Is it possible that 2005 was the end of the active cycle?

[Steve]

Someone put out this very same thread last within the last 10 days. Someone should link it.

[srainhoutx]

It's August 2nd and we are above average in terms of activity.

Not every year is 1996 or 2005 where we have long tracking major hurricanes in July.

Thank God. I never want to live that stress again. 8 evacuations in 2 years (04-05) were enough for a lifetime. One major reasoned why I sold properties in Lower Keys and moved back to TX. And 100 miles from the coast. Never a storm surge for me again.

[Extremeweatherguy]

It's August 2nd and we are above average in terms of activity.

Not every year is 1996 or 2005 where we have long tracking major hurricanes in July.

Thank God. I never want to live that stress again. 8 evacuations in 2 years (04-05) were enough for a lifetime. One major reasoned why I sold properties in Lower Keys and moved back to TX. And 100 miles from the coast. Never a storm surge for me again.

Well NW Houston is more like 75 miles to the coast...but yes, no storm surge for you here. Must be a truly great feeling after all that trouble in the Keys.

[wxman57]

There's a common misunderstanding as to what the "active cycle" means. It doesn't mean more named storms, it means a greater percentage of the named storms reach hurricane and major hurricane status. During the last "active cycle" (1926-1969), there were actually slightly fewer named storms than during the last "inactive cycle" (1970-1994) though part of the reason for that is the lack of satellite coverage prior to 1970. Regardless, during an active cycle we'd expect to see 4-5 major hurricanes per season vs. 1.5-2 majors per season during the inactive (cool) cycle of the AMO. As we move deeper into the current warm-phase AMO, I expect that the average number of named storms per season will drop to near 12 (about normal) but the average number of major hurricanes will be 4-5 per season. That's what happened during the 1940s-1960s when the U.S. was hit by quite a few very disastrous major hurricanes. So don't expect the big numbers in the future, but more of the major hurricanes that form will hit the U.S. Florida will be at particularly high risk over the next 2 decades.

[Ptarmigan]

There's a common misunderstanding as to what the "active cycle" means. It doesn't mean more named storms, it means a greater percentage of the named storms reach hurricane and major hurricane status. During the last "active cycle" (1926-1969), there were actually slightly fewer named storms than during the last "inactive cycle" (1970-1994) though part of the reason for that is the lack of satellite coverage prior to 1970. Regardless, during an active cycle we'd expect to see 4-5 major hurricanes per season vs. 1.5-2 majors per season during the inactive (cool) cycle of the AMO. As we move deeper into the current warm-phase AMO, I expect that the average number of named storms per season will drop to near 12 (about normal) but the average number of major hurricanes will be 4-5 per season. That's what happened during the 1940s-1960s when the U.S. was hit by quite a few very disastrous major hurricanes. So don't expect the big numbers in the future, but more of the major hurricanes that form will hit the U.S. Florida will be at particularly high risk over the next 2 decades.

You do raise a good point. Some seasons produce numerous storms, but only a few become hurricanes and just one a major hurricane, like 1978 and 1990.
Let's compare total recorded storms by decade.
Total Storms Recorded
1940s=93/50/21
1950s=105/69/40
1960s=95/61/27
1970s=93/49/16
1980s=90/52/17
1990s=108/54/25
2000s (Up to 2007)=113/57/27

Average
1940s=9.3/5.0/2.1
1950s=10/5.0/6.9/4
1960s=9.5/6.1/2.7
1970s=9.3/4.9/1.6
1980s=9/5.2/1.7
1990s=10.8/5.4/2.5
2000s (Up to 2007)=14.1/7.1/3.4

ACE Total
1940s=774
1950s=1219
1960s=1162
1970s=595
1980s=753
1990s=1064
2000s (Up to 2007)=1016.38

ACE Average
1940s=77.4
1950s=121.9
1960s=116.2
1970s=59.5
1980s=75.3
1990s=106.4
2000s (Up to 2007)=127.0475

[crazycajuncane]

It doesn't make sense to make comparisons this early in the season.

2005 brought out the "tropical bug" so to speak. It was a remarkable year and one we won't forget for a long time. 2005 was also not an average year.

2006 was a fortunate change, but I don't think 2007 will be a direct repeat.

So far we are on average for 2007. We haven't even begun to hit the peak of the season.

Patience...

[Annie Oakley]

Forgive me....what is 'AMO'? Thanks........
Rank Amateur lol

[LSU2001]

Here you go.
Tim


The AMO is an ongoing series of long-duration changes in the sea surface temperature of the North Atlantic Ocean, with cool and warm phases that may last for 20-40 years at a time and a difference of about 1°F between extremes. These changes are natural and have been occurring for at least the last 1,000 years.

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/amo_faq.php

[Ptarmigan]

Forgive me....what is 'AMO'? Thanks........
Rank Amateur lol

AMO=Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
It's the cycle when Atlantic is in the cool and warm phase. Warmer phase means more stronger hurricanes.

[Ptarmigan]

It doesn't make sense to make comparisons this early in the season.

2005 brought out the "tropical bug" so to speak. It was a remarkable year and one we won't forget for a long time. 2005 was also not an average year.

2006 was a fortunate change, but I don't think 2007 will be a direct repeat.

So far we are on average for 2007. We haven't even begun to hit the peak of the season.

Patience...

2006 was more of an average hurricane season. We are to used to a really active season from 2000 to 2005.

[Frank2]

True enough - in the "inactive" 1970's and '80s, there were still the big systems (Eloise, David, Frederic, Allen, etc.,), but, only a handful in that 20 year period...

People were so traumatized by '04, and especially '05, that they worry this will be true every year - what doesn't help are those who compare Global Warming with more frequent cyclones - the sure thing is that no one is sure...

I was out driving at lunchtime, and, happened to hear Paul Harvey (on the radio) mentioning that this year's CSU hurricane "guesstimate" (his favorite term) was lowered...

I agree with him, when it comes to what term is used to describe the entire issue...

[Extremeweatherguy]

Keep in mind that 2007 is more active to date than 2004 was. The "C" name for that year (and we all know who that was) didn't form until August 9th.

I think 2007 will end up being very similar with a huge explosion in activity occuring later on in the month and continuing through September. JB's prediction of an average of 1.5 named storms per week starting around August 15th sounds about right to me.

[vacanechaser]

look, lets not forget 2001- chantal formed on august 14th...2000-beryl formed on auast 13th... 1999-bret auagust 18th...1998-bonnie formed on august 19th.. see a trend???? the average hurricane season starts later... thats just a few years i looked up in recent years... i would not worry until august 20th or so if we dont start seeing things pick up.... 2003-2005 were years outside the norm... i guess 2005 could have ended the active period but not likely... not every year is going to be active right out of the gate... thats why the peak is known to be from august 15th trough october really...

Jesse V. Bass III
http://www.vastormphoto.com
Hurricane Intercept Research Team

[ajaxw]

A one year break does not the end of an active cycle make.