Nothing will form until August #2

[benny]

I think the 2005 benchmark shows that a REALLY ACTIVE season starts early and keeps going late...Those years mentioned in Post 1 (thanks, Benny!) were active in September and October...but not really that active overall based on 2005. If we have another year with Cat 4s in July, I'll buy the global warming theory hook, line, and sinker.

PS. It's also interesting to note that the first storm of the former champion season (1933) formed on May 14th...so we're already behind schedule
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/at1933.asp


:edit...Did I miss something?...Wunderground is showing that Emily was a Cat 5... http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/at200505.asp

Maybe the all-time record seasons start early (we don't have much of a sample size though.. but you can still get really active season .. e.g. 1950 or 1961 or 1969 with many major hurricanes and hurricaneafter having little before 1 Aug.

Emily was upgraded to Cat 5 in post-analysis according to NHC website.

[MGC]

Statistics are for groups, not individuals. That being said, no two hurricanes season are the same. Just because 2005 was super active does not impute that 2006 will be.

Political upgrades: IMO, I think the NHC has been naming some very marginal systems the past few years. Why? More funding. Seems to be working, as Congress is funding another P-3. Squeaky wheel get the grease.......MGC

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

I think some system they should of upgraded to depression and tropical storms,. So it works both ways.

[benny]

Statistics are for groups, not individuals. That being said, no two hurricanes season are the same. Just because 2005 was super active does not impute that 2006 will be.

Political upgrades: IMO, I think the NHC has been naming some very marginal systems the past few years. Why? More funding. Seems to be working, as Congress is funding another P-3. Squeaky wheel get the grease.......MGC

heh heh heh. I doubt it. What catches Congress' attention is not some dinky storm.. but these massive hurricanes pummelling the USA. 13 hurricane strikes in 2 years will do that (not to mention 7 landfalling major hurricanes!!!) As long as hurricanes keep hitting the US the funding will be there I imagine. In fact we could easily have no hurricanes make landfall this year (anyone remember 2000 or 2001???) and still get all sorts of systems. Mysteries of the climate world...

[Extremeweatherguy]

I think that for 2006 to feature MUCH less activity than the last 2 years would highly unlikely. Based on the fact that it seems that shear will be low and SSTs will be high...I feel that this year will be another active one. Also, based on the baking hot Gulf...I believe that the Gulf will be the hot spot once again. I also feel that we will see a strong early season storm or two this year with a major hurricane possible as early as July (similar to last year). This is based on the fact that SSTs are much warmer than last year in the Gulf and if shear happens to be low, then a strong storm would easily develop.

[wxman57]

I don't know what you are talking about with Gert. It was intensifying as it made landfall..If you are talking questionable TCs from last year, start with Lee. I don't think that practice would have changed through the years anyway if you think there is a bias toward starting systems near land... so I doubt it would have changed climatology at least in the modern era.

Remember when recon flew into Gert they could never find a circulation center? They just assumed that one must exist somewhere.

[benny]

I don't know what you are talking about with Gert. It was intensifying as it made landfall..If you are talking questionable TCs from last year, start with Lee. I don't think that practice would have changed through the years anyway if you think there is a bias toward starting systems near land... so I doubt it would have changed climatology at least in the modern era.

Remember when recon flew into Gert they could never find a circulation center? They just assumed that one must exist somewhere.

That's true.. but they recorded 53 kt even though they couldn't reach the center before landfall. it is pretty tough to get 53 kt in a slow-moving system without some sort of closed circulation!!! It wasn't a fluke report as they measured 47 kt as mentioned in the fcst discussion below. I'd pick on some 35 kt system before I'd tacke Gert

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/di ... .007.shtml?

[wxman57]

I don't know what you are talking about with Gert. It was intensifying as it made landfall..If you are talking questionable TCs from last year, start with Lee. I don't think that practice would have changed through the years anyway if you think there is a bias toward starting systems near land... so I doubt it would have changed climatology at least in the modern era.

Remember when recon flew into Gert they could never find a circulation center? They just assumed that one must exist somewhere.

That's true.. but they recorded 53 kt even though they couldn't reach the center before landfall. it is pretty tough to get 53 kt in a slow-moving system without some sort of closed circulation!!! It wasn't a fluke report as they measured 47 kt as mentioned in the fcst discussion below. I'd pick on some 35 kt system before I'd tacke Gert

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/di ... .007.shtml?

Squalls in a tropical wave can easily produce 53kt winds. Doesn't prove it had a closed LLC. Recon was in Gert long before landfall, and they reported back that they couldn't find a circulation center but the winds were at/above TS strength. I think Gert's circulation was fairly well-established aloft but that it lacked a clear LLC. So the upgrade was questionable, in my opinion. Grace was probably the better example, though. Clearly an open wave in the NW Gulf but producing TS-force winds on the deepwater platforms so the NHC upgraded it.

[Rainband]

Guess it's time to ask whether or not an upgrade is needed if TS Conditions exist and a LLC isn't evident. Apparently the experts think so. Guess it depends on the threat factor.

[MWatkins]

I also buy that idea. If you look back to the analog years to this season (according to Gray et al), 1998 and 1999 for example got off to very slow starts.

1998 Alex didn't get going until late July, Bonnie not until mid August. 1999 was very similar with the second named storm not occuring until October.

In the past 100 years or so there is in fact a slighlt negative correltation between early season activity and activity during the peak months. Nino contributes to this, with the pattern allowing stuff to drop in at the base of fronts and develop early season.

So if I had to bet between a slow start and a fast start alone I would bet slow too.

However, 2003 featured occaisional development throughout the season including early on.

Perhaps, with this warm phase the early season slow starts will be only relitavely slow. Although frontal development is not likely not to happen, waves have been holding together pretty well in the last couple of years. If ITCZ pressures continue to remain below normal as they have the last couple of years, the odds of getting something spun up in the caribbean go up early in the season, sonces waves may get in there intact. Of course the argument with strong high pressure suppressing the ITCZ southward would argue against it.

So my guess, guess, is that we won't see the crazy start we saw last year, but August will probably open up with the D storm.

MW

[benny]

I don't know what you are talking about with Gert. It was intensifying as it made landfall..If you are talking questionable TCs from last year, start with Lee. I don't think that practice would have changed through the years anyway if you think there is a bias toward starting systems near land... so I doubt it would have changed climatology at least in the modern era.

Remember when recon flew into Gert they could never find a circulation center? They just assumed that one must exist somewhere.

That's true.. but they recorded 53 kt even though they couldn't reach the center before landfall. it is pretty tough to get 53 kt in a slow-moving system without some sort of closed circulation!!! It wasn't a fluke report as they measured 47 kt as mentioned in the fcst discussion below. I'd pick on some 35 kt system before I'd tacke Gert

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/di ... .007.shtml?

Squalls in a tropical wave can easily produce 53kt winds. Doesn't prove it had a closed LLC. Recon was in Gert long before landfall, and they reported back that they couldn't find a circulation center but the winds were at/above TS strength. I think Gert's circulation was fairly well-established aloft but that it lacked a clear LLC. So the upgrade was questionable, in my opinion. Grace was probably the better example, though. Clearly an open wave in the NW Gulf but producing TS-force winds on the deepwater platforms so the NHC upgraded it.

Well, at:

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/recon/2 ... 24.dat.txt

Seems like they have 270 degree winds at above 40 kt at a few obs times between 1406-1408Z. I sincerely doubt that this was purely squall-like in nature. Ever seen a tropical wave with T.S. force winds on the south side and it not be closed? Seems pretty dern unlikely to me.

In a later mission:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/recon/2 ... 24.dat.txt
There was a huge area of winds above 35 kt from 2315z to 2351z on the n side of Gert. Radar also showed decent circulation.. I just don't think the second plane made it there before landfall.

I won't bother arguing about Grace cuz that was a nasty system And a marginal TC to say the least.

[gatorcane]

Great points Watkins. Here is another thing to consider - I am seeing some of us drawing comparisons to weather patterns we saw in the Spring of 2004 (dry May, strong Bermuda High (only March though)...

What Benny says (in another thread) is also interesting - another reason to support a possible CV season (late starting) like 2004:

But the pattern change is causing a huge surface/low-level high to build for mid/late in the week:

http://www.nco.ncep.noaa.gov/pmb/nwprod ... n_108m.gif
http://www.nco.ncep.noaa.gov/pmb/nwprod ... 0_108m.gif

strong surface high combined with a strong upper trough in the tropical Atlantic = more shear in the deep tropical atlantic. I'm just pointing out it is different than we have seen in quite a while. I'm not sure what it means. We didn't see it much in 2005 that's for sure! I would say 2004 or 1996 is what this year is resembling to me.. but who knows really

That year we didn't see our first storm until July 31st and then bang.