Talk:Tropical Storm Nicole (2010)

	Tropical Storm Nicole (2010) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 4, 2019.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 23, 2011 Peer review Reviewed July 21, 2011 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Atlantic hurricane work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

With its current forecast path, Tropical Depression Sixteen is likely to wreak a lot of havoc within a very short time span, so I figured I'd make the main article earlier than usual so we can easily edit as we go. Hylian Auree (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on NHC reports, it appears this could be a

According to the final NHC discussion; they aren't considering the forecast extratropical low the same storm. — Iune(talk) 23:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like Nicole's impact is mostly isolated to the western Caribbean and Florida. I think a separate article would be warranted, since all of the moisture coming up is due to the cold front. That is, of course, assuming the nor'easter warrants an article. --Hurricanehink (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We really should worry about that bridge once/if we get there.

cool stuff) 02:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree that the flooding event of the eastern seaboard should have its own article, and while the media keeps referring to this system as "remnants of Nicole" it seems that that is not at all the case. Beach drifter (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know it's been done for a day or two now. Thegreatdr (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it into the article, thanks for letting us know DR. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Sexy she shine (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot prove this because I can't read the NHC forecasters' minds, but it seems pretty clear that the Hurricane Center quietly decided to move Nicole's center noticably to the east to avoid pointless warnings over the Florida peninsula. While Nicole was over Cuba, they stated that the storm's center reformed further to the east. No it didn't. The location of the center is plainly visible in this satellite image. It is not over Andros Island, it is in fact just offshore of the Florida Keys. Nicole's center actually made landfall in south Florida but because NHC knew that, due to the structure of the storm, Florida would receive next to no effects from the storm, they were loathe to maintain warnings (although the upper Keys did in fact receive a pretty heavy rain band from Nicole). I find it impossible to believe that the Hurricane Center would've missed the center location when it is so glaringly obvious on satellite that a 21 year old meteorology student could pick it out without a second glance (and yes, I have confirmed the center location in this image with a meteorology professor at my university). This was an old school, and very unprofessional, fib by the NHC, and one I doubt they would perpetuate into post-analysis. I would be shocked if they didn't change it. They even seemed to have been preparing for an easy transition when they said the center became "untrackable" over the Florida Straits. Ha! Stevie Wonder could've tracked the center over the Florida Straits. Look at the picture and see if you can't tell where the center is (Hint: Ernest Hemmingway could've seen it from his back porch) -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 07:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, scratch what I just said....could prove useful ;) Either way, look at images prior to the one at 2045Z. The feature over the Florida Straits doesn't exist at 1915z, very clearly indicating that it's not the center of Nicole, rather a possible separate low attributable to its monsoonal nature. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 07:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that feature shows no sign of rotation about an hour later and dissipates not long after Cyclonebiskit (talk) 07:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can see it better on a close up loop, which we look at real time. If you watch the movement of the low-level clouds, you can see that the storm is rotating about that feature off the Keys. And in those other pictures, you can still see it, it's just not as well defined. Trust me, my professor helped build hurricane forecasting models at FSU, he's pretty good at this stuff. He also knows that the Hurricane Center used to pull this kind of trick more often, back in the "old days" when they could more easily get away with it. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 09:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the NHC surface analysis archive, they did indeed nearly bring the center of Nicole to the southeast Florida coast, which is why the line on the rainfall graphic was drawn so close to the coast. I believe I updated the graphic per their request to change the track line towards their best track, but Brown's point is valid about the center originally being placed very near the coast. As for the other stuff, who knows, though there's sometimes rumbings at work about that. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://exm.nr/bAHJuH

  Triggered by \bexm\.nr\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—