# Talk:1992 Atlantic hurricane season

Subtropical Storm One
Hurricane Bonnie
Hurricane Charley
Tropical Storm Danielle- Sorry bout the crappy quality, but this is the best there is. Hurricanehink
Tropical Storm Earl- See above. Hurricanehink
Hurricane Frances
Another year down, and that was lucky. Not sure how far back every storm will have an image on them. Hurricanehink 20:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Where is the Subtropical Storm One trackmap?

On the main page... Hurricanehink 23:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the person who added the depressions info, but next time remember that depressions have no tracks juan andrés 04:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I forgot about that one when I added the pics. Hurricanehink 12:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Before my latest copyedit, the Andrew section was horrendous (it didn't even mention that the storm struck Florida!).  I added some more quick info, but I marked this as {{tcexpand}} since it needs some "real" storm history. — jdorje (talk) 08:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Define, "real" storm history, because I cant find anything wrong with the info in this section if not then im removing the {{tcexpand}} banner since it only clutters up the article and that no one had disscussed anything about it. Storm05 17:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
The andrew section defies the principle of notability: the most notable storms should have the most detail.  However andrew has the *least* detail of any storm this season.  Unlike every other storm it has no meteorological details like "Strong upper-level westerly winds weakened the storm", it just says it formed, reached cat5 intensity, and made landfall. — jdorje (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Whats up with the lame pictures of Danielle and Earl? No offense to who put them there, but you gotta have somethin better than that? Anything? Cyclone1 02:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I know they are horrible, but that is the best that exists online. The website that provided other similar time period images doesn't work for those storms. Hurricanehink 02:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Dude, I am so sorry. I just figured that out when i tried to change them. Heh.. I feel bad now. Cyclone1 02:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
LOL, no problem. That's exactly what I thought in the first place; can I find anything better than these horrible images. Unfortunately no, but oh well. It's fine ;) Hurricanehink 12:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Lol. Cyclone1 17:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I created a Userbox in honor of Hurricane Andrew →  → User remember Andrew.  Feel free to add this to your userpage. FishHead 3:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I added information on this storm since the article lacked it. If you want to alter it (add info, correct any mistakes, or even just deleting it), go ahead.
PS: According to the weather reports, Tropical Depression 2 (the 1016 mb one) formed on July 24 and dissipated on the 26th (according to the archives at NHC). The TD2 portion doesn't mention the dates of formation and dissipation.Jake52 My talk

Danielle and Earl Global pics have showed up on GIBBS!! Hooray! Out with the crappy pics! I'll upload them. Danielle at landfall and the only decent picture of Earl moving away from land. Anything is better than what we have now. →Cyclone1→ 14:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Lord thats much better! →Cyclone1→ 14:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. That must be new, as when I look through there, those storms weren't working. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey, man I'm as surprised as you are. →Cyclone1→ 20:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Look at this. Here's another image. Any thoughts? It practically had an eye. →Cyclone1→ 18:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be mentioned in an other storms section. It does come from a governmental agency. Great find. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. If I only saw this on Gibbs I would have overlooked it, but from Nasa? I think it should be added. →Cyclone1→ 18:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Looking at it again, it looks a bit frontal in the Gibbs image. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I added it. →Cyclone1→ 19:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess it was kind of frontal. Should we keep it? I noticed it did look a little less frontal earlier and later in its life, via-gibbs images. →Cyclone1→ 11:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
It's fine to keep, seeing as NASA mentioned it. --Hurricanehink (talk) 12:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


### Fake Image
I dont think so because there's no way that storm that visable be undetected. That infomation about that storm is false. Storm05 14:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It looks similar to the Gibbs image. Maybe the NHC though it was frontal operationally, and never went into further detail for the storm. It should go in an other storms section, with a disclaimer that the NHC did not upgrade it. --Hurricanehink (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The image/system is not fake; my first tour of the NHC occurred while the system was existant in the western Atlantic.  I believe there was a 50 kt, 1002 hPa ship report that came in during the system's life cycle.  I'm wondering if the image is from the May 10-13 system rather than the one present a few days later...that system did appear more tropical/subtropical.  It is best not to comment further upon it; the NASA image looks good, doesn't it?  Thegreatdr 17:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I think so... I had a heart attack when I found that image. But what other storm are you talking about? →Cyclone1→ 11:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, I found it. Formed on May 16. It does look more (sub)tropical than the other. [1] →Cyclone1→ 12:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC) Nope that was the same one... →Cyclone1→ 03:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


### September 12, 1992 near-hurricane offshore New England
While I have your attention, consider these images from September 12, 1992 offshore New England:  Visible Infrared
Visible 2
Infrared 2
Visible 3
Infrared 3.  This is why I added the system in as another possible storm.  It briefly sported an eye on visible imagery between roughly 1500-1800 UTC, although it is not terribly obvious on this imagery.  When the center went over Sable Island, Nova Scotia as a deteriorating cyclone, they issued a special observation declaring that the sun was dimly visible.  There is a high chance this cyclone will be added to the database, when the reanalysis gets to 1992 in the next several years.  Thegreatdr 18:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Very cool! →Cyclone1→ 04:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


### So, If anyone's keeping score...
...that's one January polar low, one May Bermuda storm, and one September hurricane. And those are just the ones posted here. I have, in my own satellite archive Another January low off of Florida. That's 4 and counting. →Cyclone1→ 12:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The Bermuda storm is clearly non tropical on the infrared: [2]. See how the bands are all detached from the center? The polar low and the other January storm also look non-tropical. The only one that intrigues me is the September storm. That storm looks quite tropical with a tight inner core and decent outflow. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 22:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, who knows what they'll update and what they leave as just a blurb in this talk page? Nobody knows now, though some people will know earlier than others. (lucky...) →Cyclone1→ 04:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I checked the camex website and concluded (and agreeing with E.Brown) that there is no way that the may storm went undected (or not reconizied by the NHC) when the website say it had a clear eye and etc, and that "may hurricane" looks like Hurricane Bonnie in September of '92. Because of this, I concluded that the info on that website is false. Storm05 13:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Listen to what you're saying, Storm05. NASA's not playing a prank on us. They didn't fabricate a no-name storm out of Hurricane Bonnie. And saying that if a storm has a clear eye, the NHC will recognize it? They can leave storms with eyes out of the database, you know. →Cyclone1→ 18:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Camex.4.com is a commerical website and not a NASA website and thus the info in it is dubious. Storm05 16:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
It's still credited to NASA, though. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, just for the record, the picture is actually Hurricane Fefa, not the May storm. Which comes to the conclusion that the infomation on the Camex.4.com webiste is compeletly bogus. Storm05 14:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
(PLEASE READ ALL OF THE FOLLOWIMNG) I wish I could agree with you, but I just can't for the following reasons: *inhales* The source says the image was taken on August 11, 1991. Fefa had long since dissipated, which pretty much invalidates that source all together. That's one nail in the coffin. Also, I strolled through most of Fefa's lifespan (3 hours, by 3 hours, by 3 painstaking hours) and noticed something. Fefa and the mystery picture are similar, except for one big difference: The eye. As far as I could tell, when Fefa had a visible eye, it always seemed to be almost perfectly centered, whereas in the picture, the eye is off to the outer side of the storm. And, whenever Fefa had an eye, the large gyre like cloud formation we see to the bottom right of the mystery storm, was nowhere to be found. Appearance: Another particularly large nail in the coffin. In addition to all this, we have the matter of the very similar looking storm near Bermuda at around the same time Camex says the photo was taken. I took this GIBBS image and rotated it and squashed it a bit to try to match the angle of the mystery storm, and came up with this result. It doesn't look exactly the same (because I have no idea what exact time the mystery image was taken), but it is very similar. Evidence of the actual mystery storm: The last nail in the coffin, it likely isn't Fefa, and due to the similar GIBBS image and the fact that Thegreatdr himself says he remembers the storm, information on Camex is still perfectly valid, thus allowing us to put it into the Other Storms section. Case closed. *inhales deeply* Man I'm tired of being right! (sorry, I've always wanted to say that) →Cyclone1→ 23:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


### Conclusion
I conclude that the info on that camex website is false. Why?, well a google search reveles nothing except wikipeida, its mirrors and that website, no mention of the May 1992 storm on any weather blogs or fourms. Also the the 08-11-91 date on thethe offical nasa website may have been a typographical error. Also the Cyclone 1 comparisons are not good enough as the may storm was near a land mass and theres no land masses visible in the camex picture. Also this storm has a clear eye (when i mean clear eye , i mean something like this or [3] with out any questionable features surrounding the storm that makes the NHC not to include in the database and the storm on the camex website does not have any questionble features that might make the NHC to leave it unnamed or not include in its database and Cyclone 1s counterexamples have questionable features, structure, etc that would prompt the NHC not to include in its database. Also simply saying that  Thegreatdr himself says he remembers the storm is not good enough as theres zero info on the NHC website or its archives and the fact that memories can play strange tricks. And finally (on top of all of this), i think the other storms section needs to be removed unless theres reliable source out there that can attribute to the storms above. Storm05 17:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Good points, we won't know for sure until HURDAT reanalysis reaches 1992. Cyclone1(22:20-9-07-2007)
...which at this rate, will be 2042.  Just so you know, at least a pair of May 1992 systems are within the big spreadsheet of possible additions.  One was a system which used to be considered a Type B subtropical cyclone (nowadays it would be a tropical storm) northeast of Bermuda in the 20s the month.  This might be the other...will have to recheck the spreadsheet.  I have to say though...I doubt either looked exactly like the NASA picture.  I'd like to know which cyclone that is myself.  Thegreatdr 21:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Still on pace for 2042.  🤣 Thegreatdr (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2025 (UTC)


### The Real Identity of the Camex May Storm Image
After breezing by the hurricane pages, I can now say for certain I know what that image is. The timestamp wasn't wrong, as it actually was captured on 8-11-1991, except the subject of the image is really Hurricane Fefa in the Pacific. Proof is here and on the 1991 Pacific hurricane season page. [4]
Jake52 My talk 02:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
(EDIT: OK, maybe not from above, but then again, would it be because the timestamp was wrong? This kind of hurts my brain.)
(EDIT 2: Sorry about violating the 3RR (if I am), but I have two different evidence about the Fefa/May storm mistake):
1. Camex actually does have a Fefa picture on the site (Blue Fefa, the one with it being "face on" with no bands), but that image is dated on the eleventh of OCTOBER, LONG after Fefa dissipated, so neither the May storm or Fefa have truly verifiable dates or images (during its time on the Fefa page, Blue Fefa was shown with a caption saying it was taken on "an unknown date".
2. The recent Fefa image on the main article for it (was it GoodKitty's?) shows that in the largest mass of convection, the eye actually IS misplaced, more towards a lighter group of convection, and that image also shows a broad "curve" of clouds similar to the Camex May storm.)

Just to make sure, there were nine depressions that year. That number doesn't include Frances, but does include the subtropical storm. Good kitty 18:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say there were ten depressions, including Frances and the subtropical storm. Subtropical cyclones should count for depressions, IMO. --Hurricanehink (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I put nine because I think Frances went from extratropical->tropical->back Good kitty 00:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
But I think that Total depressions means total everything (total TD+STD+TS+STS+H). Basically, total depressions should be however high the number would've gotten on NRL (which gives a number to every TD, STD, TS, STS, and H regardless of origin). Hurricanehink (talk) 01:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking at first, but Frances is a rare exception in that it was never a depression at any of its stages. We've never counted extratropical storms in the seasons. Good kitty 02:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
But Frances would have been assigned a number on NRL, as it became tropical, so it should be included as a depression. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Due to the controversy about some of the system list in the Other storms section, I have decided to remove that section all together. Here is some information about the "Other storms":

A report on the storm in January 1992
May Bermuda storm
Other information, including satellite images, can be viewed in a previous discussion on this page.--12george1 (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:1992 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jason Rees (talk · contribs) 01:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Over the next few days i plan to review this article for GAN.Jason Rees (talk) 01:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It was the least active hurricane season in nine years due to a strong El Niño that lasted from 1991 to 1994 - That implies that the El Nino lasted from 91-94 without a break which is wrong.
I removed that part about 1991-1994, since apparently it isn't true or falsely implying something.--12george1 (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
The lead would make more sense if the info about Frances was moved down to make a paragraph with the Andrew stuff.
Done--12george1 (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Were there any other seasonal predictions by any other agency such as the Weather Research Center.
I did find some stuff from the Weather Research Center, but there was no specific numbers (i.e. number of tropical storms, hurricanes, major hurricanes).--12george1 (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
If you can refind that stuff on the WRC, id suggest that you add it with this, i dont know how accurate it is though.
Ok, now it is fixed.--12george1 (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Now that the stuff on systems of the year has been moved down i think that the stuff about the depressions should be moved down to the end of Frances.
No, I think they should be kept where they are at, mainly because most of the other seasons are formatted like this.--12george1 (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I also think that the two paragraphs of the lead should be combined since they arent that big.
Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
It was a below average season in which 10 tropical depressions formed. Seven of the depressions attained tropical storm status, and four of these attained hurricane status. In addition, one tropical cyclone eventually attained major hurricane status,[5] which is below the 1950-2005 average of two per season - 1 check this sentence against the infobox and two maybe higher the average to the 2010 one though i would prefer it if you found an average at the time.
Fixed your first issue, but I am not sure what actually you are asking me to do on the second part.--12george1 (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Im asking you to either use the average to 2010 or find a better one that is say 1962-1991.
Why did activity suddenly halt in the mid of october?
Was Frances extratropical or dissipated - these are two separate things.
Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Delink the timeline as it is most probably a case of overlinking.
The infobox is the only link to the timeline, unless I am not looking hard enough.--12george1 (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I meant the timeline image.Jason Rees (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Move the timeline up to the start of the seasonal summ section.
It looks kinda odd there, but ok--12george1 (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Im surprised that you dont mention the fact that SS1 was rather close to being classified as Tropical.
Done--12george1 (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
There would be Tropical Storm Ana in April of the 2003 season - shorten to April 2003 and link it.
Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I would like to see the season effects graph not only referenced but be consistant with how it says None.Jason Rees (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Better?--12george1 (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
This date was well before the official start of the season - Take out as it is not relevant and is something for the seasonal summary section not SS1 IMO.Jason Rees (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
This was already mentioned in the season summary, so I simply removed that sentence.--12george1 (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Shortly thereafter, the National Hurricane Center discontinued advisories on the depression, citing that it had degenerated into a low-level cloud swirl. Citing to Reported.Jason Rees (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Switched to "reporting", since it is more grammatically correct than "reported".--12george1 (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of cleaning up your coding of the seasonal forecasst section and have a couple of questions
Surely Bill Gray issued a June forecast
Whats the + symbol for
Why are you using the current average and why not the average from 1960-1990.
Bearing in mind that people are not stupid and there is already a better key in the article, why have Template:SSHS Small in the article?.
Aren't we suppose to assume stupidity?--12george1 (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I think your seasonal activity section should be a bit fuller of bits about the season. eg: Use this http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0493%281994%29122%3C0539%3AATSO%3E2.0.CO%3B2 and http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0493%281994%29122%3C0517%3AAHSO%3E2.0.CO%3B2 this a bit more

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1992 Atlantic hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111011042947/http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/A6.html to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/A6.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 1992 Atlantic hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131214201025/http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/forecast_verifications.xls to http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/forecast_verifications.xls
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928013818/http://www.cityofannamaria.com/files/Hurricane-Flood-Preparedness-2006.pdf to http://www.cityofannamaria.com/files/Hurricane-Flood-Preparedness-2006.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)