2007: an inactive season?

[MiamiensisWx]

I compiled this post in another thread, but it received very sparse attention.

Personally, I am tired of the claims that this season is "dull". Lately, the post-2005 generation seems to expect an intense hurricane striking the United States every year as the norm. I think more people should have conversed with the (now gone) John Hope and other veteran experts. Face the reality: overall, a major hurricane landfall (singular event!) is an unusual event in any given year. The ridiculous concentration of hurricane landfalls (especially +Category 3) in the United States during 2003-2005 was nearly unprecedented by all standards. Additionally, I don't consider 2007 a "dull" year even for the United States. Humberto certainly wasn't a Katrina or Andrew (insert intense landfalling hurricane here), but you should tell that fact to the people in SE Texas. The pre-shore intensification rate was incredible by all accounts. Don't forget Erin, too - it actually strengthened to a possible TS/STS over land in OK, where it caused TS force gusts and heavy precipitation. Please stop the doom and gloom hype (it's a pre-2004 fad), and don't dismiss the potential impacts of some "less consequential" systems.

Secondly, we have forgotten that the "lowly" storms (i.e. those forgettable tropical storms and TD 10 reduxes) make up the "bulk" of most seasons, including above average years. In fact, history indicates that many seasons (including all seasons from 1995-2007) may not have reached their final totals without the "distributor" systems. I'm talking about the fishy tropical storms and abundant weak systems. We tend to focus on the landfalls, hurricanes, and intense storms, but we overlook the Arlenes, Lees, and TD 10 copy cats that really boost those seasonal final numbers. If you don't believe me, check your tropical history in the NOAA best track database, Monthly Weather Review, and other good sources for historical climatology (including recent seasons). 2007 may have featured more short-lived tropical storms, and the higher shear is unusual in a Nina year, but the basic premise remains the same: the abundance of weaker systems (relative to hurricanes and intense storms) is relatively normal in most seasons!

This has been reiterated in other posts, but two Category 5 hurricanes in a single year is astounding, especially when you consider the fact that they made landfall at that rare intensity. Dean and Felix actually intensified prior to their landfalls in Mexico and Nicaragua. If you think 2006 and 2007 have been infested with shear, look back at 1997 (strong El Nino year). We saw eight named systems (fewer than '06) and +50 kts of shear in the Caribbean during the season's peak! Additionally, the '70s, '80s, and early '90s would completely kill this tropical-oriented board today. The majority of those decades featured very few United States landfalls, while most seasons featured totals below 9 NS. Finally, 13 NS (by October 1) is extremely impressive; while I don't expect more than 16 NS, we could certainly see two more systems in this La Nina year. Weak systems may seem insignificant, but they still count for the totals (ask the true renowned experts at the NHC - don't bash them).

I'm voicing a view contrary to the majority, but I wasn't deeply affected by the slow '06 year and '07 "lull". I'm not denying the fact that it has been an "uneven" season, but the main points should be remembered. Additionally, the peak Cape Verde season (when systems were sheared by the TUTT in 2007) does not mark the beginning of a rapid decline in activity because of less conducive conditions during late September. Past climatology indicates October can easily see multiple systems on the tail end of an Atlantic trough in the Caribbean. Most non-El Nino years decline by late October-early November. I'm not saying we will see several additional systems in '07; I merely addressed the point that storms can form after the season's peak. The threat doesn't completely diminish after the peak.

I appreciate thoughts, comments, and criticism. Additionally, please do not accuse me via charges of "-removed-" for United States landfalls. I want some constructive debate from those who address my points.

[Category 5]

Great post.

Never before have two category 5's struck land in one season. But since it wasn't in the U.S, nobody seems to care. Which is sad really. Don't believe me, heres a wonderful example.

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=97590

BTW, to the people who have been spoiled by the activity of 2003-2005. Find me another 3 year stretch like that in recorded history.

[Ptarmigan]

I think 2007 is active. 8 storms in September is a record for sure. How often that happens?

[Normandy]

Clearly you are one of the more level-headed posters, and do understand your tropical weather and its history....something I cannot say for some people on this board (that I will not name, but you KNOW who you are).

Great post.

[MGC]

03-05 were indeed a very active period in the tropics. However, we have had the advantage of 24/7 satellite coverage, something past generations didn't have. I doubt the activity recently observed in unique and has likely happened many times in the past.....MGC

[Andrew92]

Great post.

Never before have two category 5's struck land in one season. But since it wasn't in the U.S, nobody seems to care. Which is sad really. Don't believe me, heres a wonderful example.

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=97590

BTW, to the people who have been spoiled by the activity of 2003-2005. Find me another 3 year stretch like that in recorded history.

I fully agree. And I'm not trying to downplay storms like Katrina, Andrew, or Charley by any stretch of the imagination. I think it's high time we learn that other areas receive massive devastation.

It seems like the only two hurricanes that gets talked about much that caused devastation outside the U.S. are Gilbert and Mitch; Gilbert only for the former-record pressure and Mitch for the astronomical death toll. Who knows; in just a couple years, we may not even be talking about at least Gilbert as much as we were pre-Wilma. Mitch I dunno about....

Do some research sometime; you'll be absolutely fascinated, startled, maybe a little horrified even. Even if it's just on Wikipedia, take a look at storms such as Janet, Flora, Fifi, Pauline, or even Juan of '03. I have done this and let me tell you, I have learned a wealth of information, even if on one of the most unreliable sources out there. Some of this information I have learned has been validated from other sources as well.

-Andrew92

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

I think this season is active, but feel that the energy level of the season having the lowest Ace since 97, says something about it.

['CaneFreak]

I agree matt...the ACE tells the tale on this season....no one ever said that this season was inactive....it was active alright...but wind shear at or slightly above their normals in September kept systems in check and kept them from becoming one of the monsters of 2005. I think some of you dont read between the lines. When you see the words "dull or boring" season you think of the word inactive. INcorrect. Do not take this the wrong way but seasons are more "EXCITING" for research purposes ONLY when there are stronger systems out in the Atlantic to track. I would never wish to see a CAT 5 roll up someone in the US, EVER. But for research purposes, stronger systems are more interesting and captivate the attention of more researchers in the scientific community than a mere Sub-tropical Depression or something like we have seen this season. Heck, I have seen worse thunderstorms than the dinky landfall we saw in early September with Gabrielle here in NC. FOR THE MOST PART, we have seen dinky little STS and TS systems all year and wind shear can be attributed to that along with other factors of course.

[Cyclenall]

Thank you for posting this because it's basically my thoughts as well. I'm embarrassed that users are actually posting this as a dud season when there were 2 category 5 landfalling hurricanes this season.

['CaneFreak]

Please read my post Cyclenall

[robert_88]

I agree matt...the ACE tells the tale on this season....no one ever said that this season was inactive....it was active alright...but wind shear at or slightly above their normals in September kept systems in check and kept them from becoming one of the monsters of 2005. I think some of you dont read between the lines. When you see the words "dull or boring" season you think of the word inactive. INcorrect. Do not take this the wrong way but seasons are more "EXCITING" for research purposes ONLY when there are stronger systems out in the Atlantic to track. I would never wish to see a CAT 5 roll up someone in the US, EVER. But for research purposes, stronger systems are more interesting and captivate the attention of more researchers in the scientific community than a mere Sub-tropical Depression or something like we have seen this season. Heck, I have seen worse thunderstorms than the dinky landfall we saw in early September with Gabrielle here in NC. FOR THE MOST PART, we have seen dinky little STS and TS systems all year and wind shear can be attributed to that along with other factors of course.

Amen!!! Great post This season has been active but... as for the overall storms produced it was very dull and boring. If it wasn't for Dean and Felix this would rate up there with some of the worst I have ever witnessed in my 21 years of tracking storms.

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

I agree matt...the ACE tells the tale on this season....no one ever said that this season was inactive....it was active alright...but wind shear at or slightly above their normals in September kept systems in check and kept them from becoming one of the monsters of 2005. I think some of you dont read between the lines. When you see the words "dull or boring" season you think of the word inactive. INcorrect. Do not take this the wrong way but seasons are more "EXCITING" for research purposes ONLY when there are stronger systems out in the Atlantic to track. I would never wish to see a CAT 5 roll up someone in the US, EVER. But for research purposes, stronger systems are more interesting and captivate the attention of more researchers in the scientific community than a mere Sub-tropical Depression or something like we have seen this season. Heck, I have seen worse thunderstorms than the dinky landfall we saw in early September with Gabrielle here in NC. FOR THE MOST PART, we have seen dinky little STS and TS systems all year and wind shear can be attributed to that along with other factors of course.

Amen!!! Great post This season has been active but... as for the overall storms produced it was very dull and boring. If it wasn't for Dean and Felix this would rate up there with some of the worst I have ever witnesed in my 21 years of tracking storms.

I agree, it would have less then 20 points of Ace if it was not for Felix and Dean.

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

With out those cat5s this season would have 10.479 Ace, it would be a shoe in for the record lowest ace in recorded history.

Even with Felix and not Dean this season would have 26.979 Ace. The facts are some times gets in the way. Yes this season has kind of caught up slowly in the hurricane department...But the numbers don't lie.

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

1972 Atlantic hurricane season 28 4 3 0 Below normal
1977 Atlantic hurricane season 25 6 5 1 Below normal
1983 Atlantic hurricane season 17 4 3 1 Below normal



These are the lowest Ace season in recorded history or at least the last 40 years. I don't know about the 19th century or the 1910s. If it was not for Dean we would be close to 1977 for overall energy. If not for dean or Felix we would have our selfs a record. At least if another system did not form later this season. This is nothing to laugh at but something to be discused seriously.

[Cyclenall]

Please read my post Cyclenall

I already did. Yes the season is very odd with the ACE totals and the unbalanced nature of the season.

[Normandy]

I agree matt...the ACE tells the tale on this season....no one ever said that this season was inactive....it was active alright...but wind shear at or slightly above their normals in September kept systems in check and kept them from becoming one of the monsters of 2005. I think some of you dont read between the lines. When you see the words "dull or boring" season you think of the word inactive. INcorrect. Do not take this the wrong way but seasons are more "EXCITING" for research purposes ONLY when there are stronger systems out in the Atlantic to track. I would never wish to see a CAT 5 roll up someone in the US, EVER. But for research purposes, stronger systems are more interesting and captivate the attention of more researchers in the scientific community than a mere Sub-tropical Depression or something like we have seen this season. Heck, I have seen worse thunderstorms than the dinky landfall we saw in early September with Gabrielle here in NC. FOR THE MOST PART, we have seen dinky little STS and TS systems all year and wind shear can be attributed to that along with other factors of course.

Ehh....no sorry I don't believe that to be necessarily true (if you believe so fine, then every other member who believes the same likely does so for an alternate reason).
Sure, 2005 (Just for example, its one of many active years) was great for research purposes....You had Wilma which deepened at the fastest rate of any ATL hurricane, and had the lowest pressure. You had Katrina to show us what a large major hurricane can do to a coastline. You also had the three N GOM majors that imploded before landfall (Rita, Katrina, Dennis). You had two Caribbean hurricanes deepen to near or to Cat 5 intensity (Dennis & Emily), which was unprecedented. Yes, you had the biggest and baddest storms to research, so yes I agree it was beneficial to hurricane research.

So lets look at the research accolades 2007 has so far:
- The fastest a TD to ever deepen to hurricane intensity (Humberto).
- You likely had an EQUAL rate of intensification with Lorenzo.
- You had TWO examples (and now precedents) for transitioning ULL's to full tropical cyclones (TD10 and now 90L)
- You had the first two cat5's to hit in the same season (EVER!).
- Hurricane Dean displayed a remarkable rate of intensification (that recon documented, btw) while hitting shore.
- Hurricane Felix equally displayed a remarkable rate of intensification (that recon AGAIN documented) over the Caribbean. It did so again while hitting land (prompting the NHC to upgrade it to Cat 5 based on Satellite alone, which is rare)
- Did I mention two Cat5's hit two Caribbean nations? Climatology says that is a BIG no no...We know that is no longer the case.
- Oh yea, and Erin deepened likely to a 40kt TS (Based on surface obs) over Oklahoma. Oklahoma folks.



No matter which way you slice it, 2007 is equally beneficial in terms of research as 2005 (if not MORE so). Sorry, I honestly still believe that people really don't care if the canes don't strike the US. We could have had every storm this season be a major hurricane, and if none hit the US, NOBODY would care and would make posts calling this season a dud. I'm sorry, thats my belieg and too many examples of this have come up during this season for me to think otherwise.

[Normandy]

1972 Atlantic hurricane season 28 4 3 0 Below normal
1977 Atlantic hurricane season 25 6 5 1 Below normal
1983 Atlantic hurricane season 17 4 3 1 Below normal



These are the lowest Ace season in recorded history or at least the last 40 years. I don't know about the 19th century or the 1910s. If it was not for Dean we would be close to 1977 for overall energy. If not for dean or Felix we would have our selfs a record. At least if another system did not form later this season. This is nothing to laugh at but something to be discused seriously.

And Matt, yes, what IF we didn't have Felix or Dean? We did? So why even bother using this in discussion about this season being active or inactive? Just asking.

[Category 5]

...........

[hurricanetrack]

Let's put it this way- for people who do field research during hurricanes, this has not been a good year for them. Last year too. But, 2004 and 2005 provided plenty of data to mull over for years to come...

That would include my group. Also includes any university or private research firm with a mobile network of wind instruments, etc. To study hurricanes at landfall along the U.S. coast, we need hurricanes to make landfall. Just looking strictly at that statement, it has been a dud season along the U.S. coast. That is just the way it goes- can't do anything about it. We'll just have to be patient.

[Category 5]

Let's put it this way- for people who do field research during hurricanes, this has not been a good year for them. Last year too. But, 2004 and 2005 provided plenty of data to mull over for years to come...

That would include my group. Also includes any university or private research firm with a mobile network of wind instruments, etc. To study hurricanes at landfall along the U.S. coast, we need hurricanes to make landfall. Just looking strictly at that statement, it has been a dud season along the U.S. coast. That is just the way it goes- can't do anything about it. We'll just have to be patient.

You're right. It's not good from a research standpoint. The only storm you researched this year was Gabrielle correct? (I assume you couldn't catch Humberto). Sadly, the best data comes from the powerful storms like Ivan and Katrina.

The data and videos that groups like yours collect is extremely valuable to Hurricane research. And honestly, I wouldn't mind having your job at all. You guys are among my idols.

However, it's a dangerous job. And I own your DVD's and see all the work that goes into it. Sadly, you need a Hurricane to come ashore to do it, but your work in the long run will help save lives (if it hasn't already).