Talk:List of storms in the 2006 Pacific hurricane season/Archive 1

NOAA Forecast

Is out. [1] --Ajm⁸¹ 17:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, about what I expected. bob rulz 03:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, the Central Pacific forecast. NSLE _(T+C) at 03:32 UTC (2006-05-24)

Record activity

Where can I find the records for the activity table in the article? I'm trying to fill it out like in 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, yet I can't find the records... Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe 1992 was the busiest Pacific season on record. CrazyC83 17:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the East Pacific best track will do the job, though there must be something better....--Nilfanion (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh... *Crickets Chirping* -Winter123 01:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Article policy

We never did settle on a policy for separate articles in the Pacific and whether to have one automatically. Since we don't normally get the information that we do in the Atlantic, it may lead to a stub. However, at the same time, consistency counts somewhat. I'm on the fence... CrazyC83 15:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I still say no articles for non-notable storms (which there are lots of in the EPAC). You're not gonna get more than a lot of stubs unless a significant system makes landfall. --Coredesat 15:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this discussion should be on the WikiProject talk page - its about ALL seasons not this one, we should discuss it in the right place. As for this season, I do not think any fishspinner should get an article until it has dissipated, pending any decision to the contrary there.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Assuming we're continuing it here, I say big no. Last year, only 1 storm made landfall, and two came somewhat close. In 2004, only one depression made landfall. It would be very difficult and pointless to have articles for all storms. Any storm could have an article, but the information is needed. If it is a fish storm, chances are there won't be much information and there won't be much other than storm history. Aletta could stand a chance of having an article, provided it causes damage or deaths, though most EPAC storms probably won't get articles, as what happened in the past. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, Pacific storms, unlike most Atlantic storms, lack a unique and interesting history (most take the same old route) so we'd be having more stubs. Even a weak fish-spinner in the Atlantic would be guaranteed more than a stub. CrazyC83 18:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't see a typical East Pacific storm justifying an article. I am not opposed to a typical EPac fishspinner having an article on notability, but I am against it on infomation grounds. We seem to be too fast on the trigger with them and they end up with a current event feel to them well after the storm has gone. For that I think we should hold off on storm articles for as long as possible.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above. On the 1997 Pacific hurricane season, I have had difficulty writing enough text on each storm to avoid whitespace. Last year we had the same problem. So no to articles on typical fishspinners. However, if a storm is clearly going to be notable, then I have no problem with an article even if it hasn't made landfall yet. For example, if all signs and forecasts are pointing to (hypothetical) Hurricane Daniel making a direct hit on Honolulu as a Category 1 then I'd have no problem with an article (so long as it is not too' far out). Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Why is this talk page semi-protected? I see no major vandalism in its history, certainly not enough to warrant semiprotection. —Cuiviénen on Wednesday, 7 June 2006 at 15:20 UTC

Who knows... íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 18:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not. Titoxd^(?!?) 19:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Track maps

If I'm not mistaken, I believe that the track maps for 2E and Aletta aren't correct. Can someone fix them? I can't do it because I don't have the program and I don't plan on installing it soon, maybe later. I know that Aletta is missing the last few positions and I think 2E has an extra position. There might be other mistakes, but I can't prove it. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 18:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You may want to poke Jdorje, as he's the one who does them, but it would be nice if we got easier installation instructions, so we didn't need to keep poking him... Titoxd^(?!?) 19:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Install instructions at User:Jdorje/Tracks. Just need to copy and past commands. Anyways, I added the last few points to the Aletta map. Reub2000 05:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Storm Images

I think that Hurricane Bud should be getting a NASA satellite image since Bud is at peak intensity right now. Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody 21:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

And also, I think 2-E should have a higher-resolution and clear image. Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody 22:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if anyone can find them, sure, put them there. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Will this NASA image help for Hurricane Bud? [2] Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody 02:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It's really tiny... let's wait until MODIS releases an image, which is usually of extremely-high quality. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

We got two new, high-quality great images of Hurricanes Bud and Carlotta from a NASA satellite. I also seem to like Aletta's new, high-defenition NASA image too. But now I just want to know if we can get a better image for 2-E since it is a stubby 500 X 500 px, black and white image; I don't really like it. Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody 20:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

We really need a good picture of Daniel. It's an impressive annular hurricane and its current picture shows it as a Cat 1. -- WmE 16:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think they will have a new one tomorrow. Good kitty 20:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but please don't give me the heebie-jeebies. That beautiful picture of Daniel's eye just scares me although I don't know why. Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody 00:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is beacuse that type of eye really makes beautiful storms like Daniel looks scary. To me Daniel's eye looks the most well-developed. Irfanfaiz 08:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No new NASA images taken when Daniel is at his peak. Irfanfaiz 08:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If there is no NASA image I have three suggestions of what you can do:

# 1) use the old NASA image when Daniel was a Cat. 1 hurricane
# 2) get an image from the NRL website at its peak intensity
# 3) or keep the old black-and-white image of Daniel when its was Cat. 3/4 hurricane

But if you have a better solution, you may post up you idea below and see if it is okay. Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody 22:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

There is one. Its just that a lot of people don't want to wait like this is a news service. Good kitty 20:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Theres a MODIS image at it's peak intensity. It scares me though, Daniel's beautiful eye. Irfanfaiz 22:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, right now, since Fabio and Gilma are dead, where are there high-rise pictures? Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody 21:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Check the website TD 2-E came from. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 22:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have small images already. Sometimes it takes a few days for them to post better ones. Sometimes they don't post any at all. Good kitty 05:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The NRL archives typically have reasonable black and white shots, TS Lee's Image for example.--Nilfanion (talk) 07:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The GOES fulldisk images are really good if you have enough memory. They only have the past week's archived. Good kitty 22:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

New tropical disturbances

I spotted several groups of tropical thunderstorms may may turn into new tropical storms and hurricanes just behind Hurricane Carlotta of the western Central American coastline as shown in this image. [3] Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody 20:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah agreed. Please post your thoughts here This is gonna be interesting to watch. -- WmE 20:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

ACE

This is probably getting ahead of ourselves, but I determined (see the paragraph that starts with "The calculations for the east Pacific leave") that eastern Pacific ACE only includes ACE "earned" in the east Pacific proper, ie excluding the CPHC's AoR. Too bad that this is probably original research, but it shows some issues that may crop up with EPac ACE. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Crossover storms will need to have its ACE calculated twice, once for the EPac portion, one for the CPac portion. The second half should go in brackets on the infobox. CrazyC83 03:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Aletta TCR

Aletta's TCR is out. I can't find any changes, unless if there are tiny ones in the track. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 21:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Already??? It's only mid-July!!! That was fast! CrazyC83 03:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Arlene's came out July 20 last year, so Alberto's might be out soon. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 03:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"Arlene's came out July 20 last year, so Alberto's might be out soon."-I'd not expect that. # They have to get the damage estimates & death rate. # They have to figure out all the statisitcs of Alberto. # I wouldn't rush the NHC. They're too busy with Daniel & Beryl.HurricaneCraze32

Hmm, TD-2E is also out already. Hurricanecraze, you might be right, but different people do the discussions and TCR's. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Umm, no Hink thats flat wrong. 2-E's was produced by Dr Avila and Aletta's by Dr Pasch, both of whom have been doing discussions on Daniel say. They will likely do the TCRs in the quiet spells.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... but Pasch didn't write any discussions for Aletta until advisories 6A and 7... so, do they leave the work to the forecaster that was involved the least while the storm was still active? Titoxd^(?!?) 01:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have clarified. Right now, there are probably people working on the Tropical Cyclone Reports for Alberto and other storms. They are probably not working simultaneously with writing dicsussions and such for active storms and tropical weather outlooks. Mind you, the advisory only comes out every 6 hours (generally), so there is some time in between to do other stuff (I would guess). Maybe we should ask User:thegreatdr, seeing as he would know better than any of us. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Two-E's TCR

Now this one. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 13:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Should we update the track maps for Aletta and Two-E? íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 13:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for putting up the wrong header, I'm just really sleepy. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 13:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Standardized Track Maps

Right now, Aletta, 2E, Bud and Carlotta use the old color scheme in their track maps while Daniel uses the new color scheme. If they were in different articles, this would be a minor concern, but they are in the same article. We should certainly try to keep the colors standard within a single article. Could someone update the old ones, please? —Cuiviénen 22:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Bud and Carlotta are both on the new color scheme on Commons with NowCommonsThis tags on the en. image. Aletta and 2-E are both on the old scheme but are also under NowCommonsThis. Once all 4 images are correctly hosted on commons then they can be updated...--Nilfanion (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the old color scheme better than the new ones; so I wish if all storms (including other basins) could retain the old color scheme. Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody 00:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

*cough* Not again... Titoxd^(?!?) 03:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

NHC Forecast/Advisory archive?

Looking the the archives on the NHC site for all hurricanes, it appears to end at 21 July, 15:00. Anyone know where the forecast/advisories after than went?Reub2000 14:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Its all there, are you looking in the right place? Here's the Main archive, the 2006 archive and Daniel's - they all look complete to me.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

All end at 15:00 yesterday.Reub2000 14:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, they do. Chacor 14:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I got confused by the 15 July (a mistake?) in the initial statement. Funny that there is that problem, but they obviously haven't uploaded them yet, this should link to Daniel discussion 20.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes that was a mistake. It's corrected. The link you gave me leads to a 404 error. Reub2000 17:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

They've got the backlog up now, dont know what the cause was. The link above was a 404 when I posted it but now it is Daniel discussion 20 (predictable URLs...).--Nilfanion (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

CPHC Archive?

Is there an archive for the CPHC anywhere? There doesn't appear to be one on the CPHC site and I can't find anything on the FSU site. --Ajm⁸¹ 16:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see one, unfortunately. I could be wrong though. CrazyC83 16:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Here you go. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 18:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but those are more like Tropical Cyclone Reports. I was looking for advisory archives. --Ajm⁸¹ 19:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think they have any advisory archives. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 19:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The OSU site seems to have what I want, specifically at this page. --Ajm⁸¹ 15:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Daniel (2006) article

Created article due to possibility of hitting Hawaii.

I have re-merged it. You need to slow down with the articles. It is not worthy of an article yet. Chacor 03:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I un-merged it. We should discuss it first. It had an interesting storm history so far, and it looks like it could be worthy soon. --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Aww.. i'm creating my own at the moment but what ever... Irfanfaiz 09:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

But i'll copy paste my infobox to that article above. Irfanfaiz 09:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it will be necessary in the end. However, I would have waited until Hawaii goes under at least a TS Watch. Still, merging isn't the greatest idea right now... CrazyC83 14:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I say let's wait until it gets closer to Hawaii. It could miss the islands completely. Pobbie Rarr 19:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look like it's going to do anything now. See what happens when you create premature articles? There's still a slim possiblity of an impact...but I doubt it's going to happen. bob rulz 08:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

True, but its long track and intensity could make the article decent anyway. CrazyC83 23:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's now been re-merged. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to "see what happens when..." - isn't that a reason why more premature articles should be created? *grins*

Seeing as Daniel was (most probably, since I Am Not A Meteorologist) annular, I personally would go for the article in the long term even as just a case study and analysis of a rare (apparently, again IANAM) kind of 'cane. One'd probably need the TCR out to finish the article, though. —AySz88\^-^ 01:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was annular, and I know this because it said so in the discussions. However, it being annular is not enough by itself to justify an article, and I don't believe that it should have an article, as it had no affect on any land area. Any in-depth descriptions and analysis of annular hurricanes should go on the annular hurricane article. bob rulz 02:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If Tropical Storm Lee (2005) has an article, then all tropical cyclones justify an article. Lee was only TS strength for six hours and never affected land. Now I personally am against less notable storms having their own article, but I lost that argument last year. Since all of these pages fall under the same Wikiproject, shouldn't there be some kind of consistency? --Holderca1 15:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The thing is Lee's article is actually well written and adds to the coverage of 2005AHS. Given the fairly interesting nature of Daniel, it should be possible to write an article on Daniel comparable to Hurricane Irene (2005) in quality. However the article on Daniel was poorer in quality than its section in this article, which is clearly bad. If someone makes a good article for Daniel, then we have a wider question to answer - it got summarily merged as a poor stub.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see that as a good reason to merge an article. It seems like a good reason to improve it though. When the monthly reports come out for July, there will be better information to use as well. I will make this my pet project the next couple of days in my sandbox, see if I can work something with what is available to this point. --Holderca1 15:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The most useful resource for Daniel's article will be the TCR, that might take a while. The formula which the 2005 storms used to make them good was to compare the forecasts with the best tracks. An article on Daniel should mention at one point that it was predicted to hit Hawaii as a TS but dissipated well to the east, the last version of the article does not mention that at all. It is a poor reason to merge the article, there was nothing to merge. The reason the 2005AHS storms resisted merging is their merger clearly would reduce the information given significantly. A good article written up in userspace is probably the ideal for Daniel, try it and see how it goes.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is the link to my sandbox version User:Holderca1/Hurricane Daniel (2006), I think it is already vastly improved. I have used the Atlantic storm articles for the structure. Hawaii is mentioned. --Holderca1 15:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the main reason why all Atlantic storms get an article is because on average they are more notable than storms in the East Pacific, thus there is more of a demand for consistency within the Atlantic basin (and hence why even the likes of Lee get their own article). In the East Pacific however, a far higher proportion of storms are fish-spinners so that giving each and every storm an article would be far more pointless. In the Atlantic, articles like that of Lee are there to make up the numbers if you like. Pobbie Rarr 22:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Before I forget, Daniel was used for the IR calibration of our new GOES satellite up there (GOES-13) ( http://rammb.cira.colostate.edu/projects/goes_n/ ). —AySz88\^-^ 01:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Another GOES satellite up into space. Irfanfaiz 10:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

El Nino

El Nino conditions are brewing. The pacific tropical cylone seasons will suddenly form A LOT at the same time. --Irfanfaiz 22:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Source? -- WmE 22:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that is what I am wondering. If we are headed for El Nino, I smell an insane 2007 Pacific season (and a slow Atlantic season). CrazyC83 00:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If there was an El Nino right now, though, that would explain the conditions of the Atlantic. guitarhero777777 00:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there's no El Nino yet, but they're saying it has a very good chance of developing within a few months. bob rulz 01:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yup, all of the northern hemisphere basins seem to be in a "normal" shape, except for the Atlantic. Our next El Nino couldn't be far off. Alastor Moody _(talk) 04:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't say anything unless you're willing to back them up with reliable sources. This is unnecessary guessing otherwise. Chacor 05:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Then how can you explain the season with 8 named storms, half of which are hurricanes, and another half of the half to be major hurricanes? Coincidence? Alastor Moody _(talk) 09:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Come on that's ridiculous. The only evidence that there could be an El Nino are the negative SOI numbers in Australia. the shear is normal in the Atlantic, the equatorial SST are also normal and the SST in the EPac are average to below average. No sign of an el Nino yet. -- WmE 10:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, we're on par. This time last season we were up to Greg, had two hurricanes, and one Central Pacific depression. Totally normal for this basin, even UNDER average. We're already halfway through the season, remember. Chacor 09:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If we are really headed for El Nino, this fall...even after hurricane season...will tell the tale. It would be better-pronounced in 2007. CrazyC83 21:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The 2006 Atlantic hurricane season is slow. Maybe if three stormes haved fromed already, not a single hurricane lived in the Atlantic. That's what explaining the El Nino arrival. Alastor Moody _(talk) 22:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't. There may possibly be an El Nino event in 2007 but so far this season doesn't show any El Nino conditions. -- WmE 22:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I remember hearing Thegreatdr say that there was some indications of an El Niño event beginning, but it is somewhere in Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season's archives, and don't want to dig it up. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The only indications I find are the negatvie SOI numbers in Australia, nothing else. However, if this trend continues there could be an el Nino late in the season, but NOT now. -- WmE 22:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Alastor, you're right, it really looks like an El Nino season, however there's no El Nino yet. -- WmE 16:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well WmE, whatever it is, something brewing out there as I see it. Alastor Moody _(talk) 09:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

In addition, by all means, if you look at last years EPac season, it had a total of 17 tropical cyclones (15 of them at least a TS); but if you look in last years super-active Atlantic hurricane season, it has 28 storms. And so far 10 cyclones ave formed in the EPac while only 3 formed in the Atlantic. When an active EPac season and a non-active Atlantic season occurs, it generally means an El Nino on the warpath. Alastor Moody _(talk) 09:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, a CPac storm, that is forecast to strengthen in a hurricane is very rare in non El Nino years!! So there mybe might be a light El Nino event this year.-- WmE 09:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

El Nino? This might be a repeat of 1997!!! RaNdOm26 14:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't get me started again please. Keep the wild talk to yourself. There isn't a major El Niño yet as far as NOAA are concerned. – Chacor 14:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

More like 1996 than 1997. This winter will be the real tale-teller. CrazyC83 15:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Why the hell are you guys talking about El Nino? We're in the middle of a La Nina right now, although the conditions in the Pacific right now wouldn't show it. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 17:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Nor the Atlantic for that matter. I thought the La Niña of earlier this year had disappeared around May time. Aside from post-2005 hype, that La Niña was the other main reason why above-average early activity was expected in the Atlantic - but it never really materialised. The Atlantic is still sheary whereas the East Pacific has seen a strong Cat. 4, the Central Pacific has just seen a relatively rare tropical storm form, and the West Pacific has been churning out the storms so far. That doesn't necessarily imply that there is an El Niño, but what makes you think La Niña conditions still exist? Pobbie Rarr 20:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No, there's no longer a La Niña. However, from what I've heard a strong El Niño is not expected to form, rather just a mild El Niño, so if it does persist into next year it would be more like 2002, not 1997. But Chacor, you've got to realize that most if not all of the experts are forecasting an El Niño, so you can't call these wild predictions. bob rulz 21:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You might be true. I hope this year the Atlantic Ocean will finally have a calm, quieter year (for the sake of the USA!). RaNdOm26 07:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• FWIW: we've got El Niño.^[4] Titoxd^(?!?) 20:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have the impression that an ENSO event means the Humboldt current cuts out. It looks pretty strong to me.

• This would be an insane pacific hurricane season and also the typhoon season. Looks like the atlantic season is not too spetecular this year. --IrfanFaiz 12:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

See, I was right, there is an El Nino. --§ Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody _{(talk + contribs + userboxes)} 02:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Separate List CP

I took the liberty to split up the paragraph of storm names. I thought it would be usefull, because of some questions about names, confusions like Ioke/Loke. I hope it is an improvent, but if its not one can remove it just as easily. Tropische Storm Sven 18:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the new list. It shows better detail on what the CPac list is like. CrazyC83 19:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I do have a problem with it - and I've fixed it. The problem was that it referred to a "current list", but in reality the CPac lists have no boundaries. – Chacor 00:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that shouldn`t be a problem, it said that the lists are used consecutively and continuously used...Tropische Storm Sven 16:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Track Maps

What's the issue with a track map for active hurricanes? I don't see an issue and I've put up the track maps in the past for active hurricanes. Reub2000 04:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC) - from User_talk:Chacor

The key problem I have with "active" track maps are two things.

1. Wiki bandwith. You have to update them every advisory, and that eats up space on Wikipedia.
2. The more important one - extraneous images. Take for example One-C/Ioke. There's now two images for it, and One-C, as far as I can see, has not been tagged for deletion. Again, this eats up space on Wikipedia.

Doing just one "final" track map solves both problems, and at most will only be updated once or twice to accomodate tropical cyclone reports. – Chacor 09:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC) - from User_talk:reub2000

One more minor problem which I did not mention as has been solved is that new users wouldn't understand it at first glance without a caption, which is why I've had to take it out of the infobox and give it its own caption. – Chacor 00:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Bandwidth and storage are by far not a problem. Currently, Wikimedia has several terabytes of disk storage available, and there's plans to add several cheap storage devices, making space on the servers a non-issue (and developers have previously said so). However, I do think that having a track map for things that are really just a point is overkill; can we wait at least until we have a tropical storm to do so? Titoxd^(?!?) 03:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've pretty much doubled the number of NASA MODIS images on wiki commons in the past week. Is there any problem with the size? Good kitty 18:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hell no, more!! The problem is with live tracks there is about a dozen versions uploaded (which is pointless). However, with images the more the merrier :)--Nilfanion (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Does anyone know how to pronounce "Ioke"? Is it "yoke", "yo-kee", "ee-oke", "ee-oh-kee" or something else entirely? We should probably get an IPA pronunciation guide for the article. —Cuiviénen 03:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

See #01C.IOKE. All Hawaiian letters, including double vowels, are pronounced apparently. – Chacor 03:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I missed that. Any idea how to do an IPA for that? —Cuiviénen 03:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking it up at IPA chart for English, I think it's: /iːˈəʊ.keɪ/. Can someone confirm this before it gets put into the article? —Cuiviénen 03:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt I'm adding any value, but I've been pronouncing it "eye-oh-k". Is it the right pronounciation? Maybe not. But it sure sounds a whole lot better than "ee-oh-kee". -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 21:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That's cool, the german pronounciation of Ioke is pretty much the same than the Hawaiian one. So I pronounce it right, I think.-- WmE 22:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm from Hawaii and the way that Cuivi is pronouncing it is correct. I'm no expert in IPA notation, but glancing at the chart, it looks right to me. 青い(Aoi) 09:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It's "ee-oh-keh". Hawaiian pronunciation is pretty straightforward. Pobbie Rarr 16:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ioke article?

I'm not saying we should make one, but we might be able to. We have a very interesting storm history so far, and there is some preparations/impact. Also, excluding Dot (59) due to uncertainties, Ioke is now the strongest CPAC storm to form in the CPAC, tied with Iniki '92. Here and here are the plane story, and here's some actual damage on Johnston Island. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

John still reached it's peak intensity of 175 mph in the CPAC. Gilma also reached its peak of 160 mph in the CPAC, albeit further east than John. On the subject of an article, I think making one would not be unreasonable. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 22:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I tried to put emphasis on strongest CPAC storm to form in the CPAC. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. I was considering - after Ioke dies - writing an article. (Of course, if there are major WPac land impacts, that throws the question out the window) CrazyC83 22:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool. If you want to do a sandbox article, I'll be glad to help out. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've got my hands tied tonight by this severe weather outbreak, and that may at this rate require an article in itself... CrazyC83 00:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The thing we've tried to do at the WPac is only making articles after the storm (Chanchu aside, I believe). Ewiniar was/is a key example, Alastor's ongoing version was stubby at best, it was merged, and after the storm re-done to become a Good Article nomination. We should wait until after the storm dies off completely, imo, as damage reports sometimes take a while to come out from the WPac. – Chacor 00:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, completely agreed, but it's easy to find your links when the storm is operational. After the fact, it might take a little time to find them, but getting information now just makes things easy. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

If we DO make an article on Ioke, what would be the destination article, Hurricane Ioke (2006) or Hurricane Ioke? We'd make Typhoon Ioke and Typhoon Ioke (2006) redirect to the seasonal typhoon article (for now, until we do the Ioke article IF it is done), but since CPac storms are rarely named, we may not get another Ioke for decades. Do we then put Ioke's article at the "main" article? – Chacor 09:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Ioke (2006) is my recommendation, to keep in the format. CrazyC83 15:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, if it started as a hurricane it should be reflected as such in the title (like with John). Of course Typhoon Ioke could simply redirect to Hurricane Ioke (2006). Even then, I'm not sure this storm merits an article at all. Pobbie Rarr 15:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: on second thoughts, if it does something bad in the WPac Hurricane Ioke could then redirect to Typhoon Ioke (like Paka). Pobbie Rarr 15:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, we're going hypothetically, if it does enough WPac damage, or substantial info comes out from Johnston. – Chacor 15:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly, Paka was never a "Hurricane". It maintained TS strength during the crossover, so we should stick to a Hurricane prefix. – Chacor 15:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh right. Pobbie Rarr 15:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's some good info about records the storm tied/broke. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

(moved, hope you don't mind, Hurricanehink (talk))

Those who know me know that I hate articles for storms - we have season articles for a reason. Storms should only get articles if they're actually, you know, interesting. I think Ioke has hit that threshhold, or is coming very close. The most intense CPac storm ever, possibly (come back in 4 days) the longest Cat4+ storm ever, a crossover storm, etc... Maybe not now, but I definitely think that this storm will be worthy of one, it's just a matter of when. Or is the fatigue talking (3 hours of sleep in the last two days, oorah)? Chacor, you're my voice of reason here. Talk me out of it. --Golbez 20:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I won't attempt to. I do however re-emphasise that we do not need an active article. Wait till the storm ends, people. – Chacor 02:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

How would we deal with a crossover?

Should Ioke make the crossover to the Western Pacific, I think we should remove {{infobox hurricane current}} from Ioke's section here, and no longer list it in the "active" bit in the infobox, as it would no longer be active in the Pacific hurricane season. Likewise, at the typhoon season article we'd add an Ioke section, and note its activity in the storm names paragraph. Thoughts? – Chacor 05:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Ajm⁸¹ 06:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It should also be noted in this article that while in the WPac (in case Ioke curves back into the CPac) that Ioke's windspeeds while in the WPac don't count towards the ACE, I think. This will need to be reconfirmed. – Chacor 06:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree with this. It's a different situation than with a cross-year cyclone, because the whole point of the 'present situation' box is to educate people who might be impacted. The CPac will no longer be impacted by it, so it belongs on the WPac page. But even though Zeta lasted into 2006, the Atlantic basin was still impacted by it, regardless of year. --Golbez 06:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with above. bob rulz 14:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Me too. Pobbie Rarr 21:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There is also the issue of trank maps when cyclones cross the dateline. The best solutions I can think of are to either:

1. Make two track maps showing the entire path, with one having 1-minute winds and the other having 10-minute winds;
2. Make two track maps, each one showing only its basin's portion of the entire path., In this case this basin's Ioke map ends at the dateline (should it cross); or
3. Make one track map, and give precedence to the windspeed definition from the basin it formed in. In most cases this would be 1-minute averages since crossovers from the west to central Pacific are rare but do happen; cf Wene versus Ele. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Right now, Nilfanion's track maps for the WPac use ATCF (NRL)/JTWC data I believe. – Chacor 00:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

One track map. No need to be too pedantic. The storm was still the storm. As for the windspeed, there's no direct correlation between the 10min avg and 1min avg, so I guess we have to go with whatever category the JTWC uses. No big problem, the map is not data, it simply helps represent data. It's not likely a major issue. --Golbez 21:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

One track map, yes. I'd prefer the NHC/CPHC/JTWC for combined tracks (simplicity), how to incorporate JMA data is something I haven't worked out yet. The issue here is a real one though, how do we handle the data? We should swap over to JMA data in a crossover. However that could lead to absurdities, like Ioke going from a Cat 5 hurricane to a severe tropical storm in 6 hours (when the JTWC says it is still a Cat 2 TY). The JTWC differs from the JMA in location as well as windspeed/pressure. However, to make things even worse the JTWC data is also different from NOAA data. With any luck Ioke will dissipate in the CPac...--Nilfanion (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The archive pointers on the ACE calc page

Why are the archive pointers on Talk:2006 Pacific hurricane season/ACE calcs set to point to the TCMs (discussions) rather than the TCDs (Forecast/advisories) - the latter being the ones which have the knot wind speeds to authenticate the calculations?--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 13:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

We've always pointed it at the discussions. The windspeeds are listed at the bottom of the discussions. – Chacor 14:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

If Storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes are split into eastern and central pacific, why not change Strongest Storm into 2 sections via its 2 different areas?Mitchazenia 23:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Storm images

I think i'll replace the current Ioke's NRL image with this one [5] They look identical but from a different sensor. --Irfanfaiz 11:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Use 1 km zoomed if possible, the zoomed images are better - more detail (it's zoomed after all). – Chacor 11:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Umm... 1 km zoomed is a crop of 1 km - zoomed in on the storm. Both images have equivalent spatial resolution...--Nilfanion (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ioke's NASA image it is at his first peak so if an article exists, just put in the description "Hurricane Ioke at it's first peak" or something like that. --Irfanfaiz 01:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Gilma TCR

Another TCR is out - Gilma.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

So, it's time to start an article on it? *runs* Titoxd^(?!?) 06:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought having an article for every single storm applied only to the Atlantic? Pobbie Rarr 12:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

For EPac-only 1997 & 1992 deserve it.Mitchazenia 15:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally think neither deserve it. There's too little info out there to have articles on nothing storms. It would get too repetitive. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Again disagree, I think that all storms should have articles. Why not be better than NOAA. We so expand off of what they write. Why not make Wiki better. StormChaser666 21:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, its a matter of priority not just notability. There are only a handful of editors and a TON of storms. TS Gilma is singularly boring, an article on it would not add very much at all. It would be better to write an article on a storm from the past...--Nilfanion (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Gilma is on the D-list of priorities for articles. There are many other storms, including EPac storms, that go ahead of her. While, ultimately, I could see articles for them too, that is not a priority at this point IMO. All the Atlantic storms at least since 1995 should go above weak, low-notable EPac storms. CrazyC83 21:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Ioke

Can there be an article on this subject because it is impossible to have the whole story by going to the page refered from Current events. It is also a special storm as we now see it, it has been going for so long, gone over Johnston Atoll, will probably go over Wake Islands (or affect it) and I ask myself why isn't there an article about that knowing that storms that are less important have an article in the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season.

I would create it but know nothing about the hurricane stuff so I ask you guys to please consider creating one to consolidate all the information already spread out there. Lincher 14:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It was being worked up in a userpage - its been put at Hurricane Ioke (2006) now.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Wind Speed Units

Why are the units for active storms listed in knots, mph, and km/h while the storms that are no longer active are only listed in mph and km/h. Seems a bit inconsistent. --Holderca1 20:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, ask Chacor since he is usually in charge of everything. --§ Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody _{(talk + contribs + userboxes)} 22:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The knots in the active storms infoboxes are only for the gusts, the sustained winds are in mph and km/h. --IrfanFaiz 04:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, no, I think knots should be everywhere for active storms, because that's the most accurate measurement and I wanted to make sure everything got converted from knots to mph and km/h. (Avoiding possibly bad rounding errors from the NHC converting knots -> mph and then us converting mph -> km/h.) It shouldn't matter that much, but it's just a little more rigorous accuracy (because "we're overzealous masochists"). —AySz88\^-^ 04:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so why are they not used for inactive storms? --Holderca1 14:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm confusing the Atlantic and Pacific pages - I didn't add knots to the Pacific pages. But it'd be incredibly tedious to have 3 units everywhere in an article, I guess? —AySz88\^-^ 20:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'm thinking knots are redundant. The people involved in updating sources generally go back to the source document (in knots). Furthermore it is all but certain that the people who update the km/h figure when they are forgotten would go back to the source too. Therefore the knots->miles->km/h rounding error problem shouldn't occur...--Nilfanion (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)