Anyone remember this? What a statement....

[hurricanetrack]

From Dr. William Gray on December 3, 2004:

"We foresee a slightly above-average hurricane season for the Atlantic basin in 2005. Also, an above-average probability of U.S. major hurricane landfall is anticipated. We do not, however, expect anything close to the U.S. landfalling hurricane activity of 2004. "

No- it will be worse....far worse...

[Vandora]

Boy, I was that were true (the way he meant it, not the way it happened, like you said).

[jkt21787]

We foresee a slightly above-average hurricane season for the Atlantic basin in 2005.

Oops.

We do not, however, expect anything close to the U.S. landfalling hurricane activity of 2004.

Double Oops.

[Jim Cantore]

I wontder If he'd like to change his mind

[brunota2003]

Yep, you can no longer describe this hurricane season, and that is a feat in its own, I have tried to find words to describe it, but so far, every word has missed the mark, has been to weak...even HOLY CRAP, or just WOW dont come close...

[HURAKAN]

People have been asking me about next season. They want to know if it's going to be much more active than this one. They say they heard that in the TV. My answer is that next season, according to all the enviromental factors, the 2006 season should be above normal. It's impossible to predict that next season will be more active than this one, or we should start hurricane season by mid April!

[quandary]

2005 Landfalls were bad... but they really didn't blow 2004 out of the water. In terms of landfalls, things were matched more or less blow for blow. 2005 comes out slightly ahead. However, 2005 had slightly more precision and damage was exponentially greater.

Significant Landfalls (meteorological standpoint - 2004 vs 2005)
2004:
Alex (1)
Charley (4)
Frances (2+)
Gaston (1)
Ivan (3)
Jeanne (3)

2005:
Arlene/Cindy (1-)
Dennis (3)
Katrina (4+)
Rita (3)
Wilma (3)

In terms of landfall intensity, Alex out balances Arlene and Cindy, Frances and Gaston match nicely with Dennis. Charley matches with Katrina and Wilma and Rita match with Ivan and Jeanne.

The only thing is that Katrina had a Cat 5 pressure and was a strong Cat 5 right before landfall. It also hit a location where it could cause maximum damage. So 2005 has a clear edge over 2004... but in terms of landfall on the US, they are more or less matched.

[Bgator]

2005 Landfalls were bad... but they really didn't blow 2004 out of the water. In terms of landfalls, things were matched more or less blow for blow. 2005 comes out slightly ahead. However, 2005 had slightly more precision and damage was exponentially greater.

Significant Landfalls (meteorological standpoint - 2004 vs 2005)
2004:
Alex (1)
Charley (4)
Frances (2+)
Gaston (1)
Ivan (3)
Jeanne (3)

2005:
Arlene/Cindy (1-)
Dennis (3)
Katrina (4+)
Rita (3)
Wilma (3)

In terms of landfall intensity, Alex out balances Arlene and Cindy, Frances and Gaston match nicely with Dennis. Charley matches with Katrina and Wilma and Rita match with Ivan and Jeanne.

The only thing is that Katrina had a Cat 5 pressure and was a strong Cat 5 right before landfall. It also hit a location where it could cause maximum damage. So 2005 has a clear edge over 2004... but in terms of landfall on the US, they are more or less matched.

Did ophelia ever make true landfall?!

[inotherwords]

From Dr. William Gray on December 3, 2004:

"We foresee a slightly above-average hurricane season for the Atlantic basin in 2005. Also, an above-average probability of U.S. major hurricane landfall is anticipated. We do not, however, expect anything close to the U.S. landfalling hurricane activity of 2004. "

No- it will be worse....far worse...

To be fair, he revised this statement after this date and before the season started to indicate much higher activity.

[wxmann_91]

2005 Landfalls were bad... but they really didn't blow 2004 out of the water. In terms of landfalls, things were matched more or less blow for blow. 2005 comes out slightly ahead. However, 2005 had slightly more precision and damage was exponentially greater.

Significant Landfalls (meteorological standpoint - 2004 vs 2005)
2004:
Alex (1)
Charley (4)
Frances (2+)
Gaston (1)
Ivan (3)
Jeanne (3)

2005:
Arlene/Cindy (1-)
Dennis (3)
Katrina (4+)
Rita (3)
Wilma (3)

In terms of landfall intensity, Alex out balances Arlene and Cindy, Frances and Gaston match nicely with Dennis. Charley matches with Katrina and Wilma and Rita match with Ivan and Jeanne.

The only thing is that Katrina had a Cat 5 pressure and was a strong Cat 5 right before landfall. It also hit a location where it could cause maximum damage. So 2005 has a clear edge over 2004... but in terms of landfall on the US, they are more or less matched.

Did ophelia ever make true landfall?!

Ophelia never really made landfall.

And neither did Alex.

[Derek Ortt]

He was technically correct

last year, we had the following landfalls and direct hits

Cat 4: 1
Cat 3: 2
Cat 2: 2
Cat 1: 2
TS: 4

7 cane landfalls, and 4 TS landfalls

This year

Cat 4: 0 (Assuming Katrina is lowered to a 3 as it is likely to be)
Cat 3: 4 (Unless Rita is lowered to a strong cat 2, as is NOT expected)
Cat 2: 1 (Rita in Keys)
Cat 1: 2 (3 if Cindy is made a cane)
TS: 3

If we give 1 pt for a TS, and 6 for a cat 5, we come up with the following totals (2005 unofficial until BT is made available)

2004: 27 pts
2005: 26 pts


main difference: In 2005, the storms hit major metro areas (new Orleans, Miami, Lauderdale, West Palm Beach), while in 2004, only Orlando was impacted

[wxmann_91]

We do not, however, expect anything close to the U.S. landfalling hurricane activity of 2004.

Even if we did not surpass the landfalling hurricane activity of 2004, we did get close. But then again the key word is "expect". Did anybody expect to get to Beta this year? Or have the W storm as the new pressure record and intensification record for the Atlantic? Or have three Cat 5's? I don't think so.

[mtm4319]

He was technically correct

Not unless you don't consider 26 "close" to 27.

[recmod]

Did ophelia ever make true landfall?!

Ophelia never really made landfall.

And neither did Alex.

I don't understand how anyone can say that Ophelia did not make landfall. Take a look at the following satellite image:



A portion of the eye (NOT the EYEWALL) has clearly passed over the outer banks. What determines a landfall?....Does the geographic CENTER of the eye itself have to strike the coast?? Looking at that above satellite picture, it sure looks to me like someone standing on the outer banks would be experiencing the calm of the extreme northwest portion of the eye.

Any input by pro mets as to what defines a "landfall"????

--Lou

[brunota2003]

the center of the eye has to make landfall unfortunely...

[Weatherfreak14]

yeah I even have a radar pic of making landfall. To lazy to post it tough.

[wxmann_91]

I think at least half of the eye has to be over land for it to be defined a true landfall.

However, both Ophelia and Alex are considered direct hits. But neither really did make true landfall.

[quandary]

Wow that was a nice picture of Ophelia... I don't ever remember her lookin that good.

[quandary]

Wow, I was looking over the old advisories and even with that presentation, the NHC only had her at 75kts (85mph).

[f5]

He was technically correct

last year, we had the following landfalls and direct hits

Cat 4: 1
Cat 3: 2
Cat 2: 2
Cat 1: 2
TS: 4

7 cane landfalls, and 4 TS landfalls

This year

Cat 4: 0 (Assuming Katrina is lowered to a 3 as it is likely to be)
Cat 3: 4 (Unless Rita is lowered to a strong cat 2, as is NOT expected)
Cat 2: 1 (Rita in Keys)
Cat 1: 2 (3 if Cindy is made a cane)
TS: 3

If we give 1 pt for a TS, and 6 for a cat 5, we come up with the following totals (2005 unofficial until BT is made available)

2004: 27 pts
2005: 26 pts


main difference: In 2005, the storms hit major metro areas (new Orleans, Miami, Lauderdale, West Palm Beach), while in 2004, only Orlando was impacted

lowering Katrina to a CAT 3 with concrete slabs won't fix anything