2005 vs 1933....can it happen???

[SouthernWx]

I believe there's a good chance 2005 will rival 1933 for the most active Atlantic hurricane season of record. If TD 5 becomes Emily, that will match the most active May-July period of record (five named storms before August 1st)........with three full weeks left in July to break the record.....and the 12z GFS jumping all over a wave coming behind TD 5; if it verifies, we could have more named storms (6) by mid-July than has ever occurred by the END of July.

The reason? Atmospheric conditions in the deep tropics are very favorable for development......why we're witnessing "August-like" hurricanes in early July. That IMO isn't going to change as we head into the heart of hurricane season.......those near record warm sst's aren't going to cool.....they'll grow warmer, the warm ocean becoming warmer deeper and farther north.

IMO this is a record breaking hurricane season underway.......we've already witnessed the most intense July Atlantic hurricane of record....the most intense landfalling U.S. July hurricane of record (943 mb)......and the first landfalling major hurricane during July since before most here were born (1936). Already 2005 has saw a landfalling hurricane (Dennis-943 mb) with a central pressure below 945 mb......2004 (Charley- 941 mb) and 2005 becoming the first back-to-back years that has occurred since 1960 & 1961 (Donna- 930 mb & Carla- 931 mb).

If you'd been alive in 1933, IMO this is what you'd have witnessed.......except this could be even worse. In 1933, all three major landfalling U.S. hurricanes were cat-3's. I'm deeply concerned this season may end with a couple cat-4's or even a cat-5 landfalling hurricane somewhere along the U.S. coastline. I'm a hurricane enthusiast who loves to watch big canes......but I'm worried. We were lucky again yesterday with the core of Dennis missing highly populated metro areas......but how much longer is that good luck going to hold?

PW

http://community-2.webtv.net/SouthernWx61/Hurricane

[Derek Ortt]

and we're about to go 5 for 5

[Huckster]

Notice how LA/MS/Al were still not touched.

Exactly the first thing that came to mind! I would say maybe the same scenario, but Cindy already hit Louisiana... so no go.

Right. Notice that clustering of storms along the southern Texas/Mexico coast in 1933. What would be really bad for us in Louisiana to Florida is if this clustering of Arlene, Cindy, and Dennis is just the beginning. Imagine a clustering of landfalling storms like 1933, but this time just repositioned farther northeast. I'm not saying I think that's going to happen, just an idea I'm throwing out for consideration.

[drezee]

and we're about to go 5 for 5

Interesting...

[gatorcane]

the number of storms in 1933 and 2005 may be the same but the difference is that the steering pattern in 2005 looks like it will be largely governed by a very strong western Atlantic ridge, which began last year. If you look at the 2004 tracks, you can see how the ridge steered many storms in the same general direction. In 1933, the tracks are all over the place

[drudd1]

the number of storms in 1933 and 2005 may be the same but the difference is that the steering pattern in 2005 looks like it will be largely governed by a very strong western Atlantic ridge, which began last year. If you look at the 2004 tracks, you can see how the ridge steered many storms in the same general direction. In 1933, the tracks are all over the place

I wonder though, given that it was 1933, how confident can we be that those were the actual tracks. It's a no brainer with today's technology, but in 1933????

[weatherwindow]

boca....take a look at the general westward bias of the tracks in 1933. IMO, that is evidence of a killer ridge. when 19 of 21 make landfall, that suggests the relative westward placement of a strong, persistent bermuda high. perhaps, that many tracks on one map can obscure things..."forest for the trees" sort of thing...but 1933 made 2004 look trofy by comparison.......rich

[HURAKAN]

Just one thing to say, if it happened one time in recorded history, two times is possible!

[btangy]

none formed in the E atlantic

Many of them probably formed in the E Atlantic, but there are no observations (and definitely no satellite) to establilsh the genesis point, so the best track data represents the genesis point where there was first evidence (e.g. a ship observation) a tropical cyclone was in the vicinity. There's a lot of guess work when it comes to reconstructing the TC record pre-satellite era. Chris Landsea and company has been doing an excellent job though.