Talk:1992 Atlantic hurricane season

Images for each storm

 * Subtropical Storm One
 * Hurricane Bonnie
 * Hurricane Charley
 * Tropical Storm Danielle- Sorry bout the crappy quality, but this is the best there is. Hurricanehink
 * Tropical Storm Earl- See above. Hurricanehink
 * Hurricane Frances


 * Another year down, and that was lucky. Not sure how far back every storm will have an image on them. Hurricanehink 20:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Subtropical Storm One
Where is the Subtropical Storm One trackmap?


 * On the main page... Hurricanehink 23:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

About Tropical Depression
Thanks for the person who added the depressions info, but next time remember that depressions have no tracks juan andrés 04:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yea, I forgot about that one when I added the pics. Hurricanehink 12:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Andrew
Before my latest copyedit, the Andrew section was horrendous (it didn't even mention that the storm struck Florida!). I added some more quick info, but I marked this as since it needs some "real" storm history. &mdash; jdorje (talk) 08:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Define, "real" storm history, because I cant find anything wrong with the info in this section if not then im removing the banner since it only clutters up the article and that no one had disscussed anything about it. Storm05 17:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The andrew section defies the principle of notability: the most notable storms should have the most detail. However andrew has the *least* detail of any storm this season.  Unlike every other storm it has no meteorological details like "Strong upper-level westerly winds weakened the storm", it just says it formed, reached cat5 intensity, and made landfall. &mdash; jdorje (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What is up!?
Whats up with the lame pictures of Danielle and Earl? No offense to who put them there, but you gotta have somethin better than that? Anything? Cyclone1 02:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I know they are horrible, but that is the best that exists online. The website that provided other similar time period images doesn't work for those storms. Hurricanehink 02:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Dude, I am so sorry. I just figured that out when i tried to change them. Heh.. I feel bad now. Cyclone1 02:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL, no problem. That's exactly what I thought in the first place; can I find anything better than these horrible images. Unfortunately no, but oh well. It's fine ;) Hurricanehink 12:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Lol. Cyclone1 17:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Andrew

 * I created a Userbox in honor of Hurricane Andrew → → User remember Andrew.  Feel free to add this to your userpage. FishHead 3:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

T.D. Seven
I added information on this storm since the article lacked it. If you want to alter it (add info, correct any mistakes, or even just deleting it), go ahead. PS: According to the weather reports, Tropical Depression 2 (the 1016 mb one) formed on July 24 and dissipated on the 26th (according to the archives at NHC). The TD2 portion doesn't mention the dates of formation and dissipation.Jake52 My talk

GIBBS Breakthrough
Danielle and Earl Global pics have showed up on GIBBS!! Hooray! Out with the crappy pics! I'll upload them. Danielle at landfall and the only decent picture of Earl moving away from land. Anything is better than what we have now.  →Cyclone 1→  14:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, Lord thats much better!  →Cyclone 1→  14:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That must be new, as when I look through there, those storms weren't working. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, man I'm as surprised as you are.  →Cyclone 1→  20:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

More no-name storms
Look at this. Here's another image. Any thoughts? It practically had an eye. →Cycl  one1 → 18:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it should be mentioned in an other storms section. It does come from a governmental agency. Great find. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My thoughts exactly. If I only saw this on Gibbs I would have overlooked it, but from Nasa? I think it should be added. →Cycl   one1 → 18:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking at it again, it looks a bit frontal in the Gibbs image. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I added it. →Cycl  one1 → 19:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess it was kind of frontal. Should we keep it? I noticed it did look a little less frontal earlier and later in its life, via-gibbs images. →Cycl   one1 → 11:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's fine to keep, seeing as NASA mentioned it. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 12:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Fake Image
I dont think so because there's no way that storm that visable be undetected. That infomation about that storm is false. Storm05 14:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. It looks similar to the Gibbs image. Maybe the NHC though it was frontal operationally, and never went into further detail for the storm. It should go in an other storms section, with a disclaimer that the NHC did not upgrade it. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The image/system is not fake; my first tour of the NHC occurred while the system was existant in the western Atlantic. I believe there was a 50 kt, 1002 hPa ship report that came in during the system's life cycle.  I'm wondering if the image is from the May 10-13 system rather than the one present a few days later...that system did appear more tropical/subtropical.  It is best not to comment further upon it; the NASA image looks good, doesn't it?  Thegreatdr 17:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think so... I had a heart attack when I found that image. But what other storm are you talking about? →Cycl   one1 → 11:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I found it. Formed on May 16. It does look more (sub)tropical than the other.  →Cycl   one1 → 12:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC) Nope that was the same one...  →Cycl   one1 → 03:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

September 12, 1992 near-hurricane offshore New England
While I have your attention, consider these images from September 12, 1992 offshore New England: Visible Infrared Visible 2 Infrared 2 Visible 3 Infrared 3. This is why I added the system in as another possible storm. It briefly sported an eye on visible imagery between roughly 1500-1800 UTC, although it is not terribly obvious on this imagery. When the center went over Sable Island, Nova Scotia as a deteriorating cyclone, they issued a special observation declaring that the sun was dimly visible. There is a high chance this cyclone will be added to the database, when the reanalysis gets to 1992 in the next several years. Thegreatdr 18:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Very cool! →Cycl   one1 → 04:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

So, If anyone's keeping score...
...that's one January polar low, one May Bermuda storm, and one September hurricane. And those are just the ones posted here. I have, in my own satellite archive Another January low off of Florida. That's 4 and counting. →Cycl  one1 → 12:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Bermuda storm is clearly non tropical on the infrared: . See how the bands are all detached from the center? The polar low and the other January storm also look non-tropical. The only one that intrigues me is the September storm. That storm looks quite tropical with a tight inner core and decent outflow. -- § Hurricane E  RIC § archive 22:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, who knows what they'll update and what they leave as just a blurb in this talk page? Nobody knows now, though some people will know earlier than others. (lucky...) →Cycl   one1 → 04:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I checked the camex website and concluded (and agreeing with E.Brown) that there is no way that the may storm went undected (or not reconizied by the NHC) when the website say it had a clear eye and etc, and that "may hurricane" looks like Hurricane Bonnie in September of '92. Because of this, I concluded that the info on that website is false. Storm05 13:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Listen to what you're saying, Storm05. NASA's not playing a prank on us. They didn't fabricate a no-name storm out of Hurricane Bonnie. And saying that if a storm has a clear eye, the NHC will recognize it? They can leave storms with eyes out of the database, you know. →Cycl   one1 → 18:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Camex.4.com is a commerical website and not a NASA website and thus the info in it is dubious. Storm05 16:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's still credited to NASA, though. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, just for the record, the picture is actually Hurricane Fefa, not the May storm. Which comes to the conclusion that the infomation on the Camex.4.com webiste is compeletly bogus. Storm05 14:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

(PLEASE READ ALL OF THE FOLLOWIMNG) I wish I could agree with you, but I just can't for the following reasons: *inhales* The source says the image was taken on August 11, 1991. Fefa had long since dissipated, which pretty much invalidates that source all together. That's one nail in the coffin. Also, I strolled through most of Fefa's lifespan (3 hours, by 3 hours, by 3 painstaking hours) and noticed something. Fefa and the mystery picture are similar, except for one big difference: The eye. As far as I could tell, when Fefa had a visible eye, it always seemed to be almost perfectly centered, whereas in the picture, the eye is off to the outer side of the storm. And, whenever Fefa had an eye, the large gyre like cloud formation we see to the bottom right of the mystery storm, was nowhere to be found. Appearance: Another particularly large nail in the coffin. In addition to all this, we have the matter of the very similar looking storm near Bermuda at around the same time Camex says the photo was taken. I took this GIBBS image and rotated it and squashed it a bit to try to match the angle of the mystery storm, and came up with this result. It doesn't look exactly the same (because I have no idea what exact time the mystery image was taken), but it is very similar. Evidence of the actual mystery storm: The last nail in the coffin, it likely isn't Fefa, and due to the similar GIBBS image and the fact that Thegreatdr himself says he remembers the storm, information on Camex is still perfectly valid, thus allowing us to put it into the Other Storms section. Case closed. *inhales deeply* Man I'm tired of being right! (sorry, I've always wanted to say that) →Cycl   one1 → 23:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion
I conclude that the info on that camex website is false. Why?, well a google search reveles nothing except wikipeida, its mirrors and that website, no mention of the May 1992 storm on any weather blogs or fourms. Also the the 08-11-91 date on thethe offical nasa website may have been a typographical error. Also the Cyclone 1 comparisons are not good enough as the may storm was near a land mass and theres no land masses visible in the camex picture. Also this storm has a clear eye (when i mean clear eye, i mean something like or  with out any questionable features surrounding the storm that makes the NHC not to include in the database and the storm on the camex website does not have any questionble features that might make the NHC to leave it unnamed or not include in its database and Cyclone 1s counterexamples have questionable features, structure, etc that would prompt the NHC not to include in its database. Also simply saying that  Thegreatdr himself says he remembers the storm is not good enough as theres zero info on the NHC website or its archives and the fact that memories can play strange tricks. And finally (on top of all of this), i think the other storms section needs to be removed unless theres reliable source out there that can attribute to the storms above. Storm05 17:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Good points, we won't know for sure until HURDAT reanalysis reaches 1992. Cycl  one1  (22:20-9-07-2007)
 * ...which at this rate, will be 2042. Just so you know, at least a pair of May 1992 systems are within the big spreadsheet of possible additions.  One was a system which used to be considered a Type B subtropical cyclone (nowadays it would be a tropical storm) northeast of Bermuda in the 20s the month.  This might be the other...will have to recheck the spreadsheet.  I have to say though...I doubt either looked exactly like the NASA picture.  I'd like to know which cyclone that is myself.  Thegreatdr 21:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The Real Identity of the Camex May Storm Image
After breezing by the hurricane pages, I can now say for certain I know what that image is. The timestamp wasn't wrong, as it actually was captured on 8-11-1991, except the subject of the image is really Hurricane Fefa in the Pacific. Proof is here and on the 1991 Pacific hurricane season page.  Jake52 My talk 02:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC) (EDIT: OK, maybe not from above, but then again, would it be because the timestamp was wrong? This kind of hurts my brain.) (EDIT 2: Sorry about violating the 3RR (if I am), but I have two different evidence about the Fefa/May storm mistake): 1. Camex actually does have a Fefa picture on the site (Blue Fefa, the one with it being "face on" with no bands), but that image is dated on the eleventh of OCTOBER, LONG after Fefa dissipated, so neither the May storm or Fefa have truly verifiable dates or images (during its time on the Fefa page, Blue Fefa was shown with a caption saying it was taken on "an unknown date". 2. The recent Fefa image on the main article for it (was it GoodKitty's?) shows that in the largest mass of convection, the eye actually IS misplaced, more towards a lighter group of convection, and that image also shows a broad "curve" of clouds similar to the Camex May storm.)

Depressions
Just to make sure, there were nine depressions that year. That number doesn't include Frances, but does include the subtropical storm. Good kitty 18:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say there were ten depressions, including Frances and the subtropical storm. Subtropical cyclones should count for depressions, IMO. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I put nine because I think Frances went from extratropical->tropical->back Good kitty 00:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * But I think that Total depressions means total everything (total TD+STD+TS+STS+H). Basically, total depressions should be however high the number would've gotten on NRL (which gives a number to every TD, STD, TS, STS, and H regardless of origin). Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what I was thinking at first, but Frances is a rare exception in that it was never a depression at any of its stages. We've never counted extratropical storms in the seasons. Good kitty 02:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But Frances would have been assigned a number on NRL, as it became tropical, so it should be included as a depression. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Other storms section
Due to the controversy about some of the system list in the Other storms section, I have decided to remove that section all together. Here is some information about the "Other storms": Other information, including satellite images, can be viewed in a previous discussion on this page.--12george1 (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A report on the storm in January 1992
 * May Bermuda storm

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on 1992 Atlantic hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111011042947/http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/A6.html to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/A6.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1992 Atlantic hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131214201025/http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/forecast_verifications.xls to http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/forecast_verifications.xls
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928013818/http://www.cityofannamaria.com/files/Hurricane-Flood-Preparedness-2006.pdf to http://www.cityofannamaria.com/files/Hurricane-Flood-Preparedness-2006.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)