes genuinely informative) and in such a way it does not disrupt this talk page (90KB of discussion on TS Chris counts as that IMO).--Nilfanion (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Sounds good. I do enjoy the outrageous predictions. 'THIS IS GONNA BE THE FIRST CAT6 JUST WAIT AND SEE WHENIT GETS IN THE GULF!!@! --Elliskev 20:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Those people are fun to make fun of...oh wait, I shouldn't have said that. Bad Eric! [slap] ;) -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 21:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Storm articles

Yea, yea, we brought up this topic a while ago, but it can't hurt to do it one more time. Obviously, having an article right when a system becomes a storm isn't going to work. If they only threaten land and don't have much impact, articles will be fairly short and not flow well at all (per Chris). Should we wait to make articles for all storms until they have their final advisory? I know that sounds crazy, but it might be the best way, with the exception for storms that have preparations and impact while the storm is still active. Alberto worked as a current event article; it was upgraded accordingly, and the article handled the evacuations and impact as the info came in. Beryl and Chris, on the other hand, were written sentence by sentence as the storm changed, and info was very minimal while the storm was still active. Comments or ideas? Hurricanehink (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I actually think that is a great idea. However, I think that since we are giving all articles of 2005-2006 their own articles, maybe we should create articles for every storm over the past decade. I know my idea seems crazy, but the correllation of notable storms to forgetful storms is about equal. guitarhero777777 03:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, let's not open that Pandora's Box ;) Articles for all storms have been proposed for storms back to around 2000, though we haven't set a date. We should talk about that on the Wikiproject talk page. However, we should first talk about storm articles operationally. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I still don't think that fishspinners should have articles. However, I do think that any storm that affects land and for which a decent preparations/impact/aftermath section can be written should be written. I just don't see much point in fishspinner pages (unless they're really powerful or there's something notable about them, or if they came close enough to land for people to take serious notice of it). bob rulz 03:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That was my main point. Either open the Pandora's Box or limit the articles. I can understand a powerful fishspinner like Dog (1950) or Cleo (1958), but not any storm, i.e. Phillippe (2005), I wouldn't have an article. guitarhero777777 04:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Pandora's Box has been opened, its just it takes time to write a lot of GOOD articles. The crucial thing is that the articles actually add something, which means a lot of effort would be needed to write Tropical Storm Chris (2000). There is no harm to a well written article on minor storms, provided the seasonal article doesn't suffer. Its best to come back to storms, both in the Atlantic and elsewhere, after they are gone. Writing their articles while they are current gets us creations like this, which is actually worse in quality than the season's section on it.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

How about setting some conditions for starting independent articles? The following is one possible set of conditions.

1. Any Category 3 or higher hurricane gets an article, regardless of whether or not it makes or threatens landfall as a hurricane.
2. Any Category 2 hurricane for which a hurricane warning is posted, regardless of whether or not it makes landfall as a hurricane.
3. Any Category 1 hurricane which makes landfall as a hurricane.
4. Any tropical storm which causes 10 or more deaths.
5. Any storm which causes $1,000,000,000 or more in damage.

Comments? Caerwine Caerwhine 14:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I like that criteria. I think I'll be sticking to storms that are not ongoing, just to avoid misinformation. We all know how the media operates nowadays. Thegreatdr 15:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I like it too.guitarhero777777 15:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Is that criterion for future articles or are we going to excise past aricles about ones that don't fit those criteria? 69.17.67.11 16:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not. Chacor 16:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• OK, Irene is notable because of her duration, so I can see adding that as another criterium, but I don't see anything notable about Philippe. Indeed, the only reason for having an article on him is if the criteria is every named storm gets an article. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Future articles. guitarhero777777 16:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

In the gap between the storm forming and the TCR, that is a reasonable guideline (the $1 billion is superfluous though). After the TCR anything goes.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think his point is is that Irene was able to make it to featured article status, and Philippe was able to become a good article. But still, I agree very loosely with the criteria above, but I think $1 billion is far too high of a lower limit (I think it should be about $100 million, if we have criteria at all). However, I still believe that if there's enough information on a tropical cyclone then you should write an article on it, regardless of how much damage it did or how much it threatened land, as long as there's more info on it than there is on the season page. bob rulz 19:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Umm, Bob you slightly misunderstand what happened with Irene's FA. It was pretty strongly opposed on the "not long enough argument". The reason Philippe or Lee or any of the others is not an FA is we don't want to lose any goodwill for the project at FAC, not that they couldn't pass. I agree to these criteria for active storms. After the TCR - "it was named" is enough of a criterion for me.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Um...huh? I never said anything about why Philippe didn't become an FA. Chacor's point was that we shouldn't do that to past articles because Irene became a featured article and Philippe became a good article...bob rulz 19:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Crossed wires.. I think Chacor was responding to the anon's "excise past articles" - get rid of the ones which didn't meet the criteria. Chacor's comment had nothing to do with the FA/GA status of Philippe/Irene but to do with their existence.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'll bet he chose those two for precisely that reason. He didn't mention it directly...but he implied it. Either that or it was just a coincedence. bob rulz 19:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Those criteria work, sorta. I don't necessarily agree with the Category 3's. If it's approaching land, then it's fine, but if it's a fish Category 3+, like Karl (2004), it might be better to wait until it's done so we can get a good storm history. Also, if a Category 2 causes hurricane warnings but does not make landfall, it still might be better to wait. What about a storm like Hurricane Alex in 2004? The info wasn't really there operationally, and you never know what it's going to do. However, any landfalling hurricane is a decent criterion. Landfalling hurricanes would likely have preparations info (evacs and warnings), as well as damage fairly quickly due to local sources. The question is, when would we make the article? Would we make it once hurricane warnings are posted, once the center crosses a land mass, or once the final advisory is written? US storms should have more weight, due to NWS offices and newspapers. However, should other areas be different? What if a category 1 hurricane moved through the Lesser Antilles? It made landfall as a hurricane, but there might not be too much damage or information. The storm history would also be unknown as well. What if it dissipated and the storm did nothing? Sorry for all of the questions, but there are a lot of scenarios. I suppose it is a storm-by-storm basis, but we shouldn't have repeats of Beryl and Chris, which barely have enough information to justify keeping them. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If it dissapates and does nothing, (such as Lee and Chris) CHUNK IT, unless it's like Epsilon or Zeta. No need for another Lee. Lee, in my opinion, was the worst idea (but by no means the worst article, mind you) for a tropical cyclone article. It was a tropical storm for 12 hours, and was the very definition of fishspinner. Let's keep the ones we have now and try to control ourselves from having a seperate article on a depression that just formed and has exsisted for 6 hours, 1,000 miles from anywhere. →Cyclone1→ 22:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

When we start getting preparations, or significant media attention, whichever comes first. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that works well. There could be the problem if a storm doesn't have much preparations or media attention but should certainly have an article (Stan last year), but for the most part I agree. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I say keep them all - they make for a useful resource when researching storms of the past. Tropical Storm Lee (2005) is a very impressive article given the circumstances. Though I would say people have a point when they say we should wait until post-analysis before creating articles for lacklustre storms. Pobbie Rarr 16:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This is only for future storms. Any existing storms will probably be kept. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, we should wait until post-analysis with future Lees & Chrises. Pobbie Rarr 20:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is what I think on when to create, redirect and keep articles before the TCR (at which point articles are always created). An article should be created initially if:

• At least a Tropical Storm Watch is issued.
• The intensity reaches Category 3 or higher with the storm pointing towards land (to get the buildup factor).
• The storm duration is at least 14 days (the Irene factor).
• The length in the season section is too long.

The article should be redirected back (with the text saved for the TCR) if the storm does not make landfall or have significant land effects, unless it would be too long in the season section.

Remaining articles should be created when the TCR comes out. CrazyC83 21:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

That could work, but there are too many cases when a tropical storm watch is issued without much, if any impact. The same goes for a tropical storm warning. Beryl and Chris barely have enough info justifying articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

In those cases, redirect it back when the storm dies unless it meets another criteria. That criteria is for an initial (active storm) article before the TCR. CrazyC83 15:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I like it when EVERY storm has an artcle that I can click to. Even if it's short. -Winter123 22:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Me too, but when a good storyline can be made - and that often requires the TCR. If Debby is named from TD4 and is a threat to Cape Verde, it is still land and should be made into an article. CrazyC83 19:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No. Think about it. What would the article say? We have no info on preparations on Cape Verde (except the TS warn), and no info on impact. It'd leave us with a very technical storm history, and that's all. Would hardly be a stub. – Chacor 11:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with CrazyC83 and others. If it threatens the Cape Verde Islands it is land and article should be made for it. Tropical Storm Warning is enough criteria (as long as this becomes Tropical Storm Debby). Hello32020 11:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC) (I also think Watch is criteria Hello32020 12:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It is better to have a well-written section in the seasonal article than a badly-written, quickly-put-together stub article. – Chacor 12:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

For once I actually agree with Chacor (shocking!). bob rulz 14:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. From WP:STUB: The community values stubs as useful first steps toward complete articles. I see no reason why we can't have a stub and a well-written section in the seasonal article. --Elliskev 14:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Stubs are bad when that is all they will ever be. --Holderca1 14:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, it was not a stub. It was a pretty well-written start. --Elliskev 14:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with all of these articles on these fishspinners is that there's hardly any information that can't be included in the summary on the main season page that can be included on the main page for the storm. I'm not necessarily opposed to them, I just don't really see a need for them. All we're doing is essentially rewriting the TCRs. bob rulz 16:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Alberto TCR

It's out: [4]. --Ajm⁸¹ 20:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

I'm actually a bit disappointed how short it is. I know they're busy, but I expected a longer storm history, more meteorological details (North Carolina rainfall totals for example), and more damage info (damage amount, where it caused the death). Oh well, I suppose I'm too used to Wikipedia ;) Hurricanehink (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is one surprising bit: it only mentions 1 indirect death. Not anything major, but before we thought it was 2. bob rulz 20:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, but you can't say for sure that this plane crash was caused by Alberto. He could also have had a heart attack or something. -- WmE 21:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no hard damages figure. The only thing they say is that property damage was "small", and I can't find anything to give me any numbers yet... Titoxd^(?!?) 06:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disappointed at all! I think the documentation of tropical storms and hurricanes here in the English wikipedia is sensational! Many people seem to be involved in checking any source of information very closely, NOAA and everything. It seems like the gargantuan effort to document everything regarding tropical storms and hurricanes is made quite easy by so many people working together! Thanks for your hard work! ;) --Maxl 21:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Yes, 2004 does seem like the old days now doesn't it? It might have something to do with the fact that the first storm formed so late that year. I think Arlene's TCR came out early, too. bob rulz 21:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The Quiet Season

I hear a lot of people on articles like this and in message boards moaning that the 2006 season is somehow the most quiet ever, and how the 2005 season will never be repeated etc. Leaving aside the questionable merit of thinking such things, has anyone not wondered about the glaringly obvious point which appears to be something of an elephant in the room. If we accept climate change/global warming as the reason for 2005 being so crazy, why cannot we assume the same reasons are behind this year being so quiet? If the changes in climate can be looked upon as the reason for a season of such severity then could the unpredictable changes be thought about as the reason for quiet? doktorb _words^deeds 15:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

2006 is still running above average - take a look at this forum post from a meteorologist that Coredesat posted above. It only seems slow because people became more accustommed to 2005's pace. —AySz88\^-^ 18:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

If you look at his graphics you'll see that this year is now average. (neither above average nor below average!!) -- WmE 20:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I looked a few days ago, and we were slightly above average. Years like 1984 and 2004 prove that you can't read much into how the future of this season will be based on what has occurred so far, though there are whispers of the current pattern being similar to 1994. Yikes. Thegreatdr 20:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds boring. Not that that would be a bad thing...just as long as we don't have Gordon II. bob rulz 01:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well Hurricanehink and a few other users say in mid- to late August, storms will begin spilling out in the Atlantic, but already its August 15 (UTC) and there is only three storms. Several users to me the season is fairly in average, but even 2004 seems to be more impressive than 2006 season. But maybe they are right. Alastor Moody _(talk) 01:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, this season IS now behind schedule with regards to hurricanes - the average season sees its first 'cane on August 14 (i.e. yesterday). Then again, 1988 didn't see its first hurricane until September 1 and look what happened two weeks later... Pobbie Rarr 01:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Global Warming aside, many people were surprised at the severity of '04 (the three that wacked the FL peninsula smacked my family) and even moreso at the unprecedented number of storms in the '05 season. The sheer popularity of the hurricane season spiked with interest. Yes, the season is normal now. In three weeks we may be above average again. Or maybe below average. When people cried 'GLOBAL WARMING CAUSES STRONGER HURRICANES' and used Katrina as an example, I had to laugh. The obvious flaw is that Wilma was technically stronger than Katrina, yet Katrina killed more due to the location of impact. I remember watching a news crew before the levies broke interviewing some people in the streets after the storm saying they'd be cleaned up and ready for normal in a few short weeks. What also springs to mind is an article I read on Global Warming titled something like "From the same people that brought you Global Cooling..." (which was the theory a few decades ago). On the actual topic of Global Warming and hurricanes, not all hurricanes were documented in the early years I am sure. The technology for estimating the intensity of TC's has increased, and as such we can more accurately measure and determine when storms form. As to Andrew, sometimes seasons start late and hit hard. Sometimes Averages display only the data that seems like logic will dictate the occurrances. Regardless of whether you're a creationist or darwinist, nature doesn't play the average and (like roulette) doesn't look at prior years to determine what it will do this year. It's best to sit tight and make the comparassions after the season's over. /END Thought. - Bladeswin | Talk to me | 03:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Very well said. Completely agreed. Hurricanehink (talk) 12:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say late to midoctober there will be an explosion of activity, which will bring us up to 15 storms or whatever. I still think this is the calm before the storm. -Winter123 22:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Right now, there has been a major SAL outbreak which will prevent any development of tropical waves till they arrive the Carribean. In the Carribean, shear is very hostile for that time of the year, it looks like May out there. As of now, I don't see any major development in the near future, so let's be thankful. -- WmE 16:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This season seems so quiet is because: #1: 2005, #2: The last time we had only 3 storms before August 19 was 2002, when most people here weren't probably tracking hurricanes. guitarhero777777 16:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an average season and not all seasons are 2005. --Irfanfaiz 11:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

At this point in 1999, Bret was churning in the Gulf of Mexico destined for Texas. Bret. "B", as in storm #2. You all see how that season turned out to be with fellas like Floyd and Lenny. Remember, it takes only one big storm to make it a bad season. Look at 1992: aside from 'Drew, just five other storms formed (discounting the subtropical storm). Andrew made himself a legend by leaving south Florida in ruins. The rest of the season was almost dead quiet. Just keep that in mind. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 22:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Strongest storm of the year?

If you're going by maximum sustained windspeed, it's Alberto - 70mph, 995mb. But if we're going by minimum pressure, it's actually Zeta with 994mb... --SomethingFunny 22:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Zeta's technically 2005, though. guitarhero777777 22:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Strongest storm of the year, Cyclone Monica...--Nilfanion (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Which was technically 'the previous year' too, if we're going purely by the official seasons. I mean, we ticked over the official season for the southern hemisphere on July 1. How dare you inflict northern hegemony upon them! Sheesh, it doesn't matter. Hurricane Frances was, for a short time, the strongest storm of September 2004 - even though *gasp* it formed IN AUGUST! Imagine that. (I'm not yelling at you, Nilf.) --Golbez 23:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious that Zeta was a late 2005 season storm and not an early 2006 season one. Therefore, Alberto takes the honours so far. Pobbie Rarr 23:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Strongest storm of the year 2006 is Monica. I don't think we're going by technical seasons, but the year. If Zeta hit its peak in 2006, I'll give it that as the srongest storm of the Atlantic in 2006. But since it formed in 2005, I cant give it the "award for strongest storm of the 2006 season." that still goes to Alberto. But I can still give Zeta the stongest Atlantic storm of 2006 if it hit its peak in 2006. guitarhero777777 23:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

...And if you want to go by natural cycles without human-made demarcations such as the Gregorian calendar, the new Atlantic season begins when it bottoms out in March. —BazookaJoe 23:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The question is, do we go by mph or mbar? Some seasons in the past put both, so why don't we do that? Hurricanehink (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It should be by pressure. --Holderca1 19:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, pressure always takes precedence. Pobbie Rarr 20:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Basically, use pressure unless it is unavailable, in which case use windspeed. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Guitarhero, just FYI, Zeta reached its peak intensity of 55 kts, 994 millibars at 1800 UTC January 1, 2006. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 22:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Betting pools

Due to the fact that it appears that the betting pools will not survive the AfD, I have saved them at User:Bob rulz/betting pools. However, I have trimmed them down to what I think they should be, removing nonsense and trimming it down to the most basic of predictions. If this is nominated for deletion as well, then so be it. But it's an attempt to save a bit of harmless fun. For anybody interested in seeing the results of the betting pools, I have given them a chance to do so. bob rulz 03:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think userfying that is an ideal solution, particularly as you have good judgement and are keeping the sensible ones.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Phew...a considerably less hostile response than I was expecting so far. bob rulz 08:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Chacor Hasn't seen this this yet :P Cryomaniac 17:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Umm the thing is the predictions you are keeping are the sane ones. The BPs are out of control on here. Plus the fact its userfied disassociates it from this page...--Nilfanion (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, good. And I will not tolerate the inclusion of any other betting pools on there, either...I have full control of it now, muahaha. But seriously, the only reason I didn't vote for the deletion of the betting pools was because I knew it could be trimmed down to make it much more sane. Since they're definitely going to be deleted now, I figured this was the next best way. bob rulz 08:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Add: I just added the East Pacific predictions into the same betting pool page, as well. The predictions there are much less out of control and much less more sane; I didn't have to do nearly as much trimming. bob rulz 08:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Umm much more sane surely? :P It has some community value so as it is hosted on userspace I don't really have that big a problem (if it stays controlled that is).--Nilfanion (talk) 11:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh...heh...yeah, more sane. bob rulz 12:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Predictions page

For those who want to have a little fun on wikipedia (outside of vandalism), I saved the predictions page, which will likely be involved in the mass deletion and put it on User:Fableheroesguild/2006 Atlantic hurricane predictions. Well, the deletion will mean i've run out of options on how to kepp predictions on the main talk page to a minimum. Ah, well. guitarhero777777 03:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Then here's the reality for you. Wikipedia is not here for fun. Go to Jeff Masters' blog if you want to make wild predictions. Chacor 04:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here for fun?? Isn't this a hobby to everyone? I thought hobbies were supposed to be fun. Who wants to do things that aren't fun in their free time? --Holderca1 17:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia is a hobby. bob rulz 22:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Who is Jeff Masters? Also, say i wanted to have some fun, would you rather me vandalize all your userpages (not a threat, but hypothetical) or add a couple of predictions? Of course, I would choose the latter.

P.S. I'm sorry about every post I've made on this talk page (within the last 24 hrs.)and the deletion page. I'm just a little high strung because my opportunity to clean up the invest page will be gone.guitarhero777777 04:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Masters is (apparently) a meteorologist, who has a blog detailing tropical waves. The fact that the Invests are staying (for now, and personally I would actually be against their removal), says something. Chacor 04:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

After taking a chill pill, I've decided that I will keep the predictions page, but if people message me to delete it (and I figure out how), I'll do it. It's not that important. guitarhero777777 04:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason for you to delete it. It is now a user subpage, after all. User subpage criteria are quite a bit more lax than article criteria. bob rulz 04:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That page was not "for fun". It was people making their serious predictions and getting feedback on them. I guess SOME PEOPLE cant understand that. -Winter123 22:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I din't mean have fun with the predictions. I meant that making predictions is actually fun to do. Check my userpage. I have MLB predictions and intend to add more. guitarhero777777 22:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and everybody made their serious predictions for fun. You wouldn't have honestly made those predictions if you wouldn't have wanted to. bob rulz 22:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought you were talking about the AoI page. Thats where my comment was aimed.

Yeah, THIS page is for rediculous random predictions, but the AoI page(which is now completely GONE for some reason... argh...) was serious predicitons. Why cant people understand? -Winter123 22:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

When did we start talking about AoIs? Nevermind, I see that you made both of those comments. But yeah, I was against the AoIs removal as well. bob rulz 22:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

10⁴kt² units

What are these units? Most other units in Wikipedia have a link to a description. --ML5 12:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't a speed squared an acceleration? Cryomaniac 17:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No, acceleration is rate of change in velocity, units of acceleration are distance per time squared. --Holderca1 18:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You'd think that I would know that, having an A-Level in maths :P Cryomaniac 21:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Does the ACE Wikipedia article help? -- RattleMan 17:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The 10⁴ is actually part of the number, scientific notation, i.e. 2.74 x 10⁴. kt² is knots squared or velocity squared. --Holderca1 17:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not exactly the kind of scientific notation most people (at least in the U.S.) talk about (i.e. the normalized kind) - else everything would have a single non-zero digit before the decimal point, and some numbers wouldn't be 10⁴ but 10 to some other power. —AySz88\^-^ 18:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

SQUARE knots? Knots measured over a 2 dimensional PLANE? How is it possible? I think someone screwed up. -Winter123 22:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody screwed up. As this says, energy is proportional to the square of the velocity. So square knots is a measure of the accumulated energy of the storm, not some 2-dimensional plane. It's not converted to a typical energy value, like Joules, since calculating the mass of a tropical storm would introduce a large error margin. --Spiffy sperry 18:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You think square velocity is hard to visualize, try something like Hubble's Constant, $H_{0}$, which is measured in (km/s)/Mpc.

Not all things with the same units represent the same concept - see torque and energy which are both a force times a distance (though torque is cross product and energy is dot product). I think it's better to think of units grouped together (like I did just now) instead of trying to break (for example) energy's units down into kg*m^2/s^2 (which is nonsensical). Then Hubble's Constant is no problem - it's just velocity per distance. With ACE, it's energy per mass. —AySz88\^-^ 22:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Comparisons

Comparisons of this season so far to other statistics as of August 20' (based on [5]):

Named Storms
AVERAGE SEASON - 3 (July 10, Aug 6, Aug 20)
2004 - 5 (Alex, Bonnie, Charley, Danielle, Earl)
2005 - 8 (Arlene, Bret, Cindy, Dennis, Emily, Franklin, Gert, Harvey)
2006 - 3 (Alberto, Beryl, Chris)
(right on par)

Hurricanes
AVERAGE SEASON - 1 (Aug 14)
2004 - 3 (Alex, Charley, Danielle)
2005 - 3 (Cindy, Dennis, Emily)
2006 - 0
(a tiny bit below average)

Cat. 3+
AVERAGE SEASON - 0 (first one comes Sep 3)
2004 - 2 (Alex, Charley)
2005 - 2 (Dennis, Emily)
2006 - 0
(right on par again)

Overall, it looks like 2006's been a very very average season so far. You never know though.. things could change. -Tcwd 21:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Average is a vague term. A season could have just 2 storms but one of those could be one of the most catastrophic in history. 1930 is a wonderful example. That season had just 2 storms, but one killed an estimated 8,000 people and left a sea of destruction in its wake. Bottom line: Climitology tells you very little. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 22:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Chris merged

I have merged Tropical Storm Chris (2006) into this article. As seen, the info that was there fits perfectly fine into the seasonal article, meaning that was nothing short of a stub. Now, instead of crying or reverting me, I would strongly recommend, and even ADVOCATE, a new article for Chris. HOWEVER, PLEASE work on it in USERSPACE, and when it's deemed to be at least a high-Start class article, ask an admin to do a move for you. Thank you. – Chacor 12:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the consensus was not to merge it. Good kitty 16:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:IAR. Common sense prevails occasionally, and it's better, as stated above, for the quality of Wikipedia, to have a good section on the storm rather than a poor stub. The fact that the article can fit straight into the section without any modifications is a big hint about its existance. – Chacor 16:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Since when does consensus mean anything on Wikipedia? 206.47.141.21 16:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT a democracy. --Holderca1 16:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to say that Common sense is not a guideline, while Consensus is. Hello32020 17:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Consensus through discussion, not through voting. --Holderca1 19:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, it appears you failed to read the guideline: "This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It has general acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." --Holderca1 19:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the reversion of the merge. I hardly saw a consensus to merge. Furthermore, it wasn't a stub. --Elliskev 19:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It has enough content to stand on its own. It isn't even a stub. --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As for the comments that suggest consensus doesn't mean anything, remember: if there are more editors that disagree with your changes, there will be just as many people willing to revert. Consensus means a great deal on Wikipedia, and going against consensus almost always causes problems. --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Will revert the revert. Discuss, and don't revert - that just encourages revert warring. DRV is NOT the right place to take this either as it wasn't deleted. It fits perfectly into this article, and alone is nothing much MORE than a stub, even if technically it doesn't fit the criteria. – Chacor 00:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Chacor, it was discussed. We thought that the Chris article was good enough as it was, and there was no need for a merge. The season article can be trimmed a bit and the info can go in the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

We already discussed it. There is no need for further discusion, and we should add it back ASAP. Hello32020 01:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"There is no need for further discussion"? Good grief. – Chacor 01:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever is in the seasonal article now WAS in the main article, that's my point. It will stay merged - consensus is by discussion, not voting, and there were many pile-on opinions to keep without stating a reason. I've disqualified those opinions without stating a good reason - it's not a vote. You'll find that the consensus turns out to week keep or merge. – Chacor 01:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You can't just unilaterally make a decision based on your own tastes and preferences, unilaterally judge the merit of others' opinions, and hold everyone else hostage by warning that you'll just start a reversion war from your own sense of higher moral ground. Why can't you accept that others disagree with you and may actually be just as right? --Elliskev 01:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As a former admin I know which "!votes" to discount and which not to. There is no clear consensus for a keep once you discard the pile-ons. Also, WP:CIV. – Chacor 01:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

In all discussions, AFD and RFA especially, the closing admin and bureaucrat has the option to discount opinions as it is a DISCUSSION not a VOTE. – Chacor 01:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Chacor, you can't just disqualify others' opnions. Some may disqualify your opnions too, so I don't think that should be considered a reason to not do something. (I hope I'm wording this right) Hello32020 01:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna make a RFC. Hello32020 01:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

While I don't see the need for a Chris article, you can't just override other people's opinions, Chacor. And stop waving WP:CIV around as a shield. bob rulz 01:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You will note that an RFC is not yet called for, while discussion is still on-going. An RFC is ridiculous and it is obviously an attempt to discredit me. – Chacor 01:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

For transparency, the "!votes" I discounted: Icelandic, WmE, Good kitty, Ajm81, Halibut Thyme, Robomayhem (as as we've seen, the merge lost no info). Ends up being a week keep/merge. – Chacor 01:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

EDITS TOO FAST CONFLICT:

Eh. Admin's "no big deal" and not really relevant when the admin (or former - whatever) is the person making the proposal. Just as strong a case could be made that there wasn't a consensus to merge. It's an interpretive thing and the fact that this discussion is even taking place lends proof to there being no consensus to merge. And WP:CIV? Where's that come from?--Elliskev 01:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

IRC

[6]. Please come to #wiki-hurricanes on irc.freenode.net to discuss an agreement. – Chacor 01:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm there Hello32020 01:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)