Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 3

Zeta revisited

Based on some work I've done in the 1955 Atlantic hurricane season and 1966 Atlantic hurricane season, I think the Zeta section should eventually go in an "Other storms" subsection. (It's possible that tropical depressions should also go in this section, as they are not technically tropical cyclones, but I don't have a strong opinion on that.) — jdorje (talk) 05:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Tropical depressions ARE tropical cyclones, and they should remain where they are - otherwise, the sequence goes out of order. CrazyC83 19:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe they are. For instance, they are not included in the s:Atlantic hurricane best track, and adding them in the article causes the sequence to be, well, out of order, making it a lot harder to compare the data in the season to the best-track. — jdorje (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course they are, they are no different to tropical storms, they just have lower windspeed. Jamie C 22:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Completely agreed. A tropical cyclone is simply a warm-core circulation in an area of low pressure with sufficiently organized convection. I, for one, with they were included in the best track. They can be as deadly as tropical storms in some parts of the world (see Hurricane Paul, which killed 1,000 as a depression), and do have some part in the season's activity. What would you consider more active? 2002, with 14 tropical cyclones (and 12 named storms), or 1999, with 16 tropical cyclones (and 12 named storms)? Hurricanehink 22:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Everything I have read indicates they are not; they do differ from tropical storms because they have lower windspeed (just like tropical disturbances also differ on windspeed). (1) Depression state is not counted for storm formation and dissipation date, or for storm duration. (2) Depressions, unlike tropical cyclones, are not named. (3) Depressions do not get counted toward the ACE. (4) They are not included in the best-track (though subtropical storms definitely aren't tropical, and they are included in the best-track). Personally, I don't know why they'd set the cutoff at 39 mph rather than 25 mph or 15 mph or 74 mph, but that does seem to be what the NHC has done. I would be interested to see a straight-out answer to this from an official source, however. Meteorologists have changed their minds about lots of things dealing with tcs over the years, and if they were to decide to include tds in the best-track in the future...it would make things a lot easier. Also BTW, the tropical cyclone article covers nomenclature, but does not mention either tropical storm or tropical depression AFAICT. — jdorje (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I remember proposing that the 2005 TDs go into an "Other Storms" section a few months back; that was shouted down... I do think that this is still a good idea, however. -- Sarsaparilla39 05:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason a tropical cyclone becomes a tropical storm at 39mph is because that is when a breeze becomes a gale; a tropical cyclone with a sustained gale is by definition a tropical storm. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

A Td is a TROIPICAL CYCLONE as well as tropical storms and hurricanes--HurricaneRo 02:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it? I thought a TD was a low-pressure area with tropical characteristics. It's not necessarily cyclonic yet. When it becomes cyclonic, it is a TS, and when it gains the eye structure, it's a hurricane. --Golbez 03:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

From the NHC Glossary of NHC/TPC terms, the definition of tropical cyclone is:

A warm-core non-frontal synoptic-scale cyclone, originating over tropical or subtropical waters, with organized deep convection and a closed surface wind circulation about a well-defined center. Once formed, a tropical cyclone is maintained by the extraction of heat energy from the ocean at high temperature and heat export at the low temperatures of the upper troposphere. In this they differ from extratropical cyclones, which derive their energy from horizontal temperature contrasts in the atmosphere (baroclinic effects).

Furthermore, the definition of tropical depression is:

A tropical cyclone in which the maximum sustained surface wind speed (using the U.S. 1-minute average) is 33 kt (38 mph or 62 km/hr) or less.

I think that settles that. Hurricanehink 04:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait, how does that settle it? The first paragraph says that tropical depressions (which lack "organized deep convection and a closed surface wind circulation about a well-defined center") are not tropical cyclones, but the second paragraph says that they are. — jdorje (talk) 08:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the first paragraph was the definition for tropical cyclone. In the tropical cyclone definition there is nothing about wind speeds. Hurricanehink 15:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Right, but don't tropical depressions (and tropical storms for that matter?) lack "organized deep convection" and a "closed surface wind circulation about a well-defined center"? I know that's the definition for tropical cyclone supposedly but it looks like what the NHC uses to determine whether something is a hurricane or just a TS. — jdorje (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Not always. A tropical depression can have well-organized convection and a well-defined center of circulation, but not have the winds to become a tropical storm. Still, in the NHC definition, it clearly says a depression is a tropical cyclone. Hurricanehink 02:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh, I still don't agree. The two statements conflict. However, I encourage you all to pester the NHC to add depressions to the best track data - then there will be no need to argue. — jdorje (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a TD is a TROPICAL CYCLONE because when Vince hit Spain as a Td they recorded it as the first TROPICAL CYCLONE to make landfall in the area--HurricaneRo 16:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The statement "Tropical Depression is a Tropical Cyclone" is not a universal truth. Most meteorological agencies in Southern Hemisphere and Indian Ocean seperate them as two categories. However, the meteorological agencies in East Asia (such as Japan, China, the Philippines, etc.) and US consider tropical depression as a weak tropical cyclone. I usually follow the operation plan for that region. For example, I will say that a severe tropical storm in Northwest Pacific is a tropical cyclone but a severe tropical storm in Southwest Indian Ocean isn't.Momoko

Sea Surface Temperatures

Hey... I have been looking everywhere to see if the sst's are normal for this time of year and i can't seem to find it. Does anyone know if the SST'S are normal or above average or below average for this time of year??? Also do you think that they will be above average during hurricane season? Thanks --HurricaneRo 23:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are some NOAA SST anomaly charts: http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/climo.html Marksda 05:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I found the SST'S FOR the gulf loop current. In several areas the temperatures are much warmer compared to march 5th last to march 5th this year. The site allows you to put in the cordinates in. so i put in the same cordinates for march 5th 05 and march 5th 06 and it showed a 2.5 degreee difference. I wnder how much it will affect a hurricane that tries to make landfall in south florida. Hurricanes have a better chance of rapid intensification in front of florida because of the gulf loop curremt, with the temperatures being warmer than last year im scared to see what will hit us here in S. Florida

Go here to draw your own conclusions -http://imars.usf.edu/cgi-bin/db?site=efl&index=1&type=st&mode=runmean --HurricaneRo 00:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

2.5 degrees can make a huge difference. However, right now it is the difference between outright cool and slightly tepid. To put it another way, the Gulf can just barely support cyclogenesis instead and not being able to at all (as is usual). However, if the Gulf ends up being 2.5 degrees warmer than last year during the hurricane season (which I doubt since the warming of the Carribean and then the Gulf occurred after March '05 IIRC), then you can expect even more major hurricanes there than last year!

As for your initial question: I have never seen the Gulf loop current as warm as this in March before. Be aware that this is left over from the warmth that gave us Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, so I am not expecting things to be worse in the Gulf than last year. Instead the issue is that this warmth has moved into the Atlantic Ocean itself. Let me put it to you this way: Have you ever seen four storms in the Atlantic at once? The last time I did was in 1995, but I think that it will happen again in 2006. --EMS | Talk 03:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That could also lead to an east coast monster...and extreme activity for sure. Maybe five storms at once? CrazyC83 20:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Five storms is possible, and even 6 has a chance of occuring (but that would almost certainly be a quick fluke). I would have to check the details, but I recall in 1995 the Atlantic being a sea full of storms for around a week before two of the storms either dissapated of became extratropical. As for the east coast monster: highly predicted events like that seem to have a way of not occurring. Let me put it this way -- This may be 2006, but the hurricanes will still be hurricanes, and just as unpredictable (at least before they form) as they have always been. However, I do agree that this projected monster is going to be more possible this year. --EMS | Talk 05:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see... thats really scary when there is 4 cyclones at once. Especially hear in South East florida where we are in the Atlantic , because they have a better chance of coming this way as cape verde hurricanes.... I havent really cheked into the the cape verde temperatures...will they be more warmer this year? --HurricaneRo 00:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes (or so I believe). However, that is relatively good news for Florida, as Cape Verde storms often recurve long before reaching the east coast, or at the least are well north of Florida by the time they get this far west. OTOH, I am in Virginia, not Florida.  :-( --EMS | Talk 05:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Being from South West Florida, I always keep my eyes on this site, because a lot of the things the professionals see end up here too. I think that, at least for me, it's too early to make decisions on the hurricane season. I'll probably start checking out the SST's come closer to the summer. However I do see that there is a bit warmer temps and such. - Bladeswin 19:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

yea but in 2004 I tihnk Jeanne and Frances traveled here from cape verde and i know Andrew did so did Dennis .... I think it all depends on the Bermuda high and how strong and large it is, is that right?--65.11.75.163 23:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I can only talk in generalities at this time if I am to say anything at all authoritative. The Bermuda high is an influence, but storms tend to head north through weaknesses in the subtropical ridge. The farther out a storm starts, the more chance it has of finding such a weakness early. Of couse, the Bermuda high will have a say in where that weakness is or is not.

My own observation is that in the Atlantic, topical cyclones tend to cluster in what I call "storm channels". Last year one such channel existed through the Carribean on into the southern Gulf of Mexico. Another to the north had Katrina as the prototype. Ophelia and Maria had paths that were the prototypes for two other storm channels. In 2004, a well-defined storm channel went across Florida. So to me the issue is where the storm channels will be this year. --EMS | Talk 04:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You mean Nate and Ophelia? Maria was a Cape Verde storm that was slow to develop and basically only took the same exit path as the other two (which dissipated sooner). CrazyC83 17:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

No. I meant Maria and Ophelia. Maria took a path to the north that was well out to sea, being south of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. Phillipe also headed north in the same area, but dissipated in the area where Maria recurved. Ophelia defined a more usual just-off-the-coast storm channel that other storms (such as Wilma) tended to follow once off the east coast. --EMS | Talk 21:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane names news

Here is an article about what to expect from the current meeting of the WMO hurricane group. The most interesting items are that 5 names are being discussed for retirement (Dennis, Katrina, Rita, Stan, and Wilma). It also mentions the creation of a backup hurricane name list. [1] --EMS | Talk 02:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

So not Emily? Or perhaps that's what they meant by "maybe more" a bit further down. Jamie|C 12:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That's what I think too. We have to wait and see what is requested by who. CrazyC83 17:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Gray's April Forecast

Dr. Gray's April forecast is now out - no change from the December forecast (17/9/5). You can read about it here. --Coredesat 15:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Still a lot of confidence in another nightmare season! CrazyC83 02:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I found the global warming section rather interesting. Unfortunately the site seems to be down. — jdorje (talk) 06:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The site's back up now. --Coredesat 17:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)