Possible Reason for High Activity?

[quandary]

Hey, I have a general question. Might the reason why there've been some many named storms this year be in part due to the fact that we did not have a Cape Verde season? My thoughts are that since there weren't a lot of long trackers dissapating energy and there was a huge amount of energy transfer, the result was that a lot more storms popped up. I mean, in 2005, even the super-storms, especially Rita and Katrina, didn't net much activity, meaning they didn't use up much heat. Emily drained some early, but nothing formed in her part of the world for much of the rest of the season, and Wilma did too, but that's probably part of the reason why the season shut down in that part of the world (NW Carrib, SE Gulf and E. Coast) after her. 2005 still hasn't matched 2004 in accumulated wind speed, which would be related directly to energy disspation disregarding the storm sizes. We've had a lot of legit, but weak, tropical storms that generally have just grazed the water: Arlene, Bret, Cindy*, Franklin*, Harvey, Jose, Lee, Tammy, Vince*, Alpha, Gamma, Delta*, Epsilon*.

* Denotes slightly stronger system, but generally these generally wouldn't have done much anyways. Vince was a hurricane but extremely short-lived.

[sponger]

I think it is likely and mentioned so in a previous thread. But I would love to hear what some of our mets and amateurs think! I wouldn't be suprised to see a Dec storm, which would be absolutely amazing!

[wxman57]

In a "typical" hurricane season, not much develops during June and July because the upper-level winds in the tropics are usually a little too hostile to support development and intensification. In only about 50-60% of all seasons is there any development before late July. So what happened in 2005?

Back in early May, I was doing a study for a major oil company with big assets in the northern Gulf of Mexico. They needed to know the chances that a tropical storm or hurricane could develop and affect them during June and July. In 2004, that question could have been answered quite easily. The Caribbean was very hostile back in May through July of 2004. A strong Bermuda high meant that tropical waves moving into the Caribbean were pushed southward across South America. But in May of 2005, I looked out across the Caribbean Sea and saw unusually low surface pressures and low wind shear. The strong easterly trade winds were missing, a sign of a much weaker Bermuda High.

I correspond with a number of meteorologists around the world on a daily basis. At least one of them had noticed that what we had set up in the central Caribbean early this season was very similar to the semi-permanent monsoonal trof that is the source region for west Pacific typhoons. This trof would provide the instability, the convergence, and the initial spin to quite a few of the 2005 storms. Basically, an unusual "hot spot" developed in a very dangerous area - the central to NW Caribbean to the Bahamas. This was significant for several reasons. First, the hot spot was in a region of natural low-level convergence. Second, it was in an area that was very close to the U.S. mainland, assuring that a number of dangerous hurricanes would impact the U.S. coast and Mexico.

This "monsoonal trof" remained in the Caribbean through the entire 2005 hurricane season, becoming the primary focus for development. The big question is - will it still be there in 2006? I think that's unlikely. There are already signs that the Bermuda high may be stronger in 2006, pumping up the trades in the Caribbean and moving that trof out. So don't expect nearly as many storms next season.

Personally, I'm hoping for no 2006 storms. We could all use a break!

[terstorm1012]

so basically speaking, we had a Pacific pattern in the Atlantic Basin.

very interesting indeed, thanks for this.

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

Hey, I have a general question. Might the reason why there've been some many named storms this year be in part due to the fact that we did not have a Cape Verde season? My thoughts are that since there weren't a lot of long trackers dissapating energy and there was a huge amount of energy transfer, the result was that a lot more storms popped up. I mean, in 2005, even the super-storms, especially Rita and Katrina, didn't net much activity, meaning they didn't use up much heat. Emily drained some early, but nothing formed in her part of the world for much of the rest of the season, and Wilma did too, but that's probably part of the reason why the season shut down in that part of the world (NW Carrib, SE Gulf and E. Coast) after her. 2005 still hasn't matched 2004 in accumulated wind speed, which would be related directly to energy disspation disregarding the storm sizes. We've had a lot of legit, but weak, tropical storms that generally have just grazed the water: Arlene, Bret, Cindy*, Franklin*, Harvey, Jose, Lee, Tammy, Vince*, Alpha, Gamma, Delta*, Epsilon*.

* Denotes slightly stronger system, but generally these generally wouldn't have done much anyways. Vince was a hurricane but extremely short-lived.

This is an excellent theory. Quite possible IMO. Increased energy
could be transported into a moderate number of very strong
long-trackers (2004) OR transported into a lot of short trackers several of which become strong (2005).