Talk:1996 Atlantic hurricane season

Hurricane Huron

Should this "Hurricane" be included? It is a pretty unusual occurrence, and I see other seasons have unusual storms (2004 mentions Catarina, 1994 mentions December Subtropical Storm). I think the storm is fascinating, and it could be mentioned. Here are some links:

Hurricanehink 17:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While this storm is incredibly impressive, there is little meteorological evidence to support that this was a hurricane. For Catarina, we have compelling data to support that it was a hurricane, including analysis from NHC experts (Jack Beven). I haven't even found wind readings, so this storm may not have even had hurricane-force winds. It was probably an intense Arctic storm (known as a "Freshwater Fury") with abnormally cool cloud-tops (indications of a warmer core). Even in that incredible satillite photo, you can pick out signs of a cold core system. Note that the western half of the storm is completely open, the main convection only loosely wrapped around the center. Based on this, I would recommend against adding it. However, this storm may have briefly attained subtropical characteristics.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 22:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, sounds good. I hadn't thought of it too much, but you're right. Best to leave here at the talk pages. Hurricanehink 18:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. TimL 21:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look's good. It should be mentioned somewhere, though not necessarily in the storm section. It could fit in the intro. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to work it in if no one beats me to it. TimL 03:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the full article, to me the implication seems to be that the storm had features of a tropical cyclone, like a polar low. One sentence in particular "It is believed that the Huron system was akin to the cold-low class of polar lows". Therefore I don't think it belongs in this article, though with the information there it might be an idea to give it its own article (and not part of WPTC).--Nilfanion (talk) 09:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The abstract that Tim mentioned says it was warm core. It doesn't say anything about cold-core. I don't see why it shouldn't be mentioned. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hink, I was quoting from the full article, which is available there. Warm-core != tropical; polar lows are too. Just because it was warm-core doesn't make it a TC (read the full article before deciding).--Nilfanion (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How were you able to access the full article? TimL 20:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Print version" link - if you right click and save it should download (its a 8MB pdf).--Nilfanion (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I always thought that button was for a print version of the abstract! (Man all the ams articles I would have read). That said, I don't agree with you that polar lows are warm core. An after reading the full article, the authors build a pretty solid case that the storm intensified do to the warmth from the waters of the great lakes. TimL 21:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, note that only some articles are freely available to download however :( I agree the authors make a solid case that that storm was associated with the lake, and changed in structure as it did so. However I do think polar lows are warm core, judging from what an appropriate Google search generates. The full article is certainly an interesting read though. I do not believe it belongs in this article any more than a Mediterranean tropical cyclone would (the Med is part of the Atlantic). That storm is certainly an interesting thing to write about but it doesn't belong here IMO.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, I agree with you, the whole article makes a strong case. Even if it wasn't fully tropical (unlikely), it still deserves a mention, along with a link to the article. The Mediterranean is far removed enough to not be part of this, and should be on its own as a basin, though the Great Lakes have never been encountered before. If it were to be mentioned anywhere, it should be here, though the article could possibly provide enough information for a full article. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After digesting the whole thing I'm undecided as if it should go in this article, actually leaning towards it not, because I think it falls just outside the scope of this article. I agree with Nilfanion that it should be written about somewhere. TimL 01:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, it could go in the Other Storms section. The other storm that's there wasn't a storm, but still had some info and deserved there. It could go like this. "From September 11 to the 15th, an intense, warm core cutoff low developed over Lake Huron, an area unseen by tropical cyclones. The low resembled a hurricane at times, with an eyewall, spiral bands of rain, relatively warm water temperatures beneath it, and little vertical shear above it. The system dropped moderate rainfall across southwestern Ontario and northeastern Michigan, peaking at 4.1 inches along the southern coast of the Georgian Bay. It is unknown if it was tropical or not." Something like that. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the logical thing is to have an article for the storm and a mention in other storms comparable to what is in tropical cyclone. I don't think a full in-depth summary has any point to it as the storm isn't relavant to 1996AHS but mentioning its existence seems sensible. "Other storms" as a section is potentially very useful; the storm in the article and the huroncane are obvious candidates for a mention. Perhaps we should consider what is appropriate for other storms centrally?--Nilfanion (talk) 11:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That works. There's plenty of information in that article, and that way we could get all of the discrepancies out. The question is, what would it be called? "Hurricane Huron" would be misleading, as there's not enough evidence for that. There were only TS winds with a pressure of 993 mb, not quite enough to claim hurricane status. Would it be part of the WPTC? Yea, Other storms could definetly become useful. OS could allow for notable tropical waves or other storms that have no other place. For example, 2004AHS's other storms, assuming we did it, could include the May wave in Haiti and Catarina. So should we add Huron into the OS section? Hurricanehink (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images for each storm

Here we go again.

Will finish later. Hurricanehink 16:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couple more. Can't finish during school. Hurricanehink 17:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hurricanehink 20:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a sweet picture of Lili! Love It! Cyclone1 02:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theres gotta be somethin better that Gustav. I'm lookin for one now.—Cyclone1 14:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Ok i was wrong nothing better for Gustav, but i did find a few more. They're all from Goes, Noaa and Nasa.

They are all public domian. Cyclone1 14:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're all pretty good, but they all have words. It's fine if it has the NOAA logo on the top left with the storm's name, but those three have a lot of words on the top of the image, and it would look cluttered and weird with the big white letters. Hurricanehink 16:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I see like Hurricane Gordon. I don't like that picture for that exact reason. Cyclone1 16:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a version exists with text, you will almost certainly be able to find one without the text if you look hard enough. For instance isn't it possible to see the original GOES imagery and cut that part of the image out? — jdorje (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean exactly? Editing the text out ourselves? If we have to for Edouard, let's please do. As Hink said in the 1998 discussion page, the eye pics are the golden ones, right Hink?—Cyclone1 21:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can't edit the text out (there's nothing to replace it with). What I'm saying is if you keep looking you'll probably find a version without the text. — jdorje (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could edit it out through photoshop. I know I shouldn't have, but I did this for Alex from 1998 (edited from here). A few changes in the clouds in the background really isn't going to make a difference, and provided the image is one of the best of the storm, I don't see the harm. Hurricanehink 22:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that good at photoshoping stuff. I'll just keep looking, at least for Edouard. Cyclone1 00:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo! Awesome Eye shot of Ed!!! Check it out! No big words, Eye, Full hurricane can be seen, Great shot. →Cyclone1→ 23:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Feel free to upload it. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just edited the words out of that picture.[1] How does it look? Can we use it even if I slightly edited it? -- RattleMan 23:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I've done that before. That looks great! Hurricanehink (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet! Consider it uploaded! →Cyclone1→ 00:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much better! →Cyclone1→ 00:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found another Edouard pic, and I think this could be the best one we have. Here is the link. It is of the storm at peak intensity, and though it is a little far out, it shows the features of the fully-developed hurricane better than the existing image. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it a lot better. The one now is at category three strength. Nice find. →Cyclone1→ 02:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded it, but it's probably a little too far zoomed out. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see what you mean but I think the one we have now is a little too zoomed in. I like the new one better. →Cyclone1→ 05:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add the new one in? --Hurricanehink (talk) 12:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. →Cyclone1→ 20:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Due to a recent GIBBS miracle, I gave the old Gustav pic the axe and uploaded a new one. As you can see, I tried to find this picture before, and just found it now. →Cyclone1→ 16:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, there's the little matter of Cesar and his current picture in omparison with this one. This one shows the true large size of Cesar. Better? And Kyle's pic isn't that great either. →Cyclone1→ 16:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a little better, but I personally like the existing Cesar. I think that the existing image shows the true size, while the GIBBS Infrared is a little misleading. However, Kyle would be great to re-do. --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the existing image is probably better for Cesar actually (or would be after a bit of photoshopping), the Kyle image could be replaced. GIBBS isn't that great when compared to other imagery as it is low-res. However it has ease of use, the other sources don't have that.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I uploaded the Isidore one Cyclone suggested. GIBBS does have its down sides, so we should try and use images that are already zoomed in whenever possible. --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. The only thing I dislike about the Ceasar image is that you can barley see the hurricane. But I'm a bit out-numbered so, oh well. Should I switch Kyle images? →Cyclone1→ 22:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The Cesar image can be fixed if anyone has photoshop. Anyone? --Hurricanehink (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not me. Sorry. →Cyclone1→ 22:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three NC Storms

Two Hurricanes made a direct landfall in North Carolina; and T.S. Arthur nearly made landfall, and still affected the area. Could we add something to the summary about this? Weatherman90 15:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But Arthur did pass over the Outer Banks. It did make landfall, kinda. Cyclone1 14:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]