Active Period Miscalculation?

[Jim Hughes]

Anyway..

There does seem to be something to Multi Decadal Signal. It's more of a trend than anything..there will stil be slow seasons ( not saying 2006 will be slow - still way too early to tell)

Some light reading on the subject

Exactly. Every year is not going to be an extreme just because we are in a heightened period. Just like a wet year can occur during a decadal dry period.

[fci]

Frank:
I totaly respect your posts and experience as I do Mike Matkins' too.

Having said that, in my opinion you are greatly overreacting here.
I don't personally know you or Mike so I have ZERO inherent biases.

When I read Mike Watkin's post, I was amused that this exact conversation took place last year at this time. It seems natural that it would take place at this point in the season anyway since it is right before the "supposed" active period and a great time to sit back, reflect and wonder where we are headed.

I saw nothing of a slam at you.
None whatsoever.
I saw NO LACK OF PROFESSIONALISM on MIke's part.

In fact after you complained and asked for an apology, I re-read the entire thread to see if I missed something. I don't think I did!

If you don' tlike S2K it is your surely your choice..
If you indictment of the site is due to your perception that you are being "dissed" I think you are misguided.

fci (Dave)

[kenl01]

Actually in the long term, hurricane intensity (Atlantic wide) and landfalls in the US have decreased ever since 1900:

So where is the increase in Hurricanes? The data below (derived from data at the National Hurricane Center site) shows the number of Hurricanes making landfall in the United States in each of the three 50-year periods from 1850 to 2000. What a decrease, especially since 1950:

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml#history

Additionally, the National Hurricane Center Web site says that the peak for major hurricanes was between 1930 and 1950, when storms averaged nine per year; today, the average is three. Nor is hurricane strength intensifying; since the 1940s, the mean maximum intensity has actually decreased.

The 1940s were rather busy, the 70s the quietest, and the 1990s pretty close to the long-term average. A simple linear fit suggests a decrease over time. This is a result echoed by Easterling, et al (2000), who said, 'the number of intense and landfalling Atlantic hurricanes has declined.' In the Gulf of Mexico there is 'no sign of an increase in hurricane frequency or intensity,' according to Bove, et al (1998). For the North Atlantic as a whole, according to the United Nations Environment Programme of the World Meteorological Organization, 'Reliable data … since the 1940s indicate that the peak strength of the strongest hurricanes has not changed, and the mean maximum intensity of all hurricanes has decreased.'"

Opinions or comments welcome. I know there will be some who will disagree, some will not. That's ok.

[KWT]

Hi Ken, very intresting posts but several things:

1: In terms of the 1850-1900 being most active yeah thats probably quite possible, howveer when you talk about the 1950-1999 period being queiter, you've got to remember we only had about 15 years overall in an active pattern, the other years was when we were in the quieter pattern. The real proof of your idea in that regards is to see what the 2000-2049 period comes out like because that should be split pretty fairly.

Secondly, where did you see that about 9 major hurricanes per a year, because that surely must be rubbish!!!
I do suspect that the 1930-1950 period was just as active as the 1995-2005 we've just seen however its most certainly not 3 times more active as you suggest I dare say!
what you probably are right on saying is there were probably more major hurricane landfalls in that period then what we've seen now but even that I question.

As for the Gulf of Mexico, I haven't really got any hard data to prove your wrong, howveer there can be no doubt that the gulf had a higher number of powerful hurricanes last year.

[bocadad]

I'd appreciate an apology from mwatkins...

I don't really understand why Mike owes you an apology. There is a big difference between sarcasm and irony. The posts from last year stand for themselves and are eerily similar to what some people are posting now. Whether or not this season ends up being a bust or above average, it would be short sighted to close out this hurricane season before we have even reached the normal peak of the season. Any other interpretation to Mike's post would, in my opinion, concern your own issues and not Mike's.

[KWT]

Further to that I've just looked at the numbers and came out at 2.2 majors per a year fopr the 1930-1950 period. Now I dare say there were systems missed so for fairness sake i'll raise that to 3.3 majros considering there must have been a fair few missed in the 30's and early 40's.

I just done the exact same thing for the 1995-2005 period and came out with a figure of 4.4 majors per season so at least the last 10 years have been more active when compared with the 20 years you mention Ken.

[Regit]

I'd appreciate an apology from mwatkins...

I tell you what. Let's make a deal.

At the end of the season, if there have been very few storms and you turn out to be correct in your feelings, you can bump this thread back up and say, "I was right, MWatkins' questioning of me was wrong."

Sound fair?

Now we can get back to the real topic of the thread.

[southerngale]

Frank2, I don't see where Mike did anything wrong and I find some of your comments about s2k to be quite rude. It's irony, nothing more, nothing less. If you'll notice, even in that thread from a year ago, someone commented they had seen a similar thread the year before. The same thing happens every single year and people write off seasons too early. I don't see how it's unprofessional for Mike to bring back an old thread to make a point. He did not call out or poke fun at anyone in particular and I believe everyone else saw it for the irony it was. I can see where an apology is owed, but not by Mike.

[SouthFloridawx]

I'd appreciate an apology from mwatkins...

I tell you what. Let's make a deal.
At the end of the season, if there have been very few storms and you turn out to be correct in your feelings, you can bump this thread back up and say, "I was right, MWatkins' questioning of me was wrong."
Sound fair?
Now we can get back to the real topic of the thread.

I don't think he needs to apologize to you. You posted the thread and with that you get positive and negative feedback. He was merely stationg that there were a lot of posts that were similar this year to last year. However last year didn't turn out to be inactive. It seems to me that some people have opinions that differ than others and for that I say. He said nothing disrespectful... Just stating facts and using a link to back it up.

[cycloneye]

Frank,the apology has to be the other way around.

[kenl01]

Further to that I've just looked at the numbers and came out at 2.2 majors per a year fopr the 1930-1950 period. Now I dare say there were systems missed so for fairness sake i'll raise that to 3.3 majros considering there must have been a fair few missed in the 30's and early 40's.

I just done the exact same thing for the 1995-2005 period and came out with a figure of 4.4 majors per season so at least the last 10 years have been more active when compared with the 20 years you mention Ken.

Well overall hurricane landfalls have decreased in THE LONG RUN. Yes the last two years were very active. But just because you have two active years does not really change the overall decrease since 1900 really. Also don't forget that hurricanes are not quite as strong at landfall than they used be 100 or more years ago either.

The last warm cycle (1945-55) produced a greater ratio of major hurricanes to total tropical cyclones than the current warm cycle (1995-2005).

Taking a look at the last warm cycle's burst of major hurricane activity compared to the current warm cycle, 19/115 (17%) of tropical cyclones reached at least Category 4 or 5 status in the 1945-55 period. In the 1995-2005 period, 28/164 (17%) of tropical cyclones have reached Category 4 or 5 status.

The broader measure of major hurricane formation (Category 3 or above) shows that such formation was more impressive during the peak of the last warm cycle than at present. During the 1945-55 period, 42/115 (37%) tropical cyclones grew into major hurricanes. So far, 1995-2005 (through Zeta) has seen 44/164 (27%) tropical cyclones grow into major hurricanes. Thus, the 1945-1955 period saw tropical cyclones grow into major hurricanes approximately 32% more often than the current warm period.

[gatorcane]

Frank,the apology has to be the other way around.

Frank Mike was just posting a fact so I agree with Cycloneye that Mike wasn't trying to be rude.

[hurricanetrack]

I will agree 100% with Frank that I too hope that we do not see a similar repeat with a tragic hurricane only a few days after any comment that this season is a dud. I really enjoy studying hurricanes when they make landfall but I really feel very bad when people are killed. I am not so worried about property as I am a true believer that if you live in hurricane prone areas you should have a plan to save or insure your property. It's the lives lost that get to me and contradicts my enjoyment of seeing a raw force of Nature at work. I just wanted to use sarcasm as a tool in my reply to Frank2 about such a bold statement as "it's very possible".

We are all getting a little anxious to see a named storm on the maps. No one is hoping for people to be killed and property wiped out- but unfortunately that comes with the very thing that we all enjoy tracking in one form or another. I believe we have some serious cabin fever going on here.

I would caution anyone from making attacks about one's personality or their professional career- past or present. Frank2 and everyone else has a right to post legit questions, comments or observations here and to that degree, we have a right to respond and use a reasonable amount of sarcasm at times- as long as it remains within the context of the original idea. I did just that with my response but would not question Frank2's career at the NHC. I know nothing about that so I have no business talking about it. Now, on with our regularly scheduled boring season....so far....

[HUC]

WAIT AND SEE..WAIT AND SEE...WAIT AND SEE ,and when this season will end we can understand what it HAS been.These season's outlook made a lot of people out of sens,believed that 6 months of weather can be seen like in a crital ball...
WAI AND SEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Regit]

I guess no one read my last post, so can I suggest again...

Back to topic.

I think this is an interesting thread.


That being said, I do think that this year will turn out to give us plenty of excitement. I doubt we'll see 20 storms, but it wouldn't be unheard of to go through a period of a few weeks where it seems like everything develops.

The following isn't based on any science, but this year sort of reminds me of 1999.

[sma10]

Personally, I think MWatkins post should be required reading for all board members.

Every season (without fail) there are a string of threads about how the season is a dud, Dr. Gray is gonna bust, etc, etc. And all of these "opinion-makers" seem to disappear in a puff of smoke when the season begins to kick in.

Frank2, of course you are entitled to your opinion. But do you feel that all opinons are entitled to no accountability whatsoever?

Suppose today I voiced the following opinion: "According to the signs I see in the Atlantic, I think it quite likely that from here on the season will turn out to be very very quiet." Now, let's say the season plays itself out and we end with 20 named storms. Don't you think I owe it to the S2K community to stand up and admit I was wrong before I start throwing in more "opinions."

One final thing. Frank you write about "the kids who just love destructive storms." I agree with you on this issue. It bothers me sometimes the utter glee and joy that some people let creep into their posts, especially when a strong hurricane appears headed for landfall.

However, your opposite personal bias, is just as bad. The only posts you ever seem to make are: "too much shear" "everything looks unfavorable" "that system doesn't have a chance" "looks like the season won't be so active", etc.

I empathize with how much your Andrew experience has shaped your views. But if the only reason you're going to frequent a tropical weather enthusiasts board is to let everyone know how bad tropical cyclones are, you might end up feeling a bit out of place.

[vacanechaser]

I would caution anyone from making attacks about one's personality or their professional career- past or present. Frank2 and everyone else has a right to post legit questions, comments or observations here and to that degree, we have a right to respond and use a reasonable amount of sarcasm at times- as long as it remains within the context of the original idea. I did just that with my response but would not question Frank2's career at the NHC. I know nothing about that so I have no business talking about it. Now, on with our regularly scheduled boring season....so far....

Point I am making here is that he wants to talk about professionalism, maybe he needs to think back to when he work at a very professional atmosphere. Thats my point. His comments were not very professional either.

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

[vbhoutex]

Back on the topic please!!!

If we don't get back on topic the thread will be deleted.

[wxmann_91]

Maybe active/inactive periods are marked with a hyperactive season?

Anybody know the years when each cycle started and ended? FWIW, the quiet cycle from 1970-1994 started inexplicably after a hyperactive year, 1969, and ended right before the crazy year of 1995.

Also, replying to wxman57's post on the first page of this thread, the old records IMO are inaccurate and I believe there was a bigger difference between the +AMO and -AMO cycles.

JMO. Am I saying that this is the beginning of a quiet period. NO. An observation that I first stated right after the 2005 season ended. Will it prove true? Probably not. It is still mid August. By the end of November, we will know.

[destro34]

i still say ...it will be active, goerge hit me on october 22, 1998. let us wait...things are changing now...when or how..time will tell..but i have a bad feeling about this season..ahhhh..it take only one