Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season

Template:Hurricane

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, 7, 8.

Monthly Event Archives: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, June, July, Aug, Sept
Storm Event Archives: Alberto, Beryl, Chris, Debby, Ernesto, Florence, Gordon, Helene
Specialized Discussion: ACE calcs, Zeta, Re: AoIs

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

September

Week 2

08L.Helene

Major Hurricane Helene

100kt on NRL and the models, Dvorak T#s of 5.5 (102kt). -- RattleMan 01:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She's on a roll...looking at a repeat of her 1988 conquest? CrazyC83 01:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not forecast to reach Cat 4 strength yet. I'm a little scared that the models are no longer guaranteeing recurvature, though. —Cuiviénen 02:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11pm advisory confirms, the second major of the season. -- RattleMan 02:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The forecast track took a significant jog to the west at days 4 and 5, and only half the models are currently forecasting recurvature (if I understand the discussions correctly). I'm getting consistently more worried that this won't recurve. bob rulz 05:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It all hinges on that trough. If the trough misses the storm, then we could have a problem. We've gotten lucky at least twice this year, can we get lucky a third time? I've developed a theory: NHC said that an upper level low could jog Helene to the north in the way of the trough. I personally think that the stronger it gets, the less likely it is to be tugged north by the low when it moves out. The stronger the storm, the more it has the ability to influence its own environment. We'll see, but that's my theory. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 13:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, it looks as though Helene is getting stronger. 110kt (954mb) now on NRL. Perhaps even a Cat. 4 at the next NHC advisory? Pobbie Rarr 13:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or not. "......THE OFFICIAL FORECAST HAS BEEN SHIFTED A LITTLE BIT EASTWARD AND IS NOW SHOWING RECURVATURE EAST OF 60W LONGITUDE." Ah ha! There is mercy up there after all, Jesùs! The US gets lucky once again. Is it possible that we could have a season with no retired names? That hasn't happened since 1997. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 21:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wind speed is down but the wind field has expanded somewhat. Given how fickle the models have beeen so far with Helene, I wouldn't be confident of anything until the northward turn begins. Also, Bermuda is certainly not out of the woods. Pobbie Rarr 21:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The forecaster says the models are now all in agreement and he has much more confidence in this forecast. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 21:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No retired names, Eric? Bold prediction, especially since it's only September. ;) →Cyclone1→ 00:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a bold prediction, but I too am beginning to see any storms with any legitimate chance of joining the Hurricane Hall of Fame. Hope you all like the sports analogy I used to change things up. I was beginning to get tired of the word retire. guitarhero777777 04:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be September 20 and the storms this year have killed fewer than 20 people. I also see no killers looming on the horizon, everything has turned out to sea. Have their been late-season retirees? Yes, of course but most of them were in seasons that had a retiree in the previous months, meaning that the storms were forming closer to shore but just hadn't had the conditions to get that strong. The ones this year have stayed away from shore for the most part and have had good conditions that they failed to take advantage of. Helene had ideal conditions but couldn't get beyond a Cat 3. And given how inactive this September has been, it's hard for me to believe that October will be any different. I'm not ruling it out by any means; crazier things have happened in the Atlantic. But I'm just noting the almost unbelievable quiet we've been having and that this year's storms seem to be trending out to sea.

By the way, I had a Hurricane Hall of Fame before my hard drive crashed. I'm hoping a computer geek at my dad's office can get the data off. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 22:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's finished. --Mark J 14:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No article on Helene? Memicho 01:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Not enough info, unless someone wants to make it. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, Debby has less info, don't you think? I think helene is worth more than debby even if it didn't do any damage.Memicho 01:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but Debby was written weeks after the storm dissipated, and I was the only one actually willing to make the article. Everyone else wanted to wait for the TCR. For Helene, someone will probably make it eventually, but they'll have to do it under their own free will. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if things are slow for a while, we could get the TCR early, but I doubt it. I think it'd be a better idea to hold off on writing an article until then unless there's any significant impact as an extratropical cyclone. Writing an article now is probably not a good idea, since there is little to no info outside of storm history. --Core des at talk! 01:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And all of a sudden, it's back on NRL for some reason. --Core des at talk! 02:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fully extrratropical though. -- WmE 19:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El Niño Develops

New ENSO update says that El Niño has developed and will likely continue into early 2007. -- RattleMan 14:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's great news! --Holderca1 15:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a little bit late for this season except near the end of the season anyway, since it takes a while for effects to propagate to the Atlantic. —AySz88 \^-^ 17:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it does take a while. It's like 2004/2005. An el Nino developed late in 2004, which prevented significant activity after September. In Winter of 05, the el nino still persisted, though it was neutral by the time the infamous season started. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem of course, is that the El-Nino is living up to its name Christmastime name. What the Atlantic needs is a decent El-Nino in the summer, not in the winter. Most Atlantic hurricanes during El-Ninos aren't bad, although exceptions exist. Of course, a strong summer El-Nino would be bad for the Pacific Coast of Mexico, as El-Nino Pacific hurricanes often suck. Notice how the Retired names of Iwa, Iniki, Pauline, and Kenna all happened in seasons with a at least a moderately-strong summer El-Nino? Then again, even slow seasons can set records. 1997 and 2002 are both below average by ACE, yet gave us the busiest July and September at the time, although I'd take another 2002 over last year, and 1997 over that. Easily. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El Nino in the West Pacific is even worse. The 1997 West Pacific Typhoon Season was the most unbelievable season I have ever heard of, and yes I am counting 2005 AHS, 1933 AHS, 1996 West Pacific (with 33 storms), and the 1964 West Pacific season that saw 39 tropical storms form and holds the world record. Look at these numbers:

31 total storms
23 typhoons (75 mph or greater)
10 Category 5 super typhoons (160 mph or greater)
4 had winds of at least 180 mph
3 consecutive storms with pressures below 880 mbar (Ivan, Joan and Keith)
10 typhoon landfalls at Cat 1 or greater.

That is just unbelieveable. It's hard to imagine stats like that. I just don't have the right words for it. The numbers speak for themselves. It's just incredible. I am in complete awe of such power. As crazy as 2005 was and as crazy as the Atlantic has proven itself to be, it can't touch that. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 00:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The WPac and EPc and CPac seasons all look healthy even does the North Indian except for the Atlantic this year. — § Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody _{(T + U + E + C)} - (Remembering 9/11) 03:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The EPAC and CPAC do indeed look healthy, but the WPAC is still below average to the best of my knowledge, the Atlantic is probably about average, and the North Indian just had that one cat 4 and then nothing. The El Nino just started, and it hasn't even started affecting the Atlantic yet. bob rulz 04:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Week 3

95L.INVEST

New Invest just appeared on NRL, just off the Carolina coast. Doesn't look bad, but it doesn't have much time to develop.CrazyC83 18:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New England should fear not though; even if it does develop, there is a wall of 20 knot wind shear guarding the New England coast. [1]. On top of that, NHC doesn't seem at all concerned about it. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 21:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Even if it doesn't develop, that's some better looking circulation for clouds in that area than I've seen lately. :P SargeAbernathy 12:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SSD returns T#s of ST1.5/1.5. Subtropical! -- RattleMan 13:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, now that I think of it, this system reminds me of how last year's subtropical depression 22 looked. --Patteroast 14:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almost no deep convection right now, but looks very organized. This could get itself together in a hurry if some central convection can develop. Not sure about its future track though, none of the models initialize it. -Runningonbrains 18:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few models do. --Holderca1 20:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all either statistical or "track-where-the-leaf-goes-in-the-stream" type models, I think... I'm not sure those are even able to dissipate a cyclone that's put in them. —AySz88 \^-^ 21:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You lost me, those aren't predicting whether it will intensify or not. --Holderca1 22:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, models only predict a track for the system if they think the system will exist, right? :p —AySz88 \^-^ 23:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's got a point, but I think it's a moot one as NHC now says this thing is unlikely to develop and I have to agree. There's next to no convection in this thing. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 03:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The latest TWO says some development is possible. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meh.. shower activity is increasing, looks kinda sub-tropical, but if you ask me, it has about a snowball's chance in a microwave. But, stranger things have happened, and Mother Nature won't let us forget it. →Cyclone1→ 01:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gone from NRL. --Core des at talk! 08:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

09L.NONAME

96L.INVEST

Backup Navy site says we've got a 96L out in the eastern Atlantic. The models are quite bullish with this one, and SHIPS makes it an 88 kt hurricane in 120 hours. --Core des at talk! 06:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And in the time it took for me to post that, it appeared on the main NRL site. --Core des at talk! 06:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Verde ain't dead yet! Still, I think it is at least 2-3 days from development. No quickies like Helene. One thing this season has done more than last year is given us more Cape Verde systems... CrazyC83 14:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty low latitude; about 7°N right now. I agree, it'll be a few days. Looks healthy, though. →Cyclone1→ 19:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, 7°N? That's farther south than any of the other Cape Verde storms that we've had so far this year. That's not a good thing. bob rulz 22:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but this is a double-edged blade. The lack of Coriolis Effect will prevent it from curving northward for a while, but will also hinder development if my facts are correct. Oh, and I was wrong, the cluster of thunderstorms is near 7°, but the broad area of low pressure is closer to about 9 or 10, I think. →Cyclone1→ 23:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The less latitude it gains, the more likely it is to affect land further west. Just look at how Florence, Gordon & Helene gained latitude very quickly and curved away towards the northeast (just starting in Helene's case). It all depends on how strong the subtropical ridge will be to the north. Pobbie Rarr 00:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon was not really a Cape Verde storm; it popped out of Florence's circulation. CrazyC83 01:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but you get the drift. Gordon never really had a chance to move westward because it moved towards mid-latitude rather quickly. This wave (proto-Isaac) is currently forecast to follow Helene. It's like a production line of hurricanes. Pobbie Rarr 01:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to debunk this myth right now: Gordon did NOT "pop out of" Florence. <rant>It existed as a tropical wave and associated convection (91L.INVEST, then shear and subsidence from florence disippated most of the convection. After Florence moved on, convection sprung anew, it was reclassified as 93L.INVEST, and became Gordon.

Storms don't just "pop out of" other storms. Not tropical cyclones anyway. Sorry to be so harsh CrazyC but this really annoys me. ARRGH </rant> :-P

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Runningonbrains (talk • contribs) 03:17, September 20, 2006 (UTC)

Looks aren't good, but it's so far south that you can't rule out a chance of Hurricane Issac Hayes. If this thing hits land everyone will either be proclaming "Shaft!" (read article I linked( or Issac's Storm (like 1900 Galveston). guitarhero777777 03:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TCFA issued. ~Pikachu9000 18:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ISSAC aka TD9 YES! 1998's Mitchazenia (joking) 23:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Pobbie Rarr 01:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pikachu, what are you talking about? TCFAs are only issued by JTWC and they don't do the Atlantic. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive

TCFA indeed, Eric. "TROPICAL CYCLONE FORMATION ALERT". – Ch acor 03:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the JTWC is not the only organization that issues TCFAs. The NRL (as well as the Naval Atlantic Meteorology and Oceanography Center, which is essentially NRL's Atlantic counterpart) also issues automated TCFAs when data from the NHC warrants it. --Core des at talk! 03:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both JTWC and NRL are Navy organizations and make their own interpretations based on the data they get. NHC has not said a tropical depression is imminant. They've said a tropical depression is possible, but not imminant, which TCFAs signify. (TCFA=tropical cyclone formation forecast within the next 24 hours) NRL could be right, but it's not official. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 04:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the TCFA:

FORMATION OF A TROPICAL CYCLONE IS POSSIBLE WITHIN 150NM OF

EITHER SIDE OF A LINE 14.0N 42.0W TO 19.0N 46.0W WITHIN THE NEXT

24 HOURS.

TCFAs do not indicate that TC development is imminent, they indicate that it is possible. If TCFAs indicated imminent development, then all systems for which TCFAs are issued would develop. They don't. --Core des at talk! 04:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has suddenly disappeared now from NRL.Tropische Storm Sven 12:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back. – Ch acor 12:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why was that? Does that happen often?Tropische Storm Sven 13:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The NHC doesn't seem to think much of it now. Jamie|C 08:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is why TCFAs should never be considered a guarantee that a tropical cyclone will form. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 12:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No surprise. It is kinda late for Cape Verde. From here on in, it should be mostly the Caribbean and the far-out mid-Atlantic. CrazyC83 04:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Dvorak estimates are T1.5/1.5 though. -- WmE 19:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another TCFA. --Core des at talk! 02:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't want to die! This blob really deserves to become Isaac... CrazyC83 15:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

09L.NONAME

NRL has it as TD 9! -- WmE 18:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it does. A wave which has actually made it against the odds. It's not going to do much however. Pobbie Rarr 18:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issac!!! :> :> :> :> HurricaneCraze32 aka Mitchazenia 18:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't post false information. The system, at the very most, is a depression right now. It is not a tropical storm yet. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How's it false information if it is a talk page?HurricaneCraze32 aka Mitchazenia 20:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, being on a talk page doesnt change the fact that it's false now, does it? :-P Besides, aren't you a bit over-excited over a blob of clouds in the middle of the Atlantic? -User:Runningonbrains 20:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. This board is only for discussion for the season, not for wishcasting or games. I'll repeat what's been said in the past, the talk page is NOT a Forum. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There must be some sort of party out in the east Atlantic, because all three of the last storms have wanted to go there, and this one looks like it does too. Almost exactly the same path as Gordon and Helene...the Bermuda high must be pretty small this year. -Runningonbrains 18:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Depression Nine

TD9 officially. – Ch acor 20:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray, another fishspinner, but this one is not forecast to be as fun to watch. The forecast doesn't bring it above 50 knots. If that holds up, an amazing streak could come to an end: The last time an 'I' storm did not strengthen into a hurricane was 1989's Tropical Storm Iris, and it fell just short. That's a streak of 15 seasons. 1991-1994 and 1997 did not have an 'I' storm. Still, that's impressive. We could now be witnessing the end of the streak. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 20:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Week 4

97L.INVEST (error)

Appeared on the Navy site[2] with no clue where it is (a sort of meteorological nomen nudum). Has somebody pressed the button too soon? The only activity apart from 96L looks too far south to develop. Update - it's now showing a photo of the same area as 96L. Possibly finger trouble?--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 11:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that system has two LLCCs? Good looking system though and NHC again thinks 96/7 could become a TD soon. – Ch acor 11:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably actually the same storm - FNMOC has removed 96L. – Ch acor 12:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable explanation would be that 96L looked like it was splitting into two systems late last week, and that 97L is for the other system...but it's not likely as the positions are almost identical, and NRL's wind estimate for 97L is 10 kt. Unless they change it to something else, it's an error. --Core des at talk! 16:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Navy have reverted to 96L. Looks like 97L was just a typo.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 21:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marked as error. bob rulz 01:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon's category

This article once said Gordon was category #3, but then it changed to #2. What happened?? Georgia guy 14:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It weakened. It is moving over colder waters.--Holderca1 14:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the policy on that by the way? Do we change the cat to reflect the current status while the storm is active, and then change to its max category once it dissipates? -Runningonbrains 14:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. The infobox used while it is current says current storm imformation. It would be confusing and misleading if it said category 5, but the wind speeds said 75 mph. Once the storm is gone, the infobox changes and max cat is used. --Holderca1 14:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. The current intensity is used on {{infobox hurricane current}}; then, when we switch it to {{infobox hurricane small}} after the storm dissipates, we use the peak intensity, in max. sustained winds and min. atmospheric pressure. Tito xd^(?!?) 17:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that isn't fully true; I've always followed the practice of keeping the name in the infobox at its highest (e.g., calling it "Hurricane Ernesto" - but only in the infobox - even while Ernesto is a TS). I think that was used in the past. – Ch acor 17:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense now 192.28.65.210 05:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACE mean and NOR

I quote the article,

As of September 18, even though the current pace of the season is two tropical storms ahead of what is average[3], the total energy for the season is slightly less than the mean.

Is the mean ("This table shows how the average ACE, and the number of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes, develop with the duration of the Atlantic Hurricane Season. Calculated from NOAA Hurricane Best Track Files (HURDAT)[4] for the same period (1951-2000) used for seasonal ACE norms.") not considered original research? – Ch acor 06:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like it to me, it looks like the original research was done by NOAA or am I missing something? --Holderca1 16:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the NOAA has not published the actual mean, us "calculating" it would be OR, no? I'm not sure. – Ch acor 16:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, why would it be? Extrapolating data from info already available is not OR. bob rulz 16:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NOR: "articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements that serves to advance a position." For what's worth...--Holderca1 16:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. I always thought that extrapolating data from existing sources (like bob has said) is just simple logic, not original research. For instance, all the available best-track data shows that Ivan is the most southerly Cat. 5 on record in the Atlantic, however I have yet to see a source which actually says this in writing. Does that make such a statement wrong? Pobbie Rarr 18:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NOR: "Research that creates primary sources is not allowed. All articles in Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not 'original research'; it is 'source-based research'." (emphasis mine) So, no, this would be source-based research, instead of original research, as we can always back up the statement with the HURDAT files. Would it be ideal for TPC/NCDC to provide the mean? Sure, and they probably do somewhere. Is it bad for us to do it? No. Tito xd^(?!?) 18:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps e-mail the NCDC and see if they'll provide the value? --Core des at talk! 06:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively maybe User:Thegreatdr can check it up for us if he has the time? – Ch acor 06:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far, this season well demonstrates that the ACE figure can be dominated by storms which are not memorable for other reasons such as destructiveness, and by quite short periods of activity compared to the length of the season. On September 11 it was noted that the ACE figure of 23 was less than half the long term mean (47.5) for that date. By the end of September 20 Hurricanes Gordon and Helene will have brought it up to the long term mean of 61.8. Even so, this does not reflect the fact that the current pace of the season is two tropical storms ahead of what is average.

This sounds like a bit too much of commentary for an encyclopedia. – Ch acor 11:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have a problem with "By the end of September 20 Hurricanes Gordon and Helene will have brought it up to the long term mean of 61.8." Sounds a bit like crystal balling. How about we wait until the end of the day when it has caught up to the mean to say that it has, rather than saying what it will do. On second look, I don't like the entire paragraph, "this season well demonstrates that the ACE figure can be dominated by storms which are not memorable for other reasons such as destructiveness." The ACE does not take into account whether a storm makes landfall or not. A landfalling storm that causes a billion dollars worth of damage does not get ACE bonus points. --Holderca1 12:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it 1 not 2 storms ahead now? How about simply stating 'ACE is a measure of a season's activity not its destructiveness which depends on a mere 2% of the tropical cyclone activity.' Is that what the paragraph is trying to say? Is going from half the mean up to the mean really significant enough to comment on (when ACE is meant to be a measure of a season's activity). crandles 15:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear me, what I lot of trouble I seem to have inadvertently caused. To respond:

On the NOR matter:

a) I would say that what I produced is a tabulation or presentation of a (single, cited, reputable) dataset rather than an analysis of it, and therefore falls short of the definition of OR

b) It is less OR than is Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season/ACE calcs - where every individual figure has been extracted from a separate web page

c) In any case, these are both covered by the getout: No original research applies to articles, not to talk pages or project pages. Oddly there doesn't seem to be a prohibition of linking from articles to talk pages. Maybe this is the (unwritten) rule I have violated?

On crystal balling, there is no shortage of this in Wikipedia. At Transit of Venus, 2012 we read "The next transit of Venus will occur on June 5–June 6 in 2012." At 2012 Summer Olympics "The 2012 Summer Olympics ... will be held in London, United Kingdom from 26 July to 12 August 2012." The first of these is the nearest to a certainty there could be. Any of a number of (mostly unfortunate) situations could intervene to prevent the second. Given the state of the mathematics and physics at the time I would say the certainty of my "will have brought it up" was nearer to the first than the second. It was only temporary for a few hours (while the previously wording about being slightly below the mean was no longer significantly true), anyway. And it was, as it turned out, correct.

On the wording generally, I believe a more encyclopedic paragraph is now in place.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 08:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The difference of the two examples you listed and the one that was found in the article is that the two examples have ample sources documenting them, the one in the article has none. --Holderca1 15:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any potential retirees so far?

I just can't see any of the first 8 (and yes I know Helene is still active) ending up retired. Florence did the most damage, but there are only two deaths counted to her. Was the property damage enough to make it even discussable when they consider retirees in March/April?

I don't see Florence causing any deaths? Our article Hurricane Florence (2006) does not mention any either. --Holderca1 13:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definately none so far, but 96L may prove interesting if it can develop so far south. -Runningonbrains 14:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only one possible would be Ernesto, IMO. It caused 5 deaths in Haiti (sadly, quite common), 2 indirect deaths in Florida, 6 deaths in Virginia (4 indirect), and 1 death each in North Carolina and Pennsylvania. Damage is at least $200 million (50 in NC for crops and 150 in Virginia). Keep this in mind, there's been 8 retired hurricanes for less damage, and 13 retired for less deaths. I'd say Ernesto has the best chance, though its chances aren't that good. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misread the Ernesto deaths for Florence. Naraht 20:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems unlikely. Thegreatdr 21:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I don't think there are any good cases. No US storm doing less damage in recent times has been retired. CrazyC83 22:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like HurricaneEric and I both mentioned in another discussion (Gordon I think, but I a not sure) that chances for storm retirements so far are next to none. guitarhero777777 22:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. No storms have even come close this year, extremely unusual. And most of the models that initialize 96L turn it out to sea [5]. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 23:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, as I see it, Alberto, Beryl, and Ernesto have all affected the US coastline, but out of them three, I guess only Ernseto has the choice of being retired. Florence, lashed Bermuda with hurricane-force winds while Hurricane Gordon also did the same thing to the Azores, but both dmages were somehow kept to a minimum. Debby and Chirs were gentle storms that did no damages or anything. So my answer would be, Ernseto. — Alastor Moody _{(T + C + U)} 01:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the storms to date will be retired. --tomf688 (talk - email) 01:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I don't think Ernesto is worthy of retirement, I think it does have a small chance. Why? Because it was hyped up to the eyeballs. The comparisons with Katrina were tiresome to say the least. Pobbie Rarr 02:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about Hurricane Klaus ($230 million), Hurricane Gracie ($90 million 2005 USD), Hurricane Anita (10 deaths and only $162 million dollars) and Hurricane Fefa (0 deaths and moderate damage) they all got retired despite low fatalites and damage. Storm05 13:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fefa is an EPac storm that struck Hawaii.--Holderca1 15:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, despite the fact that none of the storms so far are worthy for retirement, I do think that a future storm could get retired for less than the normal amount of notability (like Klaus). In a season of lacklustre storms, the less lacklustre ones are more likely to stand out. If Emily (2005) occurred this year, it would almost certainly have earned retirement (last year it was forgotten amongst the chaos). Pobbie Rarr 22:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is true but:

It appears likely that a hurricane will have to affect a member of the Regional Association IV Hurricane Committee (member list is here) in order to be retired. If a (hypothetical, and I do not want this to happen) Category 1 Hurricane Joyce kills 200 people in Grenada and has minimal impact everywhere, Joyce could well go unretired as it's the committee retires names. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's bizarre. So if Ivan fizzled out after hitting Grenada it probably wouldn't have been retired. That's pretty much what happened with Gordon in 1994. Although Haiti is on the list, that was also a pretty turbulent year for Haitian politics. So was 2004 come to think of it, so I wouldn't be surprised if the United States alone made a case for Jeanne. They really ought to throw the rule book out of the window in special cases so that the Gordon farce doesn't occur again. Pobbie Rarr 00:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing Spain's weather services report on Gordon, and its effect on the British Isles, I'm beginning to wonder if it doesn't stand a small chance of retirement. Other former tropical cyclones have impacted Europe with hurricane force winds, but it has been quite a while. Thegreatdr 12:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was a bit of a snoozer in Britain. A few downed power lines and uprooted trees doesn't count for much. There were no deaths or serious injuries either. Having said that, they should try to use any excuse they can find to retire Gordon. Pobbie Rarr 23:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does 1994 ring a bell? It should've been retired.1998's Mitchazenia (joking) 23:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly my point. If they can retire the name Gordon without it causing any further catastrophe, the people of Haiti will receive a degree of justice. It's very unlikely though. Helene's remnants are likely to be more disruptive if they hit the British Isles in the coming week. Pobbie Rarr 23:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far Helene has the award for longest lasting storm of the season, nowhere near Irene, which also is no reason to retire a name.1998's Mitchazenia (joking) 23:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A small landmark

The ACE has passed 66 so this season is sure to qualify as (at least) 'Near normal'.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 08:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which makes Ivan's ACE of 70.4 all the more impressive. We still haven't reached it through 10 storms, which even includes a few Cape Verde hurricanes. --Holderca1 15:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another reminder of how unbelievably insane the past two years have been. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 04:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NCDC updates

The National Climatic Data Center now has storm event reports up to July 31, 2006. The Alberto article should be adjusted accordingly, as there are now damage totals (around $400,000). There's no reports on Beryl, so that does not need to be updated. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were able to assess for such a small number? CrazyC83 00:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I bet the WFOs involved were able to assess it, if there is a number listed. Remember, the NCDC data is reported by the WFOs involved. NHC estimates are just insurance claims doubled. Thegreatdr 00:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, hang on a minute. We're talking just deaths and damages right; the Butcher's Bill? Nothing else from NCDC would be official since they aren't the hurricane specialists. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 04:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

What will happen if the NHC uses up all of the greek names? Do they resort to the military alphabet, barrow names from other basins or make up the names themselves if that happens. Storm05 13:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if they have considered that, but given that a season that got that far (> 45 (21 normal +24 greek) storms) would be even more beyond the 2005 year than the 2005 year was beyond the any other recorded year since at least 1950, it is unlikely to be a problem. Naraht 13:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may very well become a problem, say, when the next hurricane peak hits 30 years from now. The NHC has stated that greek names can be retired, so the list of greek names could concievably shrink over time, if we keep having 2005-like years! (This is all assuming they don't change the naming system in the near future) -Runningonbrains 15:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has never been 46 named storms in even the Western Pacific, so that is quite an extreme thought... CrazyC83 15:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]