Talk:2007 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 1

message: Is it really necessary to start a page that we won't see any development on for a whole year? Plus, all the info here can easily fit into the Post-2006 article. Alas, I would merge this back into the Post-2006 article, but I need to hear the opinions of the others first. What do you think? Jake52 22 April 2006
:I vote yes on merge, but others might disagree. Hurricanehink 01:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't have made this page myself, but after CrazyC83 made it I think we might as well keep it; removing and then replacing it would take more effort than it is worth and it is pretty certain the article will be needed eventually.  We should probably try to agree on set criteria on when a season page should be created, though. — jdorje (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about when the first storm of the previous season forms? Like for 2007, if Alberto forms on July 8, we would wait until July 8 to make the 2007 article. How's that? Hurricanehink 20:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: When does the initial come out? Should be interesting to see... CrazyC83 05:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 2006-12-08 --Ajm81 05:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Is the Wiki prediction article allowed this year? doktorb wordsdeeds 10:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the 2006 MFDs, keep it either on user subpages or [even more recommended] totally off-wiki. Perhaps start an invisionfree board or something for it if you want them. – Chacor 10:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Geo-earth.com has a great tropical weather forum geared for things like this. --Golbez 20:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I had a strong feeling that, despite this years activity (er, lack of), Dr. Gray would predict an above average season. I did. →Cyclone1→ 23:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here. The El Nino may suppress activity early on, but it should be gone by mid-season. CrazyC83 04:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a really really weak El Niño so far, so I think, if it doesn't pick up this winter, I think it could be gone by April. →Cyclone1→ 01:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Gray's prediction 

message: The first forecast for the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season has been posted by Tropical Storm Risk - 16 named, 9 hurricanes, 4 major hurricanes. --Coredesat 18:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the past we've only used NOAA and CSU forecasts on the article.  IMO we should limit it to those two, or otherwise have some guidelines on which forecasts should be included.  There are many forecasts made for every season and not every one needs to be mentioned in the article. --Ajm81 19:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TSR December outlook 

message: Unlike last year, we don't have anything to follow right now. And likely won't be with El Nino firmly entrenched. This should stay as a Future event until June 1 unless there is a pre-season storm. CrazyC83 17:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really our place to speculate. There are a couple of off-wiki sites dedicated to tropical weather, so if you look around them you may find something. – Chacor 10:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I guess anyhting's possible. →Cyclone1→ 22:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The way the UK has been battered these past two days I wondered if Andrea was on her way early....doktorb wordsdeeds 07:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The NHC is the official basin for the Atlantic. As shown by Hurricane Vince in 2005 and Hurricane Debbie in 1961, the NHC maintains tracking Atlantic hurricanes until they become extratropical, regardless of location. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure both would cover it though. Cryomaniac 13:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt UKMET would issue separate analyses, though. The NHC is pretty much acknowledged as the authority on the North Atlantic, and they'd probably just reissue the American reports with their own safety warnings. —Cuiviénen 16:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  January 

message: === La Niña? ===
La Niña may be arriving:  -- RattleMan 00:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The next CPC update is scheduled for March 7. Conveniently, the BOM update is scheduled for March 8 local time, so they will essentially be on the same day. --Coredesat 00:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, Thanks. Yeah, I heard about La Nina. →Cyclone1→ 14:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Impressive! -- WmE 21:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even more so the latest image (24th March). Who officially decides whether or not there are El Niño/La Niña conditions in effect? That's a VERY blue strip off the coast of Ecuador... Pobbie Rarr 21:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Getting colder and spreading west.  Data is from 30 March. Cainer91 23:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  February 

message: La Niña may be arriving:  -- RattleMan 00:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The next CPC update is scheduled for March 7. Conveniently, the BOM update is scheduled for March 8 local time, so they will essentially be on the same day. --Coredesat 00:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, Thanks. Yeah, I heard about La Nina. →Cyclone1→ 14:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Impressive! -- WmE 21:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even more so the latest image (24th March). Who officially decides whether or not there are El Niño/La Niña conditions in effect? That's a VERY blue strip off the coast of Ecuador... Pobbie Rarr 21:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Getting colder and spreading west.  Data is from 30 March. Cainer91 23:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  La Niña? 

message: Once again, Tropical Storm Risk has increased it's forecast for the 2007 AHS. It's now up to 17 named storms, 9 hurricanes, and 4 major hurricanes. Quite similar to the preliminary forecasts for last season. Hmm... Cainer91 21:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's where your wrong. By this time last year, the predictions... were going down.  →Cyclone1→ 23:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I just got a really bad omen... Sundance Head got booted off of American Idol before he made it to the top 12. It's a sign of the the apocalypse... Even worse, If Sanjaya wins Idol in May, expect the worst season ever, and the eventual downfall of mankind.... →Cyclone1→ 15:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the pending hurricanes watch American Idol, and besides, there are several other shows in the basin. But anyway, La Nina should enhance activity, but the shear and dry air may hold it down some early. 2005 will be very tough to beat, as every wave has to become a storm practically... CrazyC83 18:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I was just releasing my anger towards America's voters for not.... I'm way off topic. I think this season will be more '69-ish or '95-ish more than '05-ish. But, there's no way of knowing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cyclone1 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dang it, why can't I remember to sign anymore? →Cyclone1→ 19:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems there are mixed signals out there. The water is definitely warmer than at this time last year, but shear and dry air are also greater. However, hurricane season is still 2 1/2 months away, so much can change in the spring. CrazyC83 14:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 16% less acurate?  Oh, geez, let's hope it doesn't fail. →Cyclone1→ 00:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All QuikScat does is estimate intensity of winds and determine closed circulations. It should have no bearing (or little bearing) on track forecasts. Media hype, as always. – Chacor 01:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think they're getting their numbers out of thin air. "Without the satellite providing key data, Proenza said, both two- and three-day forecasts of a storm's path would be affected. The two-day forecast could be 10 percent worse while the three-day one could be affected up to 16 percent, Proenza said." Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thing is, quickscat is not a track-forecasting mechanism. It's only used for intensity. – Chacor 01:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a complete misunderstanding of QuikScat. The primary function of QuikScat is to give the wind field across a swathe; not the intensity of a storm. The intensity can be determined, but it is one of many things (and Dvorak is better for that purpose). Knowing what the winds are doing, you can then work out what pressure is up to. The centre of the circulation can be identified from that, which is not always easy to do by other satellite methods for weak storms. Another thing, and of key importance to working out the track: QuikScat gives the groundspeed of the winds. This scan of Rita shows the strongest winds are westerlies to the north of the centre. From that I can deduce, as someone with no met training but merely an understanding of the principles, that the storm is heading west. A pro-met could obtain a lot more from the data; they could get an estimate of the forward speed of the cyclone for example. In short, QuikScat gives estimates to all of the following: The centre of circulation, the direction of motion and the speed of the storms motion. These are all pretty crucial to track forecasting. On that basis, I find the report credible - I cannot comment on the accuracy Proenza's numbers but the loss of QuikScat would have an impact.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A loss of QuicScat would also make it harder to determine wheter a system is just an open wave or a storm with closed circulation. Thus weaker system are harder to classify. -- WmE 19:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Losing QS wouldn't set us back too much. We would essentially be going back to 1998 or 1999 in terms of forecasting, and we would need to rely more on surface observations and recon (the latter being, in my opinion, better than QS for closing off circulations). At worst, warning areas would have to be enlarged by the proportion by which forecast error is increased (10-16%, judging from the article). --Coredesat 22:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You do have to remember that expanding the evacuation area means that more people are evacuated, and consequently, more people evacuated that will not be affected by a storm's landfall. Those people begin getting used to "false alarms", to call them that, and if history is any indication, "hurricane fatigue" makes warnings much less effective. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No word on retirement; the silence suggests no names were retired, but the 2012 list needs to come out on the NHC site. CrazyC83 00:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: March

message: Just released today, view it here. -- RattleMan 21:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just got a really bad omen... Sundance Head got booted off of American Idol before he made it to the top 12. It's a sign of the the apocalypse... Even worse, If Sanjaya wins Idol in May, expect the worst season ever, and the eventual downfall of mankind.... →Cyclone1→ 15:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the pending hurricanes watch American Idol, and besides, there are several other shows in the basin. But anyway, La Nina should enhance activity, but the shear and dry air may hold it down some early. 2005 will be very tough to beat, as every wave has to become a storm practically... CrazyC83 18:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I was just releasing my anger towards America's voters for not.... I'm way off topic. I think this season will be more '69-ish or '95-ish more than '05-ish. But, there's no way of knowing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cyclone1 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dang it, why can't I remember to sign anymore? →Cyclone1→ 19:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems there are mixed signals out there. The water is definitely warmer than at this time last year, but shear and dry air are also greater. However, hurricane season is still 2 1/2 months away, so much can change in the spring. CrazyC83 14:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CPC ENSO Report

message: Wow, that sounds scary! -- WmE 12:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 16% less acurate?  Oh, geez, let's hope it doesn't fail. →Cyclone1→ 00:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All QuikScat does is estimate intensity of winds and determine closed circulations. It should have no bearing (or little bearing) on track forecasts. Media hype, as always. – Chacor 01:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think they're getting their numbers out of thin air. "Without the satellite providing key data, Proenza said, both two- and three-day forecasts of a storm's path would be affected. The two-day forecast could be 10 percent worse while the three-day one could be affected up to 16 percent, Proenza said." Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thing is, quickscat is not a track-forecasting mechanism. It's only used for intensity. – Chacor 01:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a complete misunderstanding of QuikScat. The primary function of QuikScat is to give the wind field across a swathe; not the intensity of a storm. The intensity can be determined, but it is one of many things (and Dvorak is better for that purpose). Knowing what the winds are doing, you can then work out what pressure is up to. The centre of the circulation can be identified from that, which is not always easy to do by other satellite methods for weak storms. Another thing, and of key importance to working out the track: QuikScat gives the groundspeed of the winds. This scan of Rita shows the strongest winds are westerlies to the north of the centre. From that I can deduce, as someone with no met training but merely an understanding of the principles, that the storm is heading west. A pro-met could obtain a lot more from the data; they could get an estimate of the forward speed of the cyclone for example. In short, QuikScat gives estimates to all of the following: The centre of circulation, the direction of motion and the speed of the storms motion. These are all pretty crucial to track forecasting. On that basis, I find the report credible - I cannot comment on the accuracy Proenza's numbers but the loss of QuikScat would have an impact.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A loss of QuicScat would also make it harder to determine wheter a system is just an open wave or a storm with closed circulation. Thus weaker system are harder to classify. -- WmE 19:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Losing QS wouldn't set us back too much. We would essentially be going back to 1998 or 1999 in terms of forecasting, and we would need to rely more on surface observations and recon (the latter being, in my opinion, better than QS for closing off circulations). At worst, warning areas would have to be enlarged by the proportion by which forecast error is increased (10-16%, judging from the article). --Coredesat 22:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You do have to remember that expanding the evacuation area means that more people are evacuated, and consequently, more people evacuated that will not be affected by a storm's landfall. Those people begin getting used to "false alarms", to call them that, and if history is any indication, "hurricane fatigue" makes warnings much less effective. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: QuikScat

message: Working documents for the 29th session of the RA IV hurricane committee can be found here. A few of those documents can actually be used to add info to some of last season's articles, btw. – Chacor 16:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No word on retirement; the silence suggests no names were retired, but the 2012 list needs to come out on the NHC site. CrazyC83 00:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RA IV Hurricane Committee 29th session

message: The next official forecasts come out 4-3-07, and according to my signature, that's (sorta) today. The suspense is killing me. →Cyclone1→ 00:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forecasts, not predictions. :P – Chacor 02:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now out: 17/9/5. – Chacor 14:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, forecasts. Whatever you call them, they're getting higher... →Cyclone1→ 18:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next forecasts 

message: The pre-season forecasts included on this page are currently limited to CSU and NOAA. Is there a reason, other than "it hasn't been done in the past" not to open this up to others? Tropical Storm Risk, Inc., forecasts have been discussed here on this discussion page. Why not bring that out to the main page? My personal opinion is: the more forecasts presented, the better, as long as the forecaster is credible. The Interloafer 22:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tropical Storm Risk is a commercial entity. While it used to be an official UK Met Office project, it now run by various insurance groups to do forecasts for other insurance and risk assessment firms, and their forecasts aren't used or endorsed by any of the RSMCs. Therefore, we don't post them here. On a minor note, they also aren't exactly clear, as they classify major hurricanes as storms with winds of 95 kt or higher (as opposed to 100 kt or higher). --Coredesat 23:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it matters who makes the forecast, government or otherwise.  If you're going to include any forecasts on the page, it's only fair to include private company's forecasts on this page.  It might make them more accountable if they knew people were keeping track.  Thegreatdr 00:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What would be the criterion of notability then? There are plenty of private companies which issues forecasts. – Chacor 02:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tropical Storm Risk, Inc. 

message: I'm posting this from the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season talk page.  Judging from the activity already on this talk page, it bears including into the 2007 talk page. Thegreatdr 20:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thaks Thegreatdr... I was a stupid idiot and meant to post here but not to 2006...--Nilfanion (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well that's no fun. →Cyclone1→ 19:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia isn't about fun. If you want random discussion, we do have our own IRC channel. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you're right... →Cyclone1→ 19:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or we can have a random discussion on another wiki (like wikia) rather than the IRC. Storm05 12:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Either one works, really. Just as long as the chat room-like discussion here is toned down. There is a defunct hurricane wiki on Wikia that could be used to that end if you don't want to use IRC. --Coredesat 13:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Wasn't a webforum developed for that last year? Hurricanehink (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so, but it's non-Wikipedia format made it not as enjoyable. →Cyclone1→ 21:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The talk pages 

message: There's currently a discussion going on here about repurposing the hurricane Wikia to serve purposes that we can't on Wikipedia. I know there are a lot of people who read this talk page but do not otherwise participate in the project - this might interest you. --Coredesat 20:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I'm one of them (sadly). Anyway, let's do it! I love the idea! →Cyclone1→ 23:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repurposing the Hurricane Wikia 

message: Perhaps someone should write about this? An early start to the season! Matt2h 14:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not yet. First, it isn't official. Once it is, it can be put into the season article. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, now it's good. :) Hurricanehink (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though the official season has not begun, would it be appropriate given that Andrea is active to add the current event tag now? (My apologies if a policy against it was decided). (Also, I completely lost track of my user name and password, and since the only article I'm liable to comment on is this one...too much of a hassle reregistering)--65.94.35.23 16:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's appropriate, in fact the tag is up there right now -  RaNdOm26 16:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's NHC policy. They name all subtropical storms if they are identified as such at the time. Pobbie Rarr 17:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, it became policy in 2002. Previously, they were separated. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes it is, and I possibly. --Golbez 00:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subtropical Storm Andrea 

message: There has only been one storm - do we really need a button bar? It has been shown in 1914 Atlantic hurricane season that button bars are completely useless in cases where the season only has one storm. I have commented it out for now; it's a good idea only to remove the comments after there have been a few more storms. --Coredesat 15:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Button bar 

message: I removed the  template.  I don't believe this belongs in the article space. Johntex\talk 19:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The user who added it was blocked indef as a vandalism-only account, so it shouldn't be an issue at this point. --Coredesat 20:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Motto

message: Hi, just drawing attention to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Tropical cyclone discussion archives. Up for deletion are all the archives of discussion about tropical cyclones on the seasonal pages, as opposed to the archives of Wikipedia-related discussion. See the nomination for the rationale for deletion. The thoughts of contributors here be appreciated on the discussion.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Result was "keep". --Tom (talk - email) 18:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MfD on discussion archives 

message: The NHC just issued their first Tropical Weather Outlook of the season. This article lists 2 deaths as a result of Andrea. However, the NHC statement says "ANDREA WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR NO DIRECT DEATHS...ALTHOUGH 5 PEOPLE DROWNED AS A RESULT OF THE PRECURSOR EXTRATROPICAL SYSTEM." So, shouldn't the article list either 0 or 5? Search4Lancer 15:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Likely it should list 5, but mention within the main text it was due to the precursor extratropical cyclone.  This topic has already been broached within the Andrea article.  Thegreatdr 15:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be 5, as we include numbers from extratropical and pre-tropical phases (and while a wave or low) since they were related to the tropical cyclone. It is mentioned by the NHC so it should be the actual number. 2005 was a classic example of the discrepancy (particularly with Hurricane Stan where the NHC's official number was 80 but it was related to over 1,600 and used by most other sources). CrazyC83 16:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't understand why they didn't go with the high number for Stan.  It's not like another cyclone at the surface led to that flooding.  Thegreatdr 19:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Shouldn't it be 6? I heard, earlier on this page, that there was one other fatality from andrea in the Southeastern US. Shouldn't that be mentioned as well? Also, what about the fire smoke that andrea brought into Georgia and Florida? Shouldn't that be mentioned as well? Also, Barry is supposed to merge with another low pressure system and bring heavy rain to Eastern US and Canada. Is the extratropical or possibly depression part of the storm going to be mentioned? What about the forecasts for Barry? Thanks. -- AstroHurricane001(T+C+U) 17:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fatalities 

message: You guys used to put up the NHC watch and warning maps for current storms. Was there a decision to forego them? --Elliskev 21:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They've been available for half an hour, we're only human. --Golbez 21:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. That wasn't meant as it came off. I was thinking of adding it myself, but wanted to run it by the veterans here. --Elliskev 00:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watch and warning maps 

message: The NOAA has an ACE value for SS Andrea, and this is counting towards this years total, i was unsure why it was not calculated on the talk page for ACE values. I realise that it was a sub tropical storm but it was still a named storm. Seddon69 10:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can Thegreatdr confirm if subtrops have ACE counted? – Chacor 14:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: From my understanding, it is calculated for fully tropical storms only.  For example, Nicole (in 2004) was a sub-tropical storm but did not have an ACE value. ---CWY2190TC 18:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, I just looked it up.    This link has SS Nicole with a ACE value of 1.1625 x 104.  The 2004 Atlantic hurricane season has Nicole with no ACE value.  So I think Wikipedia is wrong about Nicole. ---CWY2190TC 18:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. I guess there are conflicting sources. Some say sts's have no ACE, some say they do. Well, if you can find it somewhere, and it's a reliable source (I think noaa should be counted as reliable), you could probably add it to the article. Due to the source above, I have added the ACE for Andrea. However, I have not recalculated the season ACE figure, because I'm still waiting for approval. If someone agrees with my edit, could they recalculate the figures? Thanks. -- AstroHurricane001(T+C+U) 18:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the official NOAA definition of the ACE Index does not include those periods when the system is characterized as sub-tropical.  So are we using the official ACE or not?--Ajm81 18:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard similarly confusing things about Gray's tropical cyclone forecast verification (some years it includes STs, others it does not.)  If there is an official NOAA definition, we should go by it...even with the pre-1968 ST problem existing.  Thegreatdr 21:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Should we put the reasoning then on the page to show why andrea asit is a subtropical storm  it does not count towards the total ACE then have a link to the NOAA site as evidence. Or we could put the ACE value in the table and put a * next to the value and underneath a reasoning for why it is not included in the total. I have a feeling alot of people are going to be confused by having a zero value for andreaSeddon69 10:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: "False value"? 0.000 is the correct value for Andrea, it's not "false". – Chacor 05:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a false value because a value of 0.000 is not the same as having no value, and by the NOAA definition Andrea doesn't have an ACE at all. It would be like including Uzbekistan (a doubly landlocked country) in a list of world navies as having 0 ships. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point. I wouldn't mind seeing Andrea removed from the ACE list, with a note in prose in the paragraph. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it makes sense to remove it from the list as well, per seddon/hink's suggestion. Thegreatdr 17:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ACE 

message: Located here. Max winds bumped up to 50kt! -- RattleMan 20:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have to change the track on the rainfall graphic slightly.  It doesn't look like I smoothed the track enough.  Thegreatdr 14:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barry TCR 

message: Something on CNN about a revolt at the hurricane center; apparently a bunch of the senior analysts have no confidence in the current director. --Golbez 23:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For those that want the link, there ya go. Oy vey. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's been building for some weeks now.  Thegreatdr 01:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The revolt has a casualty now. Mr. Proenza has been "temporarily reassigned", and Edward Rappaport is the acting head. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just out of curiousity, what does this discussion have to do with the article?guitarhero777777 23:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice. Well, it has potentially to do with the quality and timeliness of advisories and reports, I might think. We are only as reliable as our sources, and if there's a crisis of confidence in our sources, it needs to be considered. In fact, I would not be surprised if - and I would support doing this - we add a section on this little revolt in the article. --Golbez 00:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. I just ask to make sure that this discussion didn't violate the Wiki forum rule. guitarhero777777 01:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ive just found this on the good old BBC it expalins all about the situatation with Mr Proensa and apparently he is due to go up before congress soon - Jason Rees 18:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is incredibly difficult to imagine that the hurricane products would not have gone out the door with Proenza still in charge.  It's not like the hurricane specialists suddenly forgot how to do their job.  It certainly didn't affect them during Andrea, Barry, Alvin, and Barbara.  At least one of his changes (a big positive) has been enacted, the graphical tropical weather outlook.  This is a similar concept to what HPC is trying to with its Model Diagnostic Discussion, creating a graphical product that helps tell its user what they need to know quickly.  Thegreatdr 23:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revolt 

message: I know you all aren't experts, but I question why both last season and this season we predicted to be the most active ever, and yet there's nothing going on. Is this coincidence, or can people just not get their figures straight? Fearing for your safety and knowing you're safe are on two different ends of the spectrum, and so far, predictions suggest the former, yet actuality suggests the latter. And I don't know how to understand this. Jared (t)  15:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. I will attempt to reply, and I hope this doesn't violate not a forum rules. The thing is, earlier this season it has been active, but now it isn't and the pacific is more active. This suggests a weak El Nino trying to form. However, there is currently an invest near Bermuda. Remember 2004? It didn't see a single storm until August. I'd still be surprised, however, if at least a depression doesn't form this July. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 16:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Neither this season nor last season were predicted to "be the most active season ever"; this year predictions maxed out at 17, an above average year, with last year as the same. 17 is above average, but certainly not within the realms of most active season ever, which was 28 in 2005. The fact is, we're in an above active cycle, so 17 storms isn't terribly unthinkable; five of the last 8 seasons had 15 or more storms. I also wouldn't call having two named storms "nothing going on". June and July are typically inactive, and in an average (long-term average) year typically just one named storm forms before August 1. One shouldn't fear for their safety due to above average numbers, but as we are in an active cycle we certainly shouldn't be complacent. Additionally, one shouldn't assess an entire season based on early activity. Within the first two weeks of the season, 2005, 2006, and 2007 were all very similar, with a tropical depression forming in the western Caribbean and becoming a tropical storm before making landfall on the Gulf Coast. Seasonal hurricane forecasting isn't an exact science, and significant changes can occur within a season; 2006 had 10 storms by the end of September, and probably would have been considered an average season (by very modern standards) had there not been a late season shutoff. I hope this provides a better picture, and the key is to be prepared, not scared. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be concerned that the seasonal predictions were off if we went through August without another named storm.  The 1984 season didn't have a named storm until the end of August, when three formed at once.  That season ended up with 13, including the ST. Thegreatdr 23:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Historically, activity (or lack of) in July has little meaning of the activity to come. July is typically one of the most inactive months during the hurricane season, so it can be very misleading. Like AstroHurricane001 mentioned, 2004 only had it's first storm on July 31, and we all know what happened then. Also, 2001 had only 4 storms and no hurricanes going into September, but it also ended up with 15 named storms. So, all the inactivity across the Atlantic Basin is quite normal for this time of year, and it gives no real indication of whats to come. We could end up with less than 10 storms, but we could also end up with much more. Cainer91 12:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Activity? 

message: I think Chantal's lowest pressure listed should be 999 mbar. 994 was with the last advisory, and while it was already becoming a powerful extratropical storm. – Chacor 02:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is hard to say. It says in the discussion it was not quite fully extratropical yet (but quickly becoming such). This is a rare case of reaching maximum intensity on the last advisory. CrazyC83 02:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Becoming a strong extratropical storm will obviously result in a lower pressure. I think it should list the lowest pressure while Chantal was definitely fully tropical. – Chacor 02:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Chacor that we should use 999, although it might also be a good idea just to hold off until the TCR comes out, since that should clarify which pressure we should use. --Coredesat 02:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We this TCR will take a while since they have to see if it was tropical as much as 18 hours before they finally made it TD3. ---CWY2190TC 02:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The TCR will tell us everything, or at least the monthly update. But if it was 999 at 5 pm and 994 now, it was obviously deepening over the last 6 hours (so it could be anywhere in there), which is why I think 994 is correct. That is just my view though. CrazyC83 02:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as of 11 PM EDT, it was still considered Tropical Storm Chantal; still as a tropical cyclone, its minimum pressure was 994 mbar. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. ---CWY2190TC 03:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless whether or not it was extratropical the NHC would still call it "Tropical Storm Chantal" in the advisory. See also Helene from last year. It was still called "Tropical Storm Helene" in the last advisory when it was extratropical. – Chacor 03:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good find, but the key difference is that Chantal was not yet (considered) extratropical. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "...Chantal rapidly becoming extratropical..." would suggest the storm was not a tropical cyclone by definition. – Chacor 07:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rapidly becoming extratropical, yes, but not yet extratropical - "INITIAL      01/0300Z 43.6N  58.5W    45 KT" The initial advisory did not indicate it was extratropical. Hurricanehink (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. That means in both the season article and the Chantal article when completed, 994 should be listed if the TCR is not available. CrazyC83 20:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Why does Chantal need an article? ---CWY2190TC 20:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's likely not imminent anyway, but eventually it will get one. CrazyC83 20:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chantal's pressure 

message: Hi. Is an invest a system recognised in the NHC's basin outlook, or is it something else? Should there be an article or Wiktionary definiton on an invest, to make it clear? I've never heard the NHC calling tropical waves "invests", so where does one get the actual info on the invest, or to update it? It doesn't seem like just any storm in the atlantic outlook, because there is one invest and three storms in the graphical outlook. There doesn't seem to be even a slight mention of the term invest from the nhc, so you must have gotten all this info somewhere else. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 17:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NRL carries them. DOD or NWS declare invests for NRL to put up. – Chacor 17:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is determined by NHC, CPHC, or JTWC, and is normally a tropical disturbance mentioned in the TWO or corresponding outlook.  The number, determined by ATCF software of the affected warning center, is between 86 and 99, but normally in the 90's. Thegreatdr 22:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1-49 are actual storms, 50-69 are reserved for special use (Cyclone Catarina was 50L), 70-79 are for training purposes, 80-89 are test invests and 90-99 are operational use for potential systems. CrazyC83 01:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We were using numbers in the 50s, 60s, and 70s for test/training purposes this year. Thegreatdr 12:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. We know we have a 99.L, right? Well, this says storm 99, and it is 99L. However, here's the problem. There're also storms98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, and 90. What are those? I know those are not invests other than 99, but are those storms recognised only by the sfwmd as potential for development, and develops models? What is the sfwmd? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 13:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The others are previous tropical disturbances.  One or two might have been for Chantal during its formative stage. SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District) is one of many end users of products issued by NHC.  They're using the compute data, and embedded guidance, to plot the potential path of tropical disturbances.  In AWIPS/AFOS the header is CHGHUR, but the product also has a WMO header used when the data is disseminated.  The initial position for the compute data is entered into ATCF software at one of the warning centers and then the text product is issued after running through the supercomputer, and for the Atlantic Basin, it is determined by NHC (HPC during backup).  There is no real rhyme or reason as to which number in the 90s is used.  If one develops into a sub/tropical depression/storm, the designation is reassigned to the next number in that basin's series (04L in the Atlantic and 09E in the eastern pacific), which is simply done within ATCF.  Thegreatdr 15:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is an invest? 

message: Environment Canada upgraded Chantal to Hurricane status at 3:00am ADT early August 1st, here is the reference. Between 3:00am ADT and the following statement issued at 9:00am ADT, it had lost all of its tropical characteristics, thus becoming a strong north Atlantic storm. Therefore Chantal is the first Atlantic Hurricane of the 2007 season. I am waiting on an email from the NHC to see if they will also confirm this indeed was the first Hurricane, a forcaster wrote me stating they will confirm it later this evening. YUL_0001
:#Environment Canada is not the official warning centre.
:#The storm was already extratropical at the time.
:#Check the windspeeds - 45 kt. Hurricanes are 64 kt and above. A corrected advisory was issued at 061030. – Chacor 00:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was definitely an error. It was never even close to becoming a hurricane. 45 kt is a lower-end tropical storm. CrazyC83 01:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurricane Chantal? 

message: Hasn't Klotzbach taken over now that Gray is retired? Or is he still holding on? --Kim D. Petersen 17:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah - that explains this sentence: "Forecasts of hurricane activity are issued before each hurricane season by noted hurricane experts Philip J. Klotzbach, Dr. William M. Gray, and their associates at Colorado State University; and separately by NOAA forecasters." - i thought it might have been carried over from a copy of an older hurricane season page (ie. copied as template). --Kim D. Petersen 23:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i would guess if it had ben copied then it would off only been copied from last seasons page Jason Rees 20:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And your point being? Since the previous season has the exact same wording. (which was exactly the reason that i inquired...) --Kim D. Petersen 21:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was copied from last season's wording, yes. Gray is still there as secondary author of the forecasts however. – Chacor 02:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gray? 

message: Seeing as it is a threat to land, I've made a sandbox for TD 5, so it can be published once it gets to TS status. It is located here. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the point of creating an article while a storm is active?  Is just makes it harder to update. ---CWY2190TC 03:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That someone will create it anyways. Also, the information in the season article should not be too heavy towards any particular storm, so the storm article receives most of the current event updates. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. TD5/Erin (if named) will need it first. Dean can wait a bit as it is quite a ways from land, despite its frightening potential... CrazyC83 03:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I also have a sandbox for Dean located here, but I won't publish it for a few days. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to co-ordinate efforts. – Chacor 04:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Plasticup/Sandbox Dean was more for practice than anything else, but I do rather like my Storm History. Feel free to use it. Plasticup T/C 10:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. TD5 is threatentening oil supplies in the Gulf of Mexico. They raised the price of oil even before formation. Please include it in the sandbox as well, and find a better source. You said that Chris raised the price of oil last year. Well, this should be included as well. I saw this on TV, but I think there should be better sources. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 14:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erin [...] is not expected to have much impact on [oil] production Plasticup T/C 17:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TD 5 Sandbox 

message: I have been working on a sandbox for Dean. Right now I am working under the assumption that it will become a hurricane before it needs an independent article. If we need the article before then I will obviously have to modify the introduction, but otherwise I think my sandbox version is fairly good. Of course, input is always appreciated and you should feel free to make changes to it if you think you can help. I only joined WPTC a couple weeks ago and am still learning the ropes. Plasticup T/C 14:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job so far, and I have a few comments for future reference. First, and its a personal preference, but typically the first paragraph of the storm history goes from the impetus to TD status, which mirrors the NHC tropical cyclone report. Next, directions are usually spelled out in the prose of the article (WSW would be west-southwest). If possible, for all units, could you include metric units in parenthesis (this site has easy conversions)? Additionally, while doing that, could you include a non-breaking space between the units? The command for non-breaking spaces (which would combine the number and unit) is  , so 100 miles would show up as 100 miles. Also, it's understandable that you're planning on publishing this after it becomes a hurricane. However, since there is a possibility it does not strengthen before an article should be made, you might want to put the links back as Tropical Storm Dean. Some of the article could use some re-wording (satellite images of microwave should be microwave satellite images), but all in all not bad. Keep it up. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the advice. I have been prowling your past FAs looking for style tips... Plasticup T/C 16:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know why there isn't code to not execute a non-breaking space. The non-breaking space should look like this:   (copy it as you see it normally; don't copy it from the edit window). -- RattleMan 16:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the difference between copying from the edit window or directly from the talk page... were you worried that I would copy the  tags? Plasticup T/C 16:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there's a difference between typing the text out and typing the HTML code for it out - the HTML code won't render into the non-breaking space. – Chacor 16:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) No. The problem here is that you can't write a non-breaking space without executing it. To circumvent that, I used the code for an ampersand ("&" + "amp;"). It renders as & when viewed normally. The code needs to be "&" and not "& amp;" for it to work right. -- RattleMan 16:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dean Sandbox 

message: Ouch. Need it updated in km/h.
Aborlan 01:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well okay.. its about 235 km/h. -- グリフオーザー 04:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurricane Dean 145mph 

message: Do we need both warnings at the top of the page? I would just remove the one that says "this is about an ongoing meteorological phenomenon" as that's more or less stated by the second (more urgent) warning, that information may not be current... Evercat 15:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first isn't a warning, it's a tag equivalent to . – Chacor 15:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The first is up all season, the second is up only when watches/warnings are out. ---CWY2190TC 18:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 warnings? 

message: Wikipedia seems to be placing a strong suggestion that all GIF images on the site should be converted to PNG, in the form of a warning attached to all GIF images. Since it takes about 5 seconds to convert the NHC's "5-day track" GIF to PNG using PNGOUT, I figured I'd comply with that (rather intrusive) request and drag all future copies onto PNGOUT before uploading them. It's still the work of a U.S. Government agency, but it gets rid of the GIF/JPG warning message. Any objections to me continuing to upload PNG versions of the 5-day track? DOSGuy 17:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GIF vs. PNG 

message: Can I ask editors who are updating the Hurricane Dean page with the new coordinates and information from the newest advisory to update the table on the hurricane season page here too? I've had to update the information twice in the last 24 hours because we had the updated information on the Dean article but hours-old information on the season article. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 19:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dean coordinates/strength table

message: I'm not sure if it is a candidate as an external link, but I find the website
http://html.wesh.com/sh/idi/weather/hurricanes/hurricanetracker.html
is a good way to compare the tracks of current and historical named storms. - Bevo 17:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's nice, but is it useful? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it because it shows the pace of a storm. You see how it slows down and speeds up as it progresses.  Position, strength, velocity for known data.  Position probabilities for projections to current storms.  Plus you can overlay one storm on another to see how similar to a point one is to another (that may not be useful, but I heard NASA folks say they look at that aspect anyway when they do planning). - Bevo 20:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A good storm track comparison tool

message: Why is Dean's main image a satellite shot of Dean at cat 4 strength? Shouldn't it be an image of it's landfall? Cyclone1, logged out. 21:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dean's image. 

message: Normally I would wait to bring about this kind of change to a recent TC article, but why wait if the only reason it was operationally not brought up to 45 knots by HPC was a policy issue between NHC and HPC?  SPC has a stake in the outcome this time, due to the type of warnings the WFOs were forced to issue, and the fact that it occurred in their backyard.  No one doubts the data quality of the OK mesonet and the sustained winds of 50 mph reported at Watonga, as well as a few other sites that reported sustained winds of 40 mph...the data is not what is in dispute.  Thegreatdr 13:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that no NHC or HPC advisory mentioned 45 kt winds it would not be right to list max winds at 45 - especially if the TCR comes out saying 35 in the end. – Chacor 13:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two references saying otherwise aren't good enough in the meantime, eh?  I think people understand that the status of any of these systems can change between the real-time advisory and the TCR.  Besides, it is highly likely this information will make the monthly global TC summary between now and then, which could also preempt the timing of the TCR.  Will that not be good enough either?  Let's shift this debate into the main TC project web page.  Thegreatdr 15:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the NHC lists 50 mph in its monthly summary table at the bottom of the TWSes, then fine, use 45 kt. But until then these readings were not in any official advisory. – Chacor 15:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Nhc Summuary says that Erin was a 35kts (40MPH) Storm with Post Storm Annayliss still Going on. so untill the TCR coems out we keep it at 40 mph Jason Rees 15:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The low associated with Erin dissipated as it entered Missouri.  Its remnant mid-level circulation moved east across northern Kentucky and dropped ESE through Virginia.  It did not become a frontal wave nor was it absorbed by a frontal zone located to its north.  The daily rainfall maps, for the most part, show the separation between the precipitation directly associated with Erin and that along the frontal boundary.  It was not directly associated with the Midwest Floods.  However, the frontal zone where the heavy rains focused had a moisture fetch from Erin (a short tropical connection) which led to significant PRE-style rains (indirect).  And...Erin can only be partially blamed for the rain that occurred from the 18-21st, which only covers about half the Midwest rainfall event.  One could argue either way...but there is more support in handling the flooding as a separate event, with some influence from Erin for a few days.  Even the HPC storm summaries on the Midwest Flooding bear this idea out, although it was briefly included into the Erin advisories that were issued in real-time. Thegreatdr 22:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erin 

message: Hi. This comment is unrelated, but the remnants of Tropical Depression Erin is partially responsible for the flooding caused by the 2007 Midwest flooding. One, the remnants of erin clearly merged with the storms responsible for this flooding. Two, most TV news broadcasting stations cite the remnants of Erin as embedded within this storm responsible for the 40+ deaths (and ~$100 million in damage) and bringing rain to the continental US and even parts of southern ontario, which is why the ground here is still partially wet. Three, the HPC tracked Erin until it merged with the low pressure system responsible for the Midwest flooding. So, should the deaths for Erin include the indirect deaths caused while over land in the central areas of the US? Even Andrea has the deaths included which it caused while extratropical. So, although the storm would have caused deaths anyway without Erin as the ground in the areas it affected were already soaked, the remnants of Erin made it worse than it would have been. Even the article an the US flooding (which is now on the main page) mentions the deaths cuased by Erin. It may seem unrelated, but the broader low pressure area which includes both Erin and the storms which casued the flooding, merged with parts of itself and is thus responsible for all the deaths from both Erin and the storm in the continental US. I mean, who is going to track both Erin and this storm separately on radar/satellite, and attempt to distinguish the two systems from each other? Even this storm which caused the flooding in the US had many periodic reigons of convectivity, Erin being one of them, and if you look at a satellite still of this storm a few days ago, it would be pretty hard to distinguish the convection from the remnants of Erin from the other areas of convection in this storm. Unless you have the expertise of tracking the exact location of the remnants of Erin apart from this low which caused the flooding, and are able to hold your patience with the malfunctioning satellite loops, it would be pretty hard for an average person to distinguish the two. No, Erin did not dissipate when it hit this storm, it merged. Even the track for the remnants of Erin takes is across 9 US states and out to sea, including ones affected by the midwest flooding. Should the two articles associate and link to each other? Also, it appears the remnants of Dean has also merged with this system. This system which caused the flooding and its remnants is a very large one, and after Dean became 93.L invest in the Pacific, the main part of its convection travelled across Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, etc, and apparently partially merged with part of the system responsible for the flooding, which it and its remnants seemingly stretches from California to New England to Mexico to Newfoundland. Should the articles, the 2007 season, the Erin article, the US flooding article, and maybe even the hurricane Dean article, etc, mention and link to each other? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 18:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The low associated with Erin dissipated as it entered Missouri.  Its remnant mid-level circulation moved east across northern Kentucky and dropped ESE through Virginia.  It did not become a frontal wave nor was it absorbed by a frontal zone located to its north.  The daily rainfall maps, for the most part, show the separation between the precipitation directly associated with Erin and that along the frontal boundary.  It was not directly associated with the Midwest Floods.  However, the frontal zone where the heavy rains focused had a moisture fetch from Erin (a short tropical connection) which led to significant PRE-style rains (indirect).  And...Erin can only be partially blamed for the rain that occurred from the 18-21st, which only covers about half the Midwest rainfall event.  One could argue either way...but there is more support in handling the flooding as a separate event, with some influence from Erin for a few days.  Even the HPC storm summaries on the Midwest Flooding bear this idea out, although it was briefly included into the Erin advisories that were issued in real-time. Thegreatdr 22:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Connection to Midwest Flooding

message: We now have 4 invests. Why does Wikipedia have only 1 up? Weatherlover819 14:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. For some weird reason, there are only 2 invests on NAVY, 94 and 95. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 15:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center (FNMOC) is not updating, if you're using that site. - グリフオーザー 21:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Invests

message: Should we acknowledge, if this system is eventually recognized by TPC, that AccuWeather called this system Tropical Depression #6 at 11 am this morning?  If we do, how do we handle it?  Their central pressure was about 22 hPa too low, equivalent to a borderline TS/Hurricane. Thegreatdr 19:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, no.  It is no different that myself recognizing this system at 11am. ---CWY2190TC 19:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just curious, since there is currently a reference online, though it would likely disappear sometime soon, one way or the other.  Thegreatdr 19:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: i would wait as NRL are now showing 06L so The TPC are bound to put it up 2100 Jason Rees 20:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AccuWeather's graphics from late this morning