Active Period Miscalculation?

[destro34]

sorry , i tried to say : hurricane george september not october..

[MWatkins]

To Frank and other others:

1. I did not direct the discussion to any one paticular person...no names were mentioned. Not sure why that inference was drawn. The only point I had was...heck this same discussion happened last year. I am not comparing seasons. I make no reference to 2005 other than we discussed how "dead" the season was or wasn't looking. If by referencing this discussion happened last year I offended someone, I appologize for that.

2. I have gone on record with some reasoning as to why I do not believe this season will be unusually quiet.

http://www.storm2k.org/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=88403

I don't want more storms, I don't want a landfall and I am not rooting for another Katrina. I don't believe others do either...and I would more than welcome no activity for the rest of the year. But what I want to happen and what I think will happen are completely disparate.

My post here reflects my personal opinion on the topic and not of Storm2K.

MW

[28_Storms]

But what I think will happen and what I think will happen are completely disparate

[MWatkins]

Er...what I want to happen and what I think will happen are 2 different things...that's what I meant to write...going to edit that...thanks for proofreading.

MW

[Lindaloo]

Mike, you do not owe anyone an explanation or an apology.

[Deputy Van Halen]

Maybe active/inactive periods are marked with a hyperactive season?

Anybody know the years when each cycle started and ended? FWIW, the quiet cycle from 1970-1994 started inexplicably after a hyperactive year, 1969, and ended right before the crazy year of 1995.

Yes, but these facts simply highlight the artificial nature of designating a particular year as the beginning or end of a cycle. It's not like there's some great cosmic on/off switch that is flipped at the start of a new active cycle or a new inactive cycle.

It is BECAUSE 1969 was so active, that 1969 is considered the last year of the active cycle. 1965-68 were typical of the slower period that supposedly started in 1970. You could just as easily say that the inactive period began in 1965, with 1969 being an anomaly.

Same thing with 1995. There was such an upspike in activity that year, that it seems like the logical starting point for the active cycle. But 1988-1990 were busier than most years during the slow cycle. So maybe the active period really started in 1988 and there was some anomaly that suppressed activity in 1991-1994, Andrew notwithstanding.

And do we really know how long these cycles are supposed to last? The data doesn't seem to be particularly credible once you go back more than a century. Seeing a cycle occur two or three times hardly etches it into stone as a scientific certainty.

[wxmann_91]

Very true Deputy. However, with the 1988-1990 thing, I would think that that's the anomaly, not the 1991-1994 quietness, since the years before 1988 were also very quiet.

[Jim Hughes]

Maybe active/inactive periods are marked with a hyperactive season?

Anybody know the years when each cycle started and ended? FWIW, the quiet cycle from 1970-1994 started inexplicably after a hyperactive year, 1969, and ended right before the crazy year of 1995.

Yes, but these facts simply highlight the artificial nature of designating a particular year as the beginning or end of a cycle. It's not like there's some great cosmic on/off switch that is flipped at the start of a new active cycle or a new inactive cycle.

It is BECAUSE 1969 was so active, that 1969 is considered the last year of the active cycle. 1965-68 were typical of the slower period that supposedly started in 1970. You could just as easily say that the inactive period began in 1965, with 1969 being an anomaly.

Same thing with 1995. There was such an upspike in activity that year, that it seems like the logical starting point for the active cycle. But 1988-1990 were busier than most years during the slow cycle. So maybe the active period really started in 1988 and there was some anomaly that suppressed activity in 1991-1994, Andrew notwithstanding.

And do we really know how long these cycles are supposed to last? The data doesn't seem to be particularly credible once you go back more than a century. Seeing a cycle occur two or three times hardly etches it into stone as a scientific certainty.

The SST's did not consistentlly warm up until 1995 and afterwards. They were pretty much normal to cool from 1988-94.

[Deputy Van Halen]

I wonder if these cycles even really exist. The beginning of the supposed active cycle in the 1930's came not long after ships widely started using radio. Before that, the only way a storm not making landfall would be known is if a ship survived the storm, had accurate an barometer and/or anemometer on board, and was close enough to the center of the storm, at the right time, to measure its peak intensity. And of course, when coastal areas were less populated, even the landfalling storms were underreported.

So this makes me wonder if the slow period from 1965-1994 was itself just a grand anomaly, and the activity of pre-1965 and post-1994 is the norm for the Atlantic basin.

Is there any literature on just how thoroughly ships covered the basin in the pre-radio days (and the pre-radar days, for that matter), and therefore what fraction of the storms would have been accurately reported?

[wxmann_91]

If your talking about AMO cycles, I really think the SST's govern the intensity, not number, of storms. That's why there really isn't much of a relationship in NS #'s, but there is a huge difference in ACE.

[AussieMark]

1988-1990 were active from a strong La Nina I thought?

well 1988-1989

not sure about 1990 for 14 storms only had 1 major

isn't the warm phase more like characterised by more majors not nessecarily more TC development?

1988 had 3
1989 had 2
1990 had 1

[Deputy Van Halen]

isn't the warm phase more like characterised by more majors not nessecarily more TC development?

1988 had 3
1989 had 2
1990 had 1

I agree that 1988-90 belong in the so-called inactive period, I was just trying to make a point that you can finagle the numbers in different ways.

But it seems like the prevalence of sub-major hurricanes has to count for something. If you're looking at the major count only, a weak Cat3 would factor in, but a strong Cat2 wouldn't. If my numbers are correct, 1990 had 7 hurricanes that were Cat1 or Cat2, which is among the highest ever.

[MGC]

I disagree with the premise that there was a active period miscalculation. Even during past active periods there were seasons that had below normal tropical cyclone activity. 2006 might just be an example of such an occurrence. I also feel it is premature to write off the 2006 season as a bust. Personally, I think we are all still "hungover" from last season. That's right, we were all hurricane drunk after the 2005 season ended in Jan 06. Another factor that might be influencing some of us is the insistent media coverage at the start of the 2006 season and their "the sky is falling" mentality. I just don't know how the GW crowd will handle 2006 if there is a lack of intense hurricane activity.....MGC

[Jim Hughes]

I just don't know how the GW crowd will handle 2006 if there is a lack of intense hurricane activity.....MGC

Some of them will look for something else to point to for proof.

[AussieMark]

they will blame the American summer

they do that down here when we get a hot summer

[Stormavoider]

It's global cooling caused by putting out forest fires and not compensating with good sooty factory emissions.

[Ptarmigan]

Sometimes a quiet start gives way to an active season.

['CaneFreak]

I request that this thread be locked or deleted due to the controversial topic at hand....PLEASE...DO SOMETHING...this thread is getting old REAL quick...

[Robjohn53]

Totally Amazing,

[kevin]

Yes, it is in fact awe inspiring. I do adore it.