Eleven years of hyper activity In Atlantic Basin

[SouthFloridawx]

1997 and 2002 were el nino years

1997: 8/3/1

2002: 12/4/2

both were el nino years

all the other years were above average by a considerable margin based on the 10/6/2 average

1995: 19/11/5
1996: 13/9/6
1998: 14/10/3
1999: 12/8/5
2000: 14/8/3
2001: 15/9/4
2003: 16/7/3
2004: 15/9/6
2005: 28/15/7

hmmm, notice you skipped 1997 eh? 7/3/1

he excluded them because of the el nino to prove that we are in an active cycle.

[Jim Cantore]

1997 and 2002 were el nino years

1997: 8/3/1

2002: 12/4/2

both were el nino years

all the other years were above average by a considerable margin based on the 10/6/2 average

1995: 19/11/5
1996: 13/9/6
1998: 14/10/3
1999: 12/8/5
2000: 14/8/3
2001: 15/9/4
2003: 16/7/3
2004: 15/9/6
2005: 28/15/7

hmmm, notice you skipped 1997 eh? 7/3/1

he excluded them because of the el nino to prove that we are in an active cycle.

no need to leave it out, the point is made even with it in there.

[SouthFloridawx]

1997 and 2002 were el nino years
1997: 8/3/1
2002: 12/4/2
both were el nino years
all the other years were above average by a considerable margin based on the 10/6/2 average
1995: 19/11/5
1996: 13/9/6
1998: 14/10/3
1999: 12/8/5
2000: 14/8/3
2001: 15/9/4
2003: 16/7/3
2004: 15/9/6
2005: 28/15/7

hmmm, notice you skipped 1997 eh? 7/3/1

he excluded them because of the el nino to prove that we are in an active cycle.

no need to leave it out, the point is made even with it in there.

They are above the stats on the bottom. What are you being nit picky for?

[Jim Cantore]

What are you being nit picky for?

I'm always that way lol

[Derek Ortt]

97 was 8/3/1... on June 1 there was an STS

[Jim Cantore]

I was counting named storms but you're right. This was before they began naming them.

[AussieMark]

if u read my post properly u would see that I did not overlook any years and they would be out of place if I included em down the bottom listing

1997 and 2002 were el nino years

1997: 8/3/1

2002: 12/4/2

all the other years were above average by a considerable margin based on the 10/6/2 average

1995: 19/11/5
1996: 13/9/6
1998: 14/10/3
1999: 12/8/5
2000: 14/8/3
2001: 15/9/4
2003: 16/7/3
2004: 15/9/6
2005: 28/15/7

[Jim Cantore]

if u read my post properly u would see that I did not overlook any years and they would be out of place if I included em down the bottom listing

1997 and 2002 were el nino years

1997: 8/3/1

2002: 12/4/2

all the other years were above average by a considerable margin based on the 10/6/2 average

1995: 19/11/5
1996: 13/9/6
1998: 14/10/3
1999: 12/8/5
2000: 14/8/3
2001: 15/9/4
2003: 16/7/3
2004: 15/9/6
2005: 28/15/7

*kicks self*, I really should read things twice.

[Thatsmrhurricane]

factually inaccurate, Boca

1997 and 2002 had below activity

Plus, there are lulls within active periods. There is also some evidence that we may be entering into a 1500 year active cycle, though this is controversial and totally unproven as of yet

Is this what you are talking about?

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/st279. ... ther%20%22

[Jim Cantore]

2002 was above average, by one storm but still above average.

[Ground_Zero_92]

factually inaccurate, Boca

1997 and 2002 had below activity

Plus, there are lulls within active periods. There is also some evidence that we may be entering into a 1500 year active cycle, though this is controversial and totally unproven as of yet

Derek, do u have any additional information on this. I have never heard of this before and am always looking to learn. Thx

[the_winds_that_sheared_me]

If our season ends up with 9 or 10 storms would that break our 11 year stretch of above average season and throw out the theory of 20 to 40 years of the increased activity cycle. I guess we can have slow seasons in an active cycle but few and far between. Is this cycle of increased activity valid or do we just take one season at a time and throw out the theories.

I've done considerable research on hurricane activity. The "active" period of the 1940s-1960s DID NOT have more named storms than the "inactive" periods (1900-1925 and 1970-1994). In fact, the number of named storms from 1926-1969 averaged about 0.1 lower per season. The "active" part refers to only the number of major hurricanes. There were twice as many major hurricanes in the 1940s-1960s than in the cool Atlantic cycles.

So don't expect 15-20 named storms to be the norm in the future. More likely, 11-13 will be the new normal. The additional 1-3 storms per season would be due to the naming of subtropical storms and better detection of storm sway out to sea compared to the 1940s-1960s.

Ok this makes sense but we had satellite back in the 80s. Shouldnt the active period have started back then if we are having better detection of storms further out?

[AussieMark]

Ok this makes sense but we had satellite back in the 80s. Shouldnt the active period have started back then if we are having better detection of storms further out?

the 1980's was a relatively quite decade in comparison. So I doubt it

1980: 11/9/2
1981: 11/7/3
1982: 5/2/1
1983: 4/3/1
1984: 13/5/1
1985: 11/7/2
1986: 6/4/0
1987: 8/3/1
1988: 12/5/3
1989: 11/7/2

[senorpepr]

2002 was above average, by one storm but still above average.

...but 2002 was still below in hurricanes and major hurricanes.

[TampaSteve]

Average, shmaverage...

1992 was a "below average" year, right???

[Scorpion]

With El Nino expanding looks like the season will shut down in October. I see no other areas that will develop anytime soon. I think we might make it to the H or I storm. Basically...to sum up this season....

[FrontRunner]

Average, shmaverage...

1992 was a "below average" year, right???

I swear to God, if I have to read one more post lecturing all of us about how the inactive season of 1992 contained Hurricane Andrew, my head might explode. Yes, we all know about Andrew. But that doesn't change the fact that 1992 was an inactive season any way you look at it. The "it only takes one" crowd needs to chill out - that mantra might be useful if you were broadcasting it to the masses, who know nothing about hurricanes. But it gets kind of old in here. We're all aware that you could theoretically only have 4 storms in a season, yet all 4 of them be Cat 5s that hit the United States. Inactive doesn't mean not deadly or not costly. We get it.