2019 and 2020 Cyclones Retirement (both years to be announced in 2021)

[Nuno]

Do we have insured damages figures for Imelda? Considering this was not as bad as Harvey in terms of damage, and nowhere near the casualties, I don't see why Imelda is being floated for retirement. Consider we'll also likely have several intense, more damaging "I" storms based on its position in the alphabet, usually used during the peak of a season, it makes no sense to retire Imelda. Humberto shouldn't be retired either.

I echo EquusStorm's sentiment. Storms are retired too frequently. Previously reserved for truly destructive and potent storms, we now just retire any storm that reaches Category 3 at landfall no matter the actual figures on damages or casualties. Dorian is a perfect candidate for retirement. Elsewhere in the ATL? I don't see any.

[CrazyC83]

Looking at the retired "I" names this century, the date of the initial impact in the (first) country that retired it (including islands):

Iris - October 8
Isidore - September 20
Isabel - September 18
Ivan - September 16
Ike - September 13
Igor - September 21
Irene - August 24
Ingrid - September 12
Irma - September 6

Only Irene and Iris did not fall in September, with most falling near the middle of the month. No wonder keeping "I" names is tough.

[cainjamin]

I don't really know how accurate AccuWeather's damage analysis would be, but it's predicted that Imelda caused about $8 billion in damage (https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather- ... cts/537250). If that's even close to accurate, I can definitely see retirement being in the cards.

[Nuno]

I don't really know how accurate AccuWeather's damage analysis would be, but it's predicted that Imelda caused about $8 billion in damage (https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather- ... cts/537250). If that's even close to accurate, I can definitely see retirement being in the cards.

That would rank Imelda 20th or 21st all time in US insured damages. We're at a point that the rising population density along all of the Gulf and Southeast coast will mean that even minimal hurricanes with few casualties will rack up 5-10b in damages as we enter the 2020's. Do we retire every hurricane or storm that makes landfall, racks up a few billion in damages? This has become the new precedent set. If we're going to do this, then there needs to be some system in place to "unretire" names after a certain amount of years or we'll just be making up names in a couple decades.

I'm honestly open to the idea of unretiring names after 50 or so years. The number can be debated, but many in South Florida, especially transplants and younger populations, don't remember Andrew or associate that name with the storm and that was only 27 years ago.

Only Irene and Iris did not fall in September, with most falling near the middle of the month. No wonder keeping "I" names is tough.

Which is why unless there is an extraordinary amount of damage or loss of life, we should probably not be so quick to pull the trigger on retiring storms like Imelda.

[AnnularCane]

I used to get a lot of books on hurricanes out of the library as a teenager (yeah, sounds nerdish, right? ). Most of them were kind of on the old side even then...written back when hurricanes only got female names. I remember reading that retired names could be brought back after about 10 years or so. I think they changed their minds on that since then, deciding to keep them retired permanently (or so I've heard). But it may not be a bad idea to reconsider at some point. Granted, 10 years isn't really long enough, especially for the really big ones (although I'm guessing those might stay retired). But yeah, maybe closer to 50 years or more. Sometimes I wonder if they really might run out of names at some point, especially since a fair amount of names probably aren't really usable.

[HurricaneRyan]

I feel like we shouldn't judge how often names are retired.

Unless you have actually lived in the region, especially areas outside the US, you don't know the full scale of damage.

[BadLarry95]

Maybe we could just use different variants of names that have more or less been forgotten and overshadowed.

Isabel-Isabella
Irene-Irina
Ingrid-Inga
Isidire-Izzy

[TheStormExpert]

Dorian is 100% guaranteed a retirement, Imelda has a decent shot too though I wouldn't say it's 100%.

[northjaxpro]

Dorian is 100% guaranteed a retirement, Imelda has a decent shot too though I wouldn't say it's 100%.

50/50 shot for Imelda being retired imo.

[Torino]

so far...
Dorian 100%
Imelda 30%
Lorenzo 10%
All the others 0%

[HurricaneRyan]

Imelda apparently caused $3 billion in damages. But Isaac caused a similar amount

[Nuno]

Imelda apparently caused $3 billion in damages. But Isaac caused a similar amount

What is the source on that number? I've heard varying amounts.

[Astromanía]

If Joaquin got retired for its boat slaying incident, Lorenzo has a shot. But not a big one. It and Imelda aren't locks for retirement

Joaquin was one of the worst hurricanes to strike the Bahamas in modern history.

Yes, it did a lot of damage there, but the direct death toll on land was zero (in stark contrast to Dorian). I think the Bahamas damage PLUS the 34 at-sea fatalities was adequate for retirement for Joaquin, but I'm reluctant to retire a storm based solely on lives lost at sea. Both incidents are eyebrow-raising though at least to me, it's simply mind-boggling and without excuse that vessels are sailing into major hurricanes in the satellite era.

Barry 2% - Minimal Cat 1. impact, plenty of storms of similar strength and impact level have struck the Gulf Coast and the names re-used, it didn't do anything exceptionally destructive for its strength like Imelda or Allison.

Dorian 100% -This name has surely been used for the second and final time, after replacing a name (Dean) that was likewise retired for a destructive Cat. 5 landfall.

Fernand 2% - Damaging flooding, but only one fatality and Mexico seems to retire Atlantic landfalls less readily than Pacific ones. Patricia was retired; despite its exceptional intensity at both peak and landfall it hit a sparsely populated area and wasn't nearly as catastrophic as it might have been, while the costlier and deadlier Emily of 2005 was not.

Humberto 2% - Despite being described by at least one Bermudian on this very forum as "worse than Fabian," it caused no fatalities in the island territory. Unlike the northern Bahamas or U.S. Gulf Coast, they are not surge-prone and are generally well built to withstand even a solid major hurricane strike. It would take an exceptionally violent (Dorian or Irma in the Leewards-level) landfall/direct hit to do major damage there.

Imelda 35% - A name-worthy 35kt TS for a mere six hours, this system did all its damage through rainfall and the associated freshwater flooding. It sounds like things got really bad in and around Beaumont, but overall scope was much less than Harvey or Allison, and the death toll much lower than either. Other low-end TCs have caused damaging flooding in this part of southeast Texas with a low death toll and not been retired (Claudette).

Lorenzo 3% - It remains to be seen what its impacts in the Azores will be, but Portugal is not part of the WMO committee capable of requesting retirement. It also remains to be seen if any more survivors from the Bourbon Rhode will be found (unlikely at this point), but given France's penchant for retirement I gave it a 1% boost over the other marginal cases.

I would give Fernand a 0.5% lol, if Mexico didn´t retire Alex in 2010 or Emily in 2005 then this is not near to come close to even the conversation lol. Narda on EPAC has an higher chance rightfully (12% IMO) but I'm not even convinced about that case neither

[aspen]

Joaquin was one of the worst hurricanes to strike the Bahamas in modern history.

Yes, it did a lot of damage there, but the direct death toll on land was zero (in stark contrast to Dorian). I think the Bahamas damage PLUS the 34 at-sea fatalities was adequate for retirement for Joaquin, but I'm reluctant to retire a storm based solely on lives lost at sea. Both incidents are eyebrow-raising though at least to me, it's simply mind-boggling and without excuse that vessels are sailing into major hurricanes in the satellite era.

Barry 2% - Minimal Cat 1. impact, plenty of storms of similar strength and impact level have struck the Gulf Coast and the names re-used, it didn't do anything exceptionally destructive for its strength like Imelda or Allison.

Dorian 100% -This name has surely been used for the second and final time, after replacing a name (Dean) that was likewise retired for a destructive Cat. 5 landfall.

Fernand 2% - Damaging flooding, but only one fatality and Mexico seems to retire Atlantic landfalls less readily than Pacific ones. Patricia was retired; despite its exceptional intensity at both peak and landfall it hit a sparsely populated area and wasn't nearly as catastrophic as it might have been, while the costlier and deadlier Emily of 2005 was not.

Humberto 2% - Despite being described by at least one Bermudian on this very forum as "worse than Fabian," it caused no fatalities in the island territory. Unlike the northern Bahamas or U.S. Gulf Coast, they are not surge-prone and are generally well built to withstand even a solid major hurricane strike. It would take an exceptionally violent (Dorian or Irma in the Leewards-level) landfall/direct hit to do major damage there.

Imelda 35% - A name-worthy 35kt TS for a mere six hours, this system did all its damage through rainfall and the associated freshwater flooding. It sounds like things got really bad in and around Beaumont, but overall scope was much less than Harvey or Allison, and the death toll much lower than either. Other low-end TCs have caused damaging flooding in this part of southeast Texas with a low death toll and not been retired (Claudette).

Lorenzo 3% - It remains to be seen what its impacts in the Azores will be, but Portugal is not part of the WMO committee capable of requesting retirement. It also remains to be seen if any more survivors from the Bourbon Rhode will be found (unlikely at this point), but given France's penchant for retirement I gave it a 1% boost over the other marginal cases.

I would give Fernand a 0.5% lol, if Mexico didn´t retire Alex in 2010 or Emily in 2005 then this is not near to come close to even the conversation lol. Narda on EPAC has an higher chance rightfully (12% IMO) but I'm not even convinced about that case neither

If Mexico didn’t retire Hurricane Willa with $825 million in damages (making it one of the ten costliest EPac storms), then they definitely won’t retire Tropical Storm Narda.

[Astromanía]

Yes, it did a lot of damage there, but the direct death toll on land was zero (in stark contrast to Dorian). I think the Bahamas damage PLUS the 34 at-sea fatalities was adequate for retirement for Joaquin, but I'm reluctant to retire a storm based solely on lives lost at sea. Both incidents are eyebrow-raising though at least to me, it's simply mind-boggling and without excuse that vessels are sailing into major hurricanes in the satellite era.

Barry 2% - Minimal Cat 1. impact, plenty of storms of similar strength and impact level have struck the Gulf Coast and the names re-used, it didn't do anything exceptionally destructive for its strength like Imelda or Allison.

Dorian 100% -This name has surely been used for the second and final time, after replacing a name (Dean) that was likewise retired for a destructive Cat. 5 landfall.

Fernand 2% - Damaging flooding, but only one fatality and Mexico seems to retire Atlantic landfalls less readily than Pacific ones. Patricia was retired; despite its exceptional intensity at both peak and landfall it hit a sparsely populated area and wasn't nearly as catastrophic as it might have been, while the costlier and deadlier Emily of 2005 was not.

Humberto 2% - Despite being described by at least one Bermudian on this very forum as "worse than Fabian," it caused no fatalities in the island territory. Unlike the northern Bahamas or U.S. Gulf Coast, they are not surge-prone and are generally well built to withstand even a solid major hurricane strike. It would take an exceptionally violent (Dorian or Irma in the Leewards-level) landfall/direct hit to do major damage there.

Imelda 35% - A name-worthy 35kt TS for a mere six hours, this system did all its damage through rainfall and the associated freshwater flooding. It sounds like things got really bad in and around Beaumont, but overall scope was much less than Harvey or Allison, and the death toll much lower than either. Other low-end TCs have caused damaging flooding in this part of southeast Texas with a low death toll and not been retired (Claudette).

Lorenzo 3% - It remains to be seen what its impacts in the Azores will be, but Portugal is not part of the WMO committee capable of requesting retirement. It also remains to be seen if any more survivors from the Bourbon Rhode will be found (unlikely at this point), but given France's penchant for retirement I gave it a 1% boost over the other marginal cases.

I would give Fernand a 0.5% lol, if Mexico didn´t retire Alex in 2010 or Emily in 2005 then this is not near to come close to even the conversation lol. Narda on EPAC has an higher chance rightfully (12% IMO) but I'm not even convinced about that case neither

If Mexico didn’t retire Hurricane Willa with $825 million in damages (making it one of the ten costliest EPac storms), then they definitely won’t retire Tropical Storm Narda.

Mexico retire names are based more about death toll and super records than economic damages, that's why narda has more chance than Fernand but still it doesn't have a chance to be retired as I said. Willa with the same death toll but with more economic damages it wasn´t retired as you said , but just to clarify I said that Narda has a better chance than Fernand not that it will be retired

[Buck]

I would give Fernand a 0.5% lol, if Mexico didn´t retire Alex in 2010 or Emily in 2005 then this is not near to come close to even the conversation lol. Narda on EPAC has an higher chance rightfully (12% IMO) but I'm not even convinced about that case neither

If Mexico didn’t retire Hurricane Willa with $825 million in damages (making it one of the ten costliest EPac storms), then they definitely won’t retire Tropical Storm Narda.

Mexico retire names are based more about death toll and super records than economic damages, that's why narda has more chance than Fernand but still it doesn't have a chance to be retired as I said. Willa with the same death toll but with more economic damages it wasn´t retired as you said , but just to clarify I said that Narda has a better chance than Fernand not that it will be retired

I'm still surprised Mexico didn't retire Karl in 2010. Most expensive Atlantic hurricane not to be retired, I believe.

[Astromanía]

If Mexico didn’t retire Hurricane Willa with $825 million in damages (making it one of the ten costliest EPac storms), then they definitely won’t retire Tropical Storm Narda.

Mexico retire names are based more about death toll and super records than economic damages, that's why narda has more chance than Fernand but still it doesn't have a chance to be retired as I said. Willa with the same death toll but with more economic damages it wasn´t retired as you said , but just to clarify I said that Narda has a better chance than Fernand not that it will be retired

I'm still surprised Mexico didn't retire Karl in 2010. Most expensive Atlantic hurricane not to be retired, I believe.

Yep, I mentioned Alex and Emily coz the damage area was almost the same making landfall in the same region (in the case of Emily it was even worse because it made landfall in Yucatan peninsula early as well), but as you said Karl is another example of a no retire hurricane affected Mexico with tons of economic lost that should have been retired but it wasn´t. I don´t see Mexico retiring an hurricane name at least its death toll is more than 50.

[GSBHurricane]

I Don’t think Imelda would get the retirement hammer. It caused $2 billion in damage per this report, which isn’t enough for the US to request retirement in the 2010s due to inflation (see Lee and Isaac). http://thoughtleadership.aon.com/Docume ... -recap.pdf
It also caused only 5 deaths.
On the other hand, I’m one who thinks Japan is finally going to ask a name for retirement and request Hagibis. The last time Japan did it was in 1991 with Mirielle and Hagibis looks like it might be worse. $9 billion in insured losses alone (possibly $18 billion total) and over 80 deaths. Japanese media reports suggest that Hagibis may actually be the worst typhoon to hit Japan since Vera in 1959 which says something.

[Torino]

I Don’t think Imelda would get the retirement hammer. It caused $2 billion in damage per this report, which isn’t enough for the US to request retirement in the 2010s due to inflation (see Lee and Isaac). http://thoughtleadership.aon.com/Docume ... -recap.pdf
It also caused only 5 deaths.
On the other hand, I’m one who thinks Japan is finally going to ask a name for retirement and request Hagibis. The last time Japan did it was in 1991 with Mirielle and Hagibis looks like it might be worse. $9 billion in insured losses alone (possibly $18 billion total) and over 80 deaths. Japanese media reports suggest that Hagibis may actually be the worst typhoon to hit Japan since Vera in 1959 which says something.

It seems like Dorian is the only name to be retired from this season, unless we get a late season storm like Otto.
As for Hagibis, I think it should be retired, although Japan calls it "Typhoon 19". Lekima is the name in the WPAC that will problably get retired.

[aspen]

I Don’t think Imelda would get the retirement hammer. It caused $2 billion in damage per this report, which isn’t enough for the US to request retirement in the 2010s due to inflation (see Lee and Isaac). http://thoughtleadership.aon.com/Docume ... -recap.pdf
It also caused only 5 deaths.
On the other hand, I’m one who thinks Japan is finally going to ask a name for retirement and request Hagibis. The last time Japan did it was in 1991 with Mirielle and Hagibis looks like it might be worse. $9 billion in insured losses alone (possibly $18 billion total) and over 80 deaths. Japanese media reports suggest that Hagibis may actually be the worst typhoon to hit Japan since Vera in 1959 which says something.

It seems like Dorian is the only name to be retired from this season, unless we get a late season storm like Otto.
As for Hagibis, I think it should be retired, although Japan calls it "Typhoon 19". Lekima is the name in the WPAC that will problably get retired.

Hagibis is definitely not getting retired. Not a single destructive Japan typhoon has even had its name removed — not even storms like Jebi ($12.8 billion in damages) or Lionrock (>500 deaths). Tropical cyclone name retirement in the West Pacific doesn’t make much sense overall, especially since the majority of the costliest systems in the basin have not been retired.