2006 Pattern Repeat?

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

Yep....season cancel.

2006 did not have two Cat 5 storms and the record holder for the fastest from TD to Hurricane so that kind of blows your 2006 validation right?

Look, I can pick any period and say hey, the trade winds are just like 1492 or when Dean was there, hey its just like 2005. Its bunk. Each season is its on season so lets quit this junk and get on with it.

Sorry, I'm done!

It is possible to make a dichotomy of the season at the caribbean versus
outside of it. That is how we can attain some precision in analyzing
2007.

The caribbean has been explosive, there is no doubt.
And so has the gulf with humberto.

Of note though would be some more "hostile" conditions
out in the Atlantic, that is similar to those seen in 2006.

Of course, this year is shattering records, but
I see no problem in pointing out a synoptic similarity
regarding the central atlantic latitudes characterized
by shear/TUTT/ULL.

Sanibel is pointing out synoptic similarities- which is a
scientific comparison. Scientific comparisons are
welcome here on storm2k.

['CaneFreak]

Why was this thread ever opened? Can we lock it please? This is ridiculous. 2006 was an EL nino year...this is clearly not....sorry but this thread needs to be locked..

[stormchazer]

"Season cancel" is too black and white. What I think gets to people is the fact that the Atlantic environment is hostile just like 2006 and they poo-pooed it earlier on. Yes, it is different in the Caribbean. I never said it wasn't.

Its a bit "black and white" to use your words, to look at a pattern that has evolved over the last week and say "its 2006 repeated". This is a different year with a different pattern which has included more intense systems then 2006. Overall there has been less SAL, fewer overall ULLs and very few indications that this will be an early ending season like last year. Also we still have 3-4 potentially active weeks ahead.

Okay I have gotten all my energy out so feel free to go on with your comparisons!

[Sanibel]

Hmm. I made a specific point about ULL features. Last year's Nino wasn't normal. It had no California storms during the winter and no wet cold winter in Florida. I believe the point was valid and so is the topic. Calling for it to be locked isn't right in my opinion. These ULL's and westerlies could be from other sources that also existed last year. If you don't like the topic - you don't have to answer it.

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

I am going to take Sanibel's side here:
He's arguing from a scientific standpoint.

There is NO reason to lock this thread. Information presented refers
to synoptic comparisons- made scientifically. It has already been established
that we are not comparing with reference to El Nino. The premise of
comparison regards synoptic features in the central atlantic. By no means is the
season being called quiet.

['CaneFreak]

"Season cancel" is too black and white. What I think gets to people is the fact that the Atlantic environment is hostile just like 2006 and they poo-pooed it earlier on. Yes, it is different in the Caribbean. I never said it wasn't.

Its a bit "black and white" to use your words, to look at a pattern that has evolved over the last week and say "its 2006 repeated". This is a different year with a different pattern which has included more intense systems then 2006. Overall there has been less SAL, fewer overall ULLs and very few indications that this will be an early ending season like last year. Also we still have 3-4 potentially active weeks ahead.

Okay I have gotten all my energy out so feel free to go on with your comparisons!

Thank you very much. That is exactly what I wanted to write. I just get so mad sometimes that I dont know what to write but this is exactly the way I feel. I second this motion.

'CaneFreak

[Sanibel]

Its a bit "black and white" to use your words, to look at a pattern that has evolved over the last week and say "its 2006 repeated". This is a different year with a different pattern which has included more intense systems then 2006. Overall there has been less SAL, fewer overall ULLs and very few indications that this will be an early ending season like last year. Also we still have 3-4 potentially active weeks ahead.

OK, maybe you're right. But it would be wrong to get emotional about pointing out what might be a valid comparison and dismissing what might be scientifically related points. It could very well be that the current disruption in the Atlantic during the season peak with what looks like a July Caribbean TUTT penetrating far south actually is related to a broader phenomenon from last year that included a strong Azores High that kept systems from developing. So it would be wrong to dismiss it outright if it is possibly a carry over from last year. It's rather primitive to suggest I was saying 2006 would be identical to 2007.

There's also a strange similarity to the area north of the islands where Chris vaporized last year just like Ingrid is doing.

[stormchazer]

I am going to take Sanibel's side here:
He's arguing from a scientific standpoint.

There is NO reason to lock this thread. Information presented refers
to synoptic comparisons- made scientifically. It has already been established
that we are not comparing with reference to El Nino. The premise of
comparison regards synoptic features in the central atlantic. By no means is the
season being called quiet.

Okay, then if that is the parameters, how do you explain that we have had few Eastern Atlantic systems and no recurves from the Eastern and mid-Atlantic like 2006?

http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/2006H/index.html

Its a different season. I have said my peace and I thank you for listening.

['CaneFreak]

Its a bit "black and white" to use your words, to look at a pattern that has evolved over the last week and say "its 2006 repeated". This is a different year with a different pattern which has included more intense systems then 2006. Overall there has been less SAL, fewer overall ULLs and very few indications that this will be an early ending season like last year. Also we still have 3-4 potentially active weeks ahead.

OK, maybe you're right. But it would be wrong to get emotional about pointing out what might be a valid comparison and dismissing what might be scientifically related points. It could very well be that the current disruption in the Atlantic during the season peak with what looks like a July Caribbean TUTT penetrating far south actually is related to a broader phenomenon from last year that included a strong Azores High that kept systems from developing. So it would be wrong to dismiss it outright if it is possibly a carry over from last year.

and why would it be a carry over from last year? Your statement here makes no scientific sense. I am clueless.

I am trying to make logical scientific sense of this...bare with me please..

[stormchazer]

Its a bit "black and white" to use your words, to look at a pattern that has evolved over the last week and say "its 2006 repeated". This is a different year with a different pattern which has included more intense systems then 2006. Overall there has been less SAL, fewer overall ULLs and very few indications that this will be an early ending season like last year. Also we still have 3-4 potentially active weeks ahead.

OK, maybe you're right. But it would be wrong to get emotional about pointing out what might be a valid comparison and dismissing what might be scientifically related points. It could very well be that the current disruption in the Atlantic during the season peak with what looks like a July Caribbean TUTT penetrating far south actually is related to a broader phenomenon from last year that included a strong Azores High that kept systems from developing. So it would be wrong to dismiss it outright if it is possibly a carry over from last year. It's rather primitive to suggest I was saying 2006 would be identical to 2007.

Ohh....and its not emotional, just intellectual disagreement right?

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

I am going to take Sanibel's side here:
He's arguing from a scientific standpoint.

There is NO reason to lock this thread. Information presented refers
to synoptic comparisons- made scientifically. It has already been established
that we are not comparing with reference to El Nino. The premise of
comparison regards synoptic features in the central atlantic. By no means is the
season being called quiet.

Okay, then if that is the parameters, how do you explain that we have had few Eastern Atlantic systems and no recurves from the Eastern and mid-Atlantic like 2006?

http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/2006H/index.html

Its a different season. I have said my peace and I thank you for listening.

Being an amateur- I will only speculate on the answer to that question. There is likely a periodic
stronger ridge that steered felix/dean...and the semipresence of which allowed
for fewer recurves in 2007.

[stormchazer]

I am going to take Sanibel's side here:
He's arguing from a scientific standpoint.

There is NO reason to lock this thread. Information presented refers
to synoptic comparisons- made scientifically. It has already been established
that we are not comparing with reference to El Nino. The premise of
comparison regards synoptic features in the central atlantic. By no means is the
season being called quiet.

Okay, then if that is the parameters, how do you explain that we have had few Eastern Atlantic systems and no recurves from the Eastern and mid-Atlantic like 2006?

http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/2006H/index.html

Its a different season. I have said my peace and I thank you for listening.

Being an amateur- I will only speculate on the answer to that question. There is likely a periodic
stronger ridge that steered felix/dean...and the semipresence of which allowed
for fewer recurves in 2007.

Okay I can buy that, so would that not suggest a different pattern then 2006?

Oh, and I am an amateur too, I just play an expert at work from Monday through whenever!

[cheezyWXguy]

Some people on here sometimes act like if the tropics arent totally perfect for development, and theres not something to track all the time, that its a season cancel and its 2006 all over again. Say what you want but thats not a valid comparison. Believe what you want, but even 2005 had times in the "prime of the season" when conditions were hostile. Remember Lee? Irene? Ophelia? Phillipe? 3 of the 4 listed were hurricanes, but all were suppressed by hostile conditions for some time of their life. (Ophelia one could argue was due to land interaction, but Humberto seemed okay. Also Ophelia was over the gulf stream so it didnt exactly live up to its potential.) Even Wilma during its early life didnt have that great of conditions either. For the almost 2 days, the storm struggled to reach tropical storm status, and despite its strengthening as it approached florida, conditions werent prime either at that time. Would that be considered 2006 also? Nope. Not even close. Not every year features a Katrina, Rita, or Wilma, but this year sure got close...twice

[Sanibel]

Ohh....and its not emotional, just intellectual disagreement right?

You didn't answer my points.

[wxmann_91]

Some people on here sometimes act like if the tropics arent totally perfect for development, and theres not something to track all the time, that its a season cancel and its 2006 all over again. Say what you want but thats not a valid comparison. Believe what you want, but even 2005 had times in the "prime of the season" when conditions were hostile. Remember Lee? Irene? Ophelia? Phillipe? 3 of the 4 listed were hurricanes, but all were suppressed by hostile conditions for some time of their life. (Ophelia one could argue was due to land interaction, but Humberto seemed okay. Also Ophelia was over the gulf stream so it didnt exactly live up to its potential.) Even Wilma during its early life didnt have that great of conditions either. For the almost 2 days, the storm struggled to reach tropical storm status, and despite its strengthening as it approached florida, conditions werent prime either at that time. Would that be considered 2006 also? Nope. Not even close. Not every year features a Katrina, Rita, or Wilma, but this year sure got close...twice

While Ophelia was due to upwelling and not atmospheric factors, you have a very good point. A large ULL dominated over the ctrl Atlantic for a good portion of Sept-Oct 2005. Move this TUTT right now from the western ATL/Carib to the central ATL, and you're going to have some explosive homegrown development.

...Which is precisely what is being forecasted starting about 24-48 hr from now.

[cheezyWXguy]

Some people on here sometimes act like if the tropics arent totally perfect for development, and theres not something to track all the time, that its a season cancel and its 2006 all over again. Say what you want but thats not a valid comparison. Believe what you want, but even 2005 had times in the "prime of the season" when conditions were hostile. Remember Lee? Irene? Ophelia? Phillipe? 3 of the 4 listed were hurricanes, but all were suppressed by hostile conditions for some time of their life. (Ophelia one could argue was due to land interaction, but Humberto seemed okay. Also Ophelia was over the gulf stream so it didnt exactly live up to its potential.) Even Wilma during its early life didnt have that great of conditions either. For the almost 2 days, the storm struggled to reach tropical storm status, and despite its strengthening as it approached florida, conditions werent prime either at that time. Would that be considered 2006 also? Nope. Not even close. Not every year features a Katrina, Rita, or Wilma, but this year sure got close...twice

While Ophelia was due to upwelling and not atmospheric factors, you have a very good point. A large ULL dominated over the ctrl Atlantic for a good portion of Sept-Oct 2005. Move this TUTT right now from the western ATL/Carib to the central ATL, and you're going to have some explosive homegrown development.

...Which is precisely what is being forecasted starting about 24-48 hr from now.

Yes, Ive seen that too. One of the examples of why this is totally different than last year. The La Nina this year, if lives up to expectations, will give us a heck of an october, because La Ninas are typically known for an above average end to the season, as opposed to last year, in which the el nino sucked the life out of most of everything except Helene and Gordon, which barely ascended to cat 3

[stormchazer]

Ohh....and its not emotional, just intellectual disagreement right?

You didn't answer my points.

Fine, and you did not read my post earlier. We have TUTTs every year! Yeah more commonly in the early part of the year but a late-season TUTT does not make this a valid comparison to 2006 with all its recurves and only two intense Cat 3 storms. We also saw a pattern of a chronic weakness between the Azores High and Bermuda High, leading to recurving systems in the mid-Atlantic which has not been evident this year.

You can not pick and choose pattern comparisons.

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

I would personally rank this season just above 2006. For being the least active of the 21st century.

1# 2005
2# 2004
3# 2001
4# 2003
5# 2000
6# 2002
7# 2007
8# 2006


I make this ranking by ACE,landfalls,strength,in how long storms last. In how much of the season they took.

2006 is out ranking 2007 in Ace, and length of the cyclones. Also all but the unnamed system has more then one point of ACE. While only 3 out of 9 of 2007 storms have more then one point of ace. 2007 takes it for the 2 landfalling cat5 hurricanes and humberto hitting texas.
That is my current rating...

2002 had lot of long trackers that is why it beat this year. Also it had Lili which was a soild cat2 at landfall.

2001 had 9 canes and very long trackers. Beats it by far.

2000 has like one of the longest trackers in history. In has many powerful storms.

2003 16 or the 6th most active season. Isabel into the mid Atlantic. Many long trackers and powerful storms.

2004 4 landfalls in one season. One of the most powerful Ace levels in recorded history. Need I say more?

2005 it speaks for its self.

[stormchazer]

Great info but we do have about 6 weeks of Hurricane season left for 2006 so the ACE comparison may be a little premature.

I think Wikipedia has 2007 listed at 54.9 right now and as "season in progress" whereas 2006 is listed as 79. Regardless, I still do not think that it is proof that we are in the "same pattern as 2006" as we are discussing the pattern in place, not the overall Accumulated cyclone energy (ACE), or Hurricane Activity in comparison to '06. I mean look at the numbers in between:

1959 Atlantic hurricane season 77 11 7 2 Near normal
1992 Atlantic hurricane season 75 6 4 1 Near normal
1975 Atlantic hurricane season 73 8 6 3 Near normal
1984 Atlantic hurricane season 71 12 5 1 Near normal
2002 Atlantic hurricane season 66 12 4 2 Below normal
1978 Atlantic hurricane season 62 11 5 2 Below normal
1974 Atlantic hurricane season 61 7 4 2 Below normal

Looking above we can argue that the numbers more closely resemble 1978 or 2002, are we in the same synoptic pattern as those years? The arguement is "are we in the same pattern as 2006" and I think there have been significant differences in the setup this year that say no. Of course that is my opinion.

It will be interesting to see how it shakes out at the official end of the season.
Then we can truly compare this seasons to 2006 and others.

Thanks for posting this analysis.

[senorpepr]

Just to give a little heads-up to my weekly post over in Tropical Analysis...

Based on the activity thus far in 2007, we've had 9 named storms, 3 hurricanes, and 2 major hurricanes. They account for 21 TS days, 9 ¾ HR days, and 5 ¾ MH days. Based on the 1950-2000 climo, a full season should account for 9.6 named storms, 5.9 hurricanes, and 2.3 major hurricanes. As for TS, HR, and MH days, those are 49.1, 24.5, and 5.0, respectively.

Already at September 17th (00Z), we are pretty close to those numbers. (-0.6, -2.9, -0.3)

Matter of fact, looking at the Net Tropical Cyclone Index, which calculates the aforementioned numbers against climo, we're at 71.5% of normal.

Now... let me remind everyone that it is September 17th (00Z). Based upon activity, we have completed 63.7% of the season. If you apply where we are today to the normals, we are at 112.3% of normal. That's right... in terms of climatology... we are slightly ABOVE normal.

Okay, Matt brought up ACE. So far, we're at 55.1525 x 10^4 for 2007 ACE. That's about 63.03% of a normal, full season. Currently, 2007 ranks 107th out of 157 years. But... once again, we're only 63.7% through the season (in terms of activity). So, if we apply that, currently we're at 98.95% of normal ACE totals for this point in the season. That would rank 2007 as 65th all-time.

So far, the above items I have mentioned indicate that 2007 is a near-normal year. Keeping that in mind, if we take the activity thus far, and forecast it out using climatology as a guideline, we should be near 14 named storms, 4 hurricanes, and 3 major hurricanes by season's end. (For those playing the home game, that would bring us to the name "Noel.")

Out of the past 20 years, only six years have had 15 or more named storms, and two years had exactly 14 named storms.


Finally, to remind everyone... 2006 was not a sleeper year. It was near-normal for activity. Most of the "armchair mets" are simply spoiled from the 2005 season and the like...


-Mike