Retirement of Emily!

StormScanWx · #1 Postby **StormScanWx** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 11:10 pm

I still am absolutely astonished that the WMO didn't retire the name Emily from 2005. Does anyone besides me believe that this issue, if petitioned, should be addressed at the 2007 meeting?

#2 Postby **Evil Jeremy** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 11:15 pm

of course it should be retired! it was a cat. 5 for gods sake!!!

https://www.youtube.com/user/senorpepr · #3 Postby **senorpepr** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 11:25 pm

It's up to the government of Mexico. They felt it didn't need to be retired... so it wasn't.

HurricaneHunter914 · #4 Postby **HurricaneHunter914** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 12:04 am

Even though Emily was a bad cane the damage wasn't as bad as it it was first thought.

HurricaneBill · #5 Postby **HurricaneBill** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 12:59 am

It hit Hispaniola as a Category 3 in 1987. It hit North Carolina as a Category 3 in 1993. It hit Mexico once as a Category 4 and a second time as a Category 3 in 2005.

I'm just sick of seeing the name Emily on the list. Plus, if Mexico felt the damage wasn't worthy enough for retirement, why the heck did they retire Kenna in 2002?

HurricaneBill · #6 Postby **HurricaneBill** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 1:00 am

senorpepr wrote:It's up to the government of Mexico. They felt it didn't need to be retired... so it wasn't.

Didn't they not request Wilma or Stan be retired?

I thought the U.S. requested Wilma and Guatemala requested Stan.

HurricaneBill · #7 Postby **HurricaneBill** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 1:03 am

Hurricane Hunter 914 wrote:Even though Emily was a bad cane the damage wasn't as bad as it it was first thought.

Mexico is notorious for downplaying storm damage, especially on the Yucatan, which is a tourist hotspot.

I heard Emily was rather destructive on her second Mexican landfall.

MiamiensisWx · #8 Postby **MiamiensisWx** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 3:12 pm

HurricaneBill wrote:I'm just sick of seeing the name Emily on the list. Plus, if Mexico felt the damage wasn't worthy enough for retirement, why the heck did they retire Kenna in 2002?

I agree... it is strange that Emily wasn't retired. It should have been.

By the way, did Jamaica or Grenada request for Emily (2005) to be retired? If so, why wasn't it?

StormScanWx · #9 Postby **StormScanWx** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 3:20 pm

Does Storm2k have a no petition rule? If not, would anyone sign it? (like with your username or whatnot)

Audrey2Katrina · #10 Postby **Audrey2Katrina** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 5:24 pm

Personally I agree that Emily should have been retired. I also think the WMO should make the decision based on 1.) death toll 2.) damage 3.) Areas affected 4.) Impact on a nation's/global economy and 5.) greatest Intensity--most especially at landfalls. With these criteria, I think it's a no-brainer and leaving it up to the country impacted lends itself to a game of geo-politicial gaming. It should be strictly looked upon as a socio-meteorological phenomenon and not a political football. That said, I doubt anything will change.

A2K

#11 Postby **JonathanBelles** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 5:38 pm

StormScanWx wrote:Does Storm2k have a no petition rule? If not, would anyone sign it? (like with your username or whatnot)

i'd be the 1st one to sign

#12 Postby **JonathanBelles** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 5:48 pm

fact789 wrote:
StormScanWx wrote:Does Storm2k have a no petition rule? If not, would anyone sign it? (like with your username or whatnot)

i'd be the 1st one to sign

i messaged cycloneye and there is no "no petition rule"

https://www.youtube.com/user/senorpepr · #13 Postby **senorpepr** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 7:17 pm

I have never understood the excitement in retiring a name for a tropical cyclone. I hate to break it to you, folks, but the affected governments choose not to retire the name. That's it. It's over. Emily will be around in six years.

Then again, I may be a little bias since I think a majority of tropical cyclones should NOT be retired.

CajunMama · #14 Postby **CajunMama** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 7:24 pm

fact789 wrote:
fact789 wrote:
StormScanWx wrote:Does Storm2k have a no petition rule? If not, would anyone sign it? (like with your username or whatnot)

i'd be the 1st one to sign

i messaged cycloneye and there is no "no petition rule"

Read my reply in the other thread about the legality of it. It serves no purpose.

MiamiensisWx · #15 Postby **MiamiensisWx** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 7:40 pm

Thanks for the information, CajunMama. A real petition needs to be done in a more normal way.

StormScanWx · #16 Postby **StormScanWx** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 7:58 pm

True.

#17 Postby **brunota2003** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:06 pm

fact789 wrote:
fact789 wrote:
StormScanWx wrote:Does Storm2k have a no petition rule? If not, would anyone sign it? (like with your username or whatnot)

i'd be the 1st one to sign

i messaged cycloneye and there is no "no petition rule"

i think that you should see if the affected people want it retired...then and ONLY then will the petition float in any water at all...just a bunch of weather peoples wont do anything, however, maybe if a bunch of people affected were to sign it...JMHO

Matt-hurricanewatcher · #18 Postby **Matt-hurricanewatcher** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:10 pm

This would of not been retired if it had hit both times as a cat5...If the country will not call for its retirment then no retirment.

CHRISTY · #19 Postby **CHRISTY** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:20 pm

Emily was quite a storm...

HurricaneBill · #20 Postby **HurricaneBill** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:32 pm

I think the best bet would be if Mexicans in the hardest hit areas made a petition or sent emails to the WMO requesting that it be retired. I know it's unlikely, but that's what I think

Retirement of Emily!

Retirement of Emily!

Who is online