Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 4

message: I noticed that almost every US government funded researcher has made the extra effort to point out that the 2005 major hurricanes were not a result of global warming because there are so many other variables to consider than SST's. It is almost as if they are all worried about the possibility that it is true, so they try to convince all of us not to worry about it.
But there is one characteristic about last year's major hurricanes that may someday be seen as proof to the contrary.
If lightning becomes more and more common in all future major hurricanes then we may soon begin to criticize these government funded researchers for waiting so long to place some blame on global warming. Marksda 19:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lightning has nothing to do with global warming.  It just only happens in rapidly intensifying hurricanes. — jdorje (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hurricanes are more complex than you are giving them credit for.  SSTs are very important, and global warming will have an effect on them.  However, SSTs are also cyclic on a very long-term basis.  My sense of the issue is there there are better indications of global warming, and that the "reaching" needed to associate the global warming and hurricane behavior is not needed. --EMS | Talk 23:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greenhouse Hurricanes 

message: I heard somewhere that they are sticking with the Greek alphabet for 2006...I can't seem to find anything backing either side up. CrazyC83 20:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The NHC names list has been updated for the 2011 seasons now, it still makes reference to the use of the Greek alphabet as the backup. I think it looks like the list was rejected but until the WMO releases the final report for the meeting we probably won't know, it's not like the media care about it. Nilfanion 18:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New list rejected? 

message: So far, Beryl and Ernesto have both been used four times and all four times, the storms never reached hurricane strength. Could Ana lose its milestone as being the only name to be used hurricane-free five times in a row? Jake52
:Very possible. There is a good chance that at least one of them won't be a hurricane (more likely Beryl as that would be a June or July storm most likely). CrazyC83 17:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Beryl and Ernesto

message: According to the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season article, a "backup list" of names is supposed to be announced for 2006 in order to avoid having to use Greek names should the A-W list be exhausted again. But there's nothing mentioned about that in this article. If a back-up list is being planned, I think it should be referenced here; conversely, if the report of a backup list is erroneous the 2005 article will need to be adjusted accordingly. 23skidoo 05:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, although the website says something about a new backup list, it hasn't been announced yet (and might not be happening anymore). --AySz88^-^ 06:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're running out of April, so I suggest simply removing the mention of a new backup list until it is actually announced, since we don't know when it'll be announced, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Coredesat 10:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, as the NHC has updated their lists to show the 2005 retirements, but has retained the "greek alphabet to be used if needed", I suspect they failed to reach agreement at the WMO session on this. We won't know for sure what happened until the WMO publishes the report of the meeting, at some point this year. If you want crystal-balling, I think they agreed in principle to a new list, but postponed discussion of the details until next year.--Nilfanion 10:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Backup list"

message: I was checking my email and I found this in my inbox. It was dated April 28th.
ZCZC MIATCMAT1 ALL
TTAA00 KNHC DDHHMM
TROPICAL DEPRESSION ONE FORECAST/ADVISORY NUMBER   1
NWS TPC/NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL   AL012006
2100 UTC WED JUN 08 2006
AT 5 PM EDT...2100Z...THE GOVERNMENT OF CUBA HAS ISSUED A TROPICAL
STORM WATCH FOR WESTERN CUBA FOR THE PROVINCE OF PINAR DEL RIO AND
THE ISLE OF YOUTH.
INTERESTS IN THE NORTHWESTERN CARIBBEAN SHOULD CLOSELY MONITOR THE
PROGRESS OF THIS SYSTEM.
TROPICAL DEPRESSION CENTER LOCATED NEAR 17.2N  84.0W AT 08/2100Z
POSITION ACCURATE WITHIN  60 NM
PRESENT MOVEMENT TOWARD THE NORTH OR 360 DEGREES AT   6 KT
ESTIMATED MINIMUM CENTRAL PRESSURE 1004 MB
MAX SUSTAINED WINDS  25 KT WITH GUSTS TO  35 KT.
WINDS AND SEAS VARY GREATLY IN EACH QUADRANT.  RADII IN NAUTICAL
MILES ARE THE LARGEST RADII EXPECTED ANYWHERE IN THAT QUADRANT.
REPEAT...CENTER LOCATED NEAR 17.2N  84.0W AT 08/2100Z
AT 08/1800 UTC CENTER WAS LOCATED NEAR 16.8N  84.0W
FORECAST VALID 09/0600 UTC 18.1N  84.1W
MAX WIND  30 KT...GUSTS  40 KT.
FORECAST VALID 09/1800 UTC 19.9N  84.3W
MAX WIND  35 KT...GUSTS  45 KT.
34 KT...100NE  75SE   0SW  75NW.
FORECAST VALID 10/0600 UTC 22.2N  85.1W
MAX WIND  45 KT...GUSTS  55 KT.
34 KT...100NE  75SE   0SW  75NW.
FORECAST VALID 10/1800 UTC 24.5N  86.3W
MAX WIND  50 KT...GUSTS  60 KT.
50 KT... 25NE  25SE   0SW  25NW.
34 KT...125NE 100SE  50SW 100NW.
FORECAST VALID 11/1800 UTC 29.0N  88.5W
MAX WIND  50 KT...GUSTS  60 KT.
50 KT... 25NE  25SE   0SW  25NW.
34 KT...125NE 100SE  50SW 100NW.
EXTENDED OUTLOOK. NOTE...ERRORS FOR TRACK HAVE AVERAGED NEAR 250 NM
ON DAY 4 AND 325 NM ON DAY 5...AND FOR INTENSITY NEAR 20 KT EACH DAY
OUTLOOK VALID 12/1800 UTC 34.0N  88.5W...INLAND
MAX WIND  25 KT...GUSTS  35 KT.
OUTLOOK VALID 13/1800 UTC 37.5N  86.0W...INLAND
MAX WIND  25 KT...GUSTS  35 KT.
REQUEST FOR 3 HOURLY SHIP REPORTS WITHIN 300 MILES OF 17.2N  84.0W
NEXT ADVISORY AT 09/0300Z
FORECASTER KNABB/AVILA
$$
NNNN
Pikachu9000 01:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was a test storm. The NHC did not intend to send it to so many people, however. —BazookaJoe 01:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Test Storm? 

message: Check out this  SST anomaly map. You can see that the Gulf of Mexico is very warm for this time of year and that there is a warm spot just south of New England. For some reason, the ocean near Newfoundland has a large warm pool for this time of year. Also, the area just south of Cape Verde is warm, as is most of the tropical Atlantic, with an average of 1 degree above average. Finally, near the bottom left corner, you can see that La Nina is still going strong. This hurricane season is going to hurt badly.Omni ND 18:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Gulf of Mexico warmed up very quickly this past week. Thanks for the map, Omni. —BazookaJoe 19:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is a good chance the Gulf will produce a May tropical storm or hurricane... CrazyC83 23:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the NWS doesn't do their outlook until 1 June, where would I look to find predictions for potential storms this month? Ardric47 06:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could look at the Tropical Weather Discussion. That may show points of interest. -- RattleMan 07:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...that seems to just be saying what's going on and not considering the possibility of cyclone formation at all. I guess it's still too early? Ardric47 00:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes...there's still a month to go until hurricane season. It's possible that a storm will form in May, but that doesn't mean one will. We still might have to wait a while for the first storm. bob rulz 02:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The SSTs, and particularly the Loop Current's, do seem to drive the strength of Gulf storms.  Looking at the NDBC data buoys, what I thought I saw was that 80 degree F water supported a TS, 81 a Cat 1 and so on to 85 a Cat 5 - so a 1 degree difference is significant.  The maps in the LC article show wind speeds accelerating and decelerating with sea surface height, a proxy for water temperature. Simesa 00:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sea Surface temps 

message: Perhaps this discussion has already been had, but I don't think Zeta belongs in the 2006 Atlantic Hurricane season article has it was part of the 2005 atlantic huricane season. I think we should get rid of it. TimL 01:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for reference, there infact WAS a previous dicussion on this topic. My personal opinion is that it should be kept. -- RattleMan 04:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I think it's more confusing to keep Zeta in as a storm of the 2006 season (as it stands now). It makes more sense to keep Zeta in the timeline, but remove it from the Storms section. It really doesnt belong there since it's not a storm of the 2006 season. But it does have a place in the timeline as it is relevant to 2006 (and the 2006 preseason which began in January) --Tarkadal 15:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Zeta and Timeline 

message: Does anyone have open source data confirming recent brightening? I have read a report of data showing dimming has reversed in the last decade but the original abstract is not publicly displayed. I find the quick counter argument to global dimming to be suspicious as it came out about a month after the dimming argument went mainstream. How is it that water vapor seems to be going up now while the sky clears? [climate assess boulder water vapor 2002 - 2.png] - Marksda 06:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, shouldn't you have asked on global dimming, climate change or a related article? I can't see how that directly matters to hurricanes... In answer to the question, I think it is because the paper suggests the reduction in dimming is due to a fall in particles, not water, in the atmosphere.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A little more discussion at  though I don't think that will help you read the full paper. crandles 11:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I should have placed the question in context. It is my view that after SST's, global water vapor may be the second most important contributor to an increase in hurricane activity globally. Hurricanes weaken if they pull in too much dry air. This may be observed by watching cyclones on the wv loops at nhc.noaa.gov. On the other hand, global water vapor levels may simply be following the rise in average global temperature. So we may never know whether it is global water vapor or global SST's that is more influential to hurricane development. Marksda 13:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dimming? Brightening? What is it now? 

message: In the article, there's a minor prblem with the box re. number of storms. Should it read "named storms" or "tropical storms", or neither? I understand concerns that "named storms" produces (while it would cover both subtropical and tropical storms, unnamed storms are a problem here), and at the same time "tropical" is problematic with subtropical systems. A compromise has to be reached. I've temporarily left it as "named" as subtropical storms are far more likely to occur than unnamed storms. NSLE (T+C) at 03:30 UTC (2006-05-23)
: Maybe just "storms"? :p --AySz88^-^ 03:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, define "storms". Depressions are still called "storms", no? Just as hurricanes are called "storms"... NSLE (T+C) at 03:33 UTC (2006-05-23)
What about "nameable storms"? --Ajm81 03:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: What do NOAA and Dr. Gray use? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Both use "named storms", as seen in the forecasts.  But as stated previously, this is a problem for unnamed storms.  After some thought, I'd say leave it as is and worry about it if we get an unnamed storm. --Ajm81 05:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I think that if we have a problem, we can blame it on them. Leave it as "named storms", because we also don't know if they willingly did not take unnamed storms into account. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The weather channel has been refering to all 28 storms in 2005 as "named storms" even though one was unnnamed. in my opinion "named storm" would be any storm that would be named if it were known about.Enigmar 08:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The way around it is that the NHC were a bit late in naming the subtropical storm and its official name is "Unnamed Subtropical Storm". That leaves the problem of what if there were 2 unnamed storms. Another issue is what if a TS is downgraded to a TD? It will be named but not be a (sub)tropical storm. If we just use "storm" in the sense of having peak 1-min sustained winds of at least 35 knots, that covers it doesn't it?--Nilfanion (talk) 09:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the 1969 season in the HURDAT sourcecode to see what would happen.  They would all be called either UNNAMED SUBTROPICAL STORM, or just UNNAMED.  The 1992 season is likely to give us two more UNNAMEDs; one the polar low-like creature that went up the Chesapeake in January and the other a bona-fine hurricane that struck Sable Island as it had weakened into a tropical storm.   Thegreatdr 22:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Named storms vs. Tropical Storms 

message: When the WMO meets again, will they discuss of retiring Emily, find a better replacement names for Katrina and Rita and figure out a backup list incase all 21 names are exhausted again. Also, if the WMO rejects that idea, will they add the X,Y, and Z names just like they did in the East Pacific in 1985 and why dont they take into account about out of season storms because all the media says is that hurricane season starts june 1st and everyone is should be prepared but they did DO NOT even BOTHER menitoning of what will happen if a storm forms before the season starts or when the season end and do not take into account about the people living well inland (i.e Ohio Valley, Inalnd Mid Atlantic and Upper Midwest). In addtion, Did the NHC find any more storms that they missed because im thinking there are more that went undetected before, during and after the 2005 season. All that said above was NEVER mentioned by the media, why's that? With all the talk of hurricane awarness, should the media be reporting on what I mention above or they just b.s. it and just say a short blurb here and there and nobody will get the full scope of hurricanes and naming policy (note the naming policy is the least reported by the media). Storm05 16:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what the WMO concluded, we have to wait for the report from the meeting to be published (it will be available eventually, patience). When that comes out we will know about Emily and the backup list. Odds are Emily was not retired because Mexico didn't request it and the replacement names for Katrina and Rita are going to stick. There was only one storm in the 2005 season that the NHC missed operationally, if they had found any more we would know about it by now. The emphasis on the season is purely because off season storms are rare. If the media made a big thing of them, when they don't occur, people would over-prepare in the off-season and underprepare during the season.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah but still, lots of things can happen, likw what if a cat 2 hurricane is approching the east coast of the united states in December like it did in 1925 or a hurricane brings devastation to the upper midwest but did little damage to the coast. Also, sooner or later someone in the WMO will find out that the two current replacement names (Katia and Rina) will not fly and will object and call an emergancy meeting which will result the WMO to go over with the replacement names again and check to see if Mexico did request the name name Emily to be retired. Plus, the media is NILL about the naming policy, during the 2005 season , all they said about the policy is that when the 21 names run up the NHC will use the greek alphabet or ...after Wilma it will be the greek alphabet or something like that. The media DID NOT mention any thing about the draw back about the greek alphabet or hurricane naming partically and they did not mention about the backup list. Whats the deal?!?!. Storm05 17:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought tey did a good job with the naming. The drawbacks of the greek alphabet weren't fully thought of then, and the backup list wasn't and still doesn't exist. Off-seasons are extremely rare, and the 1925 storm wasn't even that bad. It killed most people from boat sinkings, something which wouldn't likely happen today. Also, it wasn't even a hurricane. Curtosy of an early revision of the 1925 season, the system peaked as a tropical storm.  You're right, though. Things can happen. What if Odette travelled slower, causing more damage and deaths? Hopefully, governmental officials will act as well as they have in the past. Odette was given sufficient warning for D.R. citizens, and as a result only 8 people died. Most storms don't cause a lot of damage further inland, but storms like Tropical Storm Allison can catch people off-guard. Regardless, those rare examples shouldn't be mentioned for the reasons Nilfanion said. People will become complacent for when it doesn't happen, and not be ready for when it does. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: On a side note, how could they "not notice" if Mexico asked for Emily to be retired? And why are people so content that Emily should be retired? It really didn't do a lot of damage. bob rulz 06:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, especially to the more damaging storms this season. Hurricanehink (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Overview on this

message: "Notice: Florida State University has mandated effective 24 May 2006 that no real-time weather forecasts relating potentially
in any way to hurricanes are to be disseminated by faculty or students at FSU due to liability concerns. 
Consequently, this web page has been shut down UFN.
The authors of these web pages realize the value of these pages, do not agree with the decision, and are working hard to resolve this issue by friday.
Thank you for your patience.
Bob Hart"
http://moe.met.fsu.edu/cyclonephase/
Interesting notice I found when I went to look at their awesome information. - Bladeswin | Talk to me | 01:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that really sucks.--WmE 10:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Back up today, but seems like FSU's trying to cover their respective asses.  Wonder what it took to get the page back up... - Bladeswin | Talk to me | 16:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit of pressure.  =)  Thegreatdr 22:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FSU Cyclone Page Gone