1933 hurricane season, more storms?

[arkestra]

Hi!
Regarding to the technology in 1933, I wonder how many storms could not have been detected in addition to the 21 known. Is there some research about the past seasons? And if any, what are the tools used for this?

[Ptarmigan]

Hi. Welcome to S2K. I would not be all that surprised if 1933 had more than 21 storms. I can't say how many storms went undetected in 1933. Many records before satellites were used are suspect. The 1914 season only had one tropical storm recorded and that's unlikely that there was only one storm that season. Many were probably fish storms that went out to sea and never hit land. There were no satellites back then and most storms were detected by ships. There are research about past seasons which is re-analysis. Hopefully, one of our pro-mets fill it in. That would explain why some hurricanes get upgraded or downgraded later, like Hurricane Andrew.

[wxman57]

Take a look at this slide from one of Chris Landsea's presentations comparing the 2005 tracks to 1933. Back in 1933, many storms went undetected out in the open ocean, particularly short-lived storms and early/late-season storms that may have been thought non-tropical in nature. Chris Landsa and Roger Pielke estimate that over 3 storms per year were missed, on average, prior to 1965 when satellite coverage began. In 1933, that number may have been a good bit higher:

[Ptarmigan]

My guess is that 1933 could of had as many as 28 to 35 storms, as WXMan57 points out, the eastern Atlantic is not cluttered. I would not be surprised if 1933 had at least one Category 5 hurricane.

[MGC]

I would not be surprised if 1933 had a few storms that eluded detection. Who knows 2005 may not have been the most active season. How many of 2005's named systems would have escaped detection without satellites?......MGC

[Ptarmigan]

I would not be surprised if 1933 had a few storms that eluded detection. Who knows 2005 may not have been the most active season. How many of 2005's named systems would have escaped detection without satellites?......MGC

If we did not have satellites today, dozens of storms could of eluded detection in 2005. Also, 1886 and 1887 are very active as well. Here are seasons I tend to think they are more active than recorded besides 1933.
1886-12/10/4
1887-19/12/2
1893-12/10/5
1916-14/11/6
1926-11/8/6

I tend to think these seasons were more active than what is recorded.

[arkestra]

And what about fish storms prior to 1965, such as Dog... They were detected by boat, plane? If statistics are only reliable since 1965, it means that our knowledge is only rough trends. By the way, can the meaning of 2005 be less significant, even with 2003 and 2004 in the background?