Eleven years of hyper activity In Atlantic Basin

[boca]

If are season ends up with 9 or 10 storms would that break our 11 year stretch of above average season and throw out the theory of 20 to 40 years of the increased activity cycle. I guess we can have slow seasons in an active cycle but few and far between. Is this cycle of increased activity valid or do we just take one season at a time and throw out the theories.

[Aquawind]

I guess we can have slow seasons in an active cycle but few and far between.

There ya go. El Nino seasons and anomilies for plenty of reasons are going to happen. No biggie. I like the break..

[AussieMark]

1997 and 2002 were el nino years

1997: 8/3/1

2002: 12/4/2

both were el nino years

all the other years were above average by a considerable margin based on the 10/6/2 average

1995: 19/11/5
1996: 13/9/6
1998: 14/10/3
1999: 12/8/5
2000: 14/8/3
2001: 15/9/4
2003: 16/7/3
2004: 15/9/6
2005: 28/15/7

[canegrl04]

In 2000 and 2001 there was alot of shear preventing hurricanes from developing in the Carribean. and GOM.There were no US landfalling canes

[Scorpion]

In 2002 our first major didn't occur until September 21. I expect this season to be similar. I don't know why though, since there is no verified El Nino like 2002.

[Sanibel]

As I've been repeating over and over - there's actually a historical precedence for this in the year following the record year of 1933. 1934 also had a weak showing of a limited number of storms. If 2006 is weak it will be analogue for this.

[johnq1954]

As I've been repeating over and over - there's actually a historical precedence for this in the year following the record year of 1933. 1934 also had a weak showing of a limited number of storms. If 2006 is weak it will be analogue for this.

1934 was also the beginning of the worst years of the Dust Bowl Drought in the US (1934-39). Recent studies have shown distinctive SSTs in both the Atlantic and Pacific contribute to major US droughts.

We have been having a significant drought in the Plains this year, just as we did in 1934, 1954-56 and 1988-89.

When we have a major drought, there is a distinctive pattern to major hurricane frequency (down), and strike patterns (East coast of the US and Mexico/central America).

[LaBreeze]

I say take one season at a time and throw out the theories. Just a personal opinion however.

[SouthFloridawx]

If are season ends up with 9 or 10 storms would that break our 11 year stretch of above average season and throw out the theory of 20 to 40 years of the increased activity cycle. I guess we can have slow seasons in an active cycle but few and far between. Is this cycle of increased activity valid or do we just take one season at a time and throw out the theories.

Boca,
Although I enjoy reading your posts, I think we should wait till the end of the season till declare that this is the end of a 20-40 year cycles. Besides, we won't know until the 20-40 years is over and the below average period begins.

I think there was another post in this forum about this same topic.

[gatorcane]

just remember though - we still have alot of Sept and Oct to go.

I know for South Florida, October is the worst month for us

[THead]

just remember though - we still have alot of Sept and Oct to go.

I know for South Florida, October is the worst month for us

If it wasn't before, it is after last year!!

[gatorcane]

just remember though - we still have alot of Sept and Oct to go.

I know for South Florida, October is the worst month for us

If it wasn't before, it is after last year!!

actually, October has historically been the worst month for South Florida, last year was a good example of what could happen.

[wxman57]

If our season ends up with 9 or 10 storms would that break our 11 year stretch of above average season and throw out the theory of 20 to 40 years of the increased activity cycle. I guess we can have slow seasons in an active cycle but few and far between. Is this cycle of increased activity valid or do we just take one season at a time and throw out the theories.

I've done considerable research on hurricane activity. The "active" period of the 1940s-1960s DID NOT have more named storms than the "inactive" periods (1900-1925 and 1970-1994). In fact, the number of named storms from 1926-1969 averaged about 0.1 lower per season. The "active" part refers to only the number of major hurricanes. There were twice as many major hurricanes in the 1940s-1960s than in the cool Atlantic cycles.

So don't expect 15-20 named storms to be the norm in the future. More likely, 11-13 will be the new normal. The additional 1-3 storms per season would be due to the naming of subtropical storms and better detection of storm sway out to sea compared to the 1940s-1960s.

[wxmann_91]

If are season ends up with 9 or 10 storms would that break our 11 year stretch of above average season and throw out the theory of 20 to 40 years of the increased activity cycle. I guess we can have slow seasons in an active cycle but few and far between. Is this cycle of increased activity valid or do we just take one season at a time and throw out the theories.

No, I still believe the active period will continue. These periods are determined by ACE, and if you look at the graph of ACE of each hurricane season since 1950, you will notice there will be active years in quiet periods, and quiet years in active periods. AMO is a huge factor in how active a particular season will be, but other oscillations, such as MJO, ENSO, and QBO will have an effect as well.

[JonathanBelles]

If are season ends up with 9 or 10 storms would that break our 11 year stretch of above average season and throw out the theory of 20 to 40 years of the increased activity cycle. I guess we can have slow seasons in an active cycle but few and far between. Is this cycle of increased activity valid or do we just take one season at a time and throw out the theories.

i dont think it will throw out the theroy of incresed activity because it is just a bump in the road

[Derek Ortt]

factually inaccurate, Boca

1997 and 2002 had below activity

Plus, there are lulls within active periods. There is also some evidence that we may be entering into a 1500 year active cycle, though this is controversial and totally unproven as of yet

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

This is a inactive period with in a active one. Heck the whole world is inactive right now.

[JonathanBelles]

take the bad with the good ie 2005-2006

[Jim Cantore]

1997 and 2002 were el nino years

1997: 8/3/1

2002: 12/4/2

both were el nino years

all the other years were above average by a considerable margin based on the 10/6/2 average

1995: 19/11/5
1996: 13/9/6
1998: 14/10/3
1999: 12/8/5
2000: 14/8/3
2001: 15/9/4
2003: 16/7/3
2004: 15/9/6
2005: 28/15/7

hmmm, notice you skipped 1997 eh? 7/3/1

[AussieMark]

1997 and 2002 were el nino years

1997: 8/3/1

2002: 12/4/2

both were el nino years

all the other years were above average by a considerable margin based on the 10/6/2 average

1995: 19/11/5
1996: 13/9/6
1998: 14/10/3
1999: 12/8/5
2000: 14/8/3
2001: 15/9/4
2003: 16/7/3
2004: 15/9/6
2005: 28/15/7

hmmm, notice you skipped 1997 eh? 7/3/1

altho I said 8/3/1 instead of 7/3/1