Klotzbach and Gray: Above Average Season for 2007

#1 Postby **MWatkins** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:55 am

http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/Fo ... 6/dec2006/

Please move this under the other post if necessary...

MW

#2 Postby **HURAKAN** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 11:34 am

The forecast seems reasonable. El Niño should dissipate by the middle of next year taking us into a hurricane season with neutral conditions. It's above average to the long-term, but just average according to what we have experienced over the past 12 seasons (1995 - 2006). We will be having three new names to use, Andrea, Ingrid, and Melissa.

#3 Postby **wxman57** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 12:09 pm

Probably the most significant factor as far as the lower number of named storms in 2006 was the much stronger than normal Bermuda High in June through August. The stronger trades meant more shear and much more dust blowing off the coast of Africa. If their predictions of lower sea-level pressures in the subtropical Atlantic are correct, then there would be more named storms than normal. The pattern is one that would favor a signficant hit on the east U.S. coast from Florida to the Carolinas.

#4 Postby **Andrew92** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 1:02 pm

In other words, if this forecast is true, look out for Hurricane Humberto in September! :eek:

Gray and Klotzbach's forecast is one I can agree with. I've been thinking for a while that the El Nino would not last into the hurricane season of 2007. Yes, it still very well could, but with the likelihood of that not happening, I would go for an active season next year, with a blockbuster hurricane likely. And, though somewhat off-topic, like I said, my pick for the big one is Humberto (IMO the scariest of any name on any list).

-Andrew92

#5 Postby **MGC** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 2:23 pm

A quote from the report:

"Seven out of the eight seasons following El Nino years were active Atlantic hurricanes season"

So the key here is the status of the current El Nino event come late summer in the Atlantic basin. If El Nino lingers a bit longer than expected (which I hope) the numbers like the 2006 season will be lower......MGC

#6 Postby **JonathanBelles** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 2:34 pm

if you look at the verification for 2005 at the bottom of the report it says there were 26 TS's, there were 28. why were there only 26 noted?

rainstorm · #7 Postby **rainstorm** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 5:02 pm

i think its best to wait till may to make predictions.

Josephine96 · #8 Postby **Josephine96** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 5:34 pm

I'm still wondering what Andrea's gonna be like.. If she's anything like my special someone lol she'll probably be a pussy cat.. but we'll see.. Be careful what I wish for..

#9 Postby **cycloneye** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 7:00 am

I prefer to wait a few months to see how the factors will evolve especially ENSO.That is why I every year I pay more attention to the April outlook from the Colorado State University folks than the december one.

Lindaloo · #10 Postby **Lindaloo** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 11:24 am

Oh this just warms my heart. NOT!

I understand the outlook but just because they say there will be an above average season, does not mean we will see a landfalling hurricane on the United States coastlines. Am I wrong?

AussieMark · #11 Postby **AussieMark** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:43 pm

Bingo 2000 and 2001 were above average years but not 1 hurricane crossed the coast in those years.

altho 2001 did have Tropical Storm Allison

#12 Postby **hial2** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:53 pm

Lindaloo wrote:Oh this just warms my heart. NOT!

I understand the outlook but just because they say there will be an above average season, does not mean we will see a landfalling hurricane on the United States coastlines. Am I wrong?

The % chance of hitting some part of the US mainland is greater than average, according to the report....

Lindaloo · #13 Postby **Lindaloo** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 5:58 pm

Thanks hial.

#14 Postby **wxman57** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 6:14 pm

Consider these "inactive" seasons of the past when reading anything into the number of named storms forecast. It takes only one bad hit to make for a very bad season. Had Gordon or Helene hit the U.S. it would have been perceived as a devastating season.

Lindaloo · #15 Postby **Lindaloo** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 8:38 pm

How many in 1985? We had Elena on the MS Gulf Coast.

#16 Postby **cycloneye** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:02 pm

Lindaloo wrote:How many in 1985? We had Elena on the MS Gulf Coast.

Linda,only 11 named storms in that year.Again it demonstrates that it has not has to be an active season to have landfalls,as it only takes one.

#17 Postby **AnnularCane** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:16 pm

I used to think of 11 named storms as an active season (number-wise). Now it seems sort of slow. :wink:

Lindaloo · #18 Postby **Lindaloo** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 10:00 pm

Thanks Luis.

AussieMark · #19 Postby **AussieMark** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:59 am

wasn't 1979 a fairly active season with landfalls

Hurricanes: Bob,David, Frederic
Tropical Storms: Claudette and Elena

#20 Postby **wxman57** » Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:50 pm

1979: 8 named storms, 1 subtgropical storm identified post-season. Rather "quiet" season if not for all the landfalls. ;-)

We got 44" of rain in 24 hours from Claudette just south of Houston. Frederick made landfall as a Cat 3 on the MS/AL border.

Again, it doesn't take 12, 15, or 20 named storms to make for a very bad season. The total number of named storms is meaningless, generally. Fun to try to guess, but meaningless.

1979:
http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atl ... index.html

Klotzbach and Gray: Above Average Season for 2007

Klotzbach and Gray: Above Average Season for 2007

Who is online