Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season/October

message: The non-tropical low at 29.6N 29.8W, mentioned in the 5:30 TWO, has become better organized and is now 98L. -- RattleMan 22:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Intresting location... →Cyclone1→ 22:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Called this one in IRC earlier. It looks really good, and it's over warm waters (24-26 degrees C). Mid-level shear's quite low on the CIMSS maps, as well. It should be interesting to see if this does anything. --Coredesat (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this look very familiar to you? CrazyC83 00:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NRL already has it at 35kt. We could have a subtropical storm sooner rather than later. Pobbie Rarr 02:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is quite possible, although the NHC is downplaying it. I need to wait for Quikscat to come up to see if there is a closed circulation... CrazyC83 03:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: NHC thinks its pretty much dead now. Jamie|C 17:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well. →Cyclone1→ 20:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 98L.INVEST

message: ====90L.INVEST====
Up on NRL for the area east of the Lesser Antilles. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does have some pockets of favorable conditions that could allow it to develop, but it would be short-lived most likely. CrazyC83 14:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it called 90L if there has already been a 99L? I think the wind shear in the Carribbean should prevent it form going as far as the Gulf Coast. It does look pretty healthy, though. AstroHurricane001 22:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Invests are areas of potential development with numbers reserved between 90 and 99. Thus, after 99 is 90 again. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Its up on NHC's danger area now. Jamie|C 12:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: TCFA issued by KNGU. – Chacor 15:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chances of formation dimishing...bob rulz 20:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Threres still some spin left in it. Storm05 13:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This thing looks rather pathetic and NHC isn't impressed with it at all. bob rulz 20:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the NHC. But, you never know. →Cyclone1→ 22:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gone. bob rulz 02:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Week 2

message: Up on NRL for the area east of the Lesser Antilles. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does have some pockets of favorable conditions that could allow it to develop, but it would be short-lived most likely. CrazyC83 14:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it called 90L if there has already been a 99L? I think the wind shear in the Carribbean should prevent it form going as far as the Gulf Coast. It does look pretty healthy, though. AstroHurricane001 22:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Invests are areas of potential development with numbers reserved between 90 and 99. Thus, after 99 is 90 again. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Its up on NHC's danger area now. Jamie|C 12:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: TCFA issued by KNGU. – Chacor 15:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chances of formation dimishing...bob rulz 20:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Threres still some spin left in it. Storm05 13:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 90L.INVEST

message: Weak looking system in the EAtl. – Chacor 14:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This thing looks rather pathetic and NHC isn't impressed with it at all. bob rulz 20:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the NHC. But, you never know. →Cyclone1→ 22:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gone. bob rulz 02:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 91L.INVEST

message: Up on NRL. No image yet, but it's probably that low over the Gulf.→Cyclone1→ 01:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, it is. Looks really good. I see a Joyce in the short term. →Cyclone1→ 01:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt it, it's under heavy shear so unless that shear goes away, Joyce will have to wait. 24.85.160.56 01:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, this thing looks impressive. But the shear has to weaken considerably. bob rulz 02:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wind shear is forecast to weaken in the Gulf next week. Of course 92L may not be around long enough to see it happen. Pobbie Rarr 02:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not likely to happen, but it is nearly stationary. →Cyclone1→ 02:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite surprising for it to come up. Unlike 91L, this one has a legitimate chance. CrazyC83 03:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the convection has really dried up over the past few hours. It looks like the shear's made short work of it. --Coredesat 03:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It's in the Naval Research Laboratory. Titoxd(?!?) 03:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wind shear in the Gulf is averaging 40-50 knots right now, it would take a dramatic weakening for this thing to even have a chance (can you spell "long shot"?). Never thought I'd find myself enjoying a quiet spell but I am. Saves money on coffins and that's always a good thing. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 05:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Very... Looks like a Joyce to me. Bouy reading are already getting sustained winds of over 40mph. I'd say thishas abetter chance than what the sheer makes it look like. It's catching sheer from newly formed Norman, too, so when Norman moves overland and loses circulation, well, we'll see. →Cyclone1→ 13:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like they are headed on a collision course... CrazyC83 16:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be cool. →Cyclone1→ 01:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Certainly it's a rain-producer. There's tons of flooding in southeast Texas and Louisiana right now. bob rulz 23:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That too this afternoon and evening. It was a tropical storm in all but name and formation... CrazyC83 00:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, apparently this thing is now responsible for a few deaths and injuries as well as much damage to infrastructure. Which means that 92L has had more impact than any of the named storms this year (perhaps even including Ernesto). Pobbie Rarr 02:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe this storm even deserves an article. Looks like there will be rain over parts of Mexico over the next few days due to 92L and Norman. AstroHurricane001 00:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I doubt an INVEST desverves it-unless 92L forms with Norman for real damages.Mitchazenia V3.0 18:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Invests don't get articles unless they do something absolutely spectacular. Rain alone isn't spectacular. --Coredesat 19:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has one gotton one before though?platyfish625 23:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea. In fact, invests are more likely to get articles than depressions; numerous tropical waves or disturbances, such as the one that hit North Carolina back in June, resulted in severe flooding, but never developed into tc's. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Hello? Is 92L active or dissipated? If Norman is long gone, and Paul is also dissapating, is 92L still producing convection or is it gone? I notice the last message refering to 92L as active was more than a week ago. So has 92L stayed active throught all this time, or did the landfall make it lose all of its convection? AstroHurricane001 13:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to ask the same thing a couple of days ago but by now I think it should have dissipated platyfish625 14:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 92L.INVEST

message: Up on the NRL. No pic. What happened to 94-99? or is that just an error? →Cyclone1→ 17:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't be surprised. Computers as well as humans are prone to glitches. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 18:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's gone now. -- WmE 19:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 90L.INVEST (error)