2015 indicators: Instability / SST's / MSLP / Steering / Sal

[WPBWeather]

I think you are correct for the current time, but there is too much model and forecaster uncertainty for later in the season. The only sure thing now is this year's steering currents are not the same as recent years.

Wow! I just took a look at the surface and upper-level conditions across the Caribbean over the next week and I can't recall seeing such a hostile environment. Big SAL is racing across the Caribbean. Surface winds in the central to SW Caribbean predicted to be in the 30-40 kt range this weekend. Winds at 850mb nearing 55 kts in the SW Caribbean. Wind shear as high as 90 kts!

Looks like verification near or maybe over 100kts! I don't think I've ever seen such high shear values this low latitude in the summer, is this some kind of record for this period? I know 1997 was consistently 60-70knts but I can't find charts for it. Doesn't matter what side of the fence you are on, its an amazing weather anomaly phenomenon on its own.

This picture is worth 1000 words

http://moe.met.fsu.edu/cgi-bin/gfstc2.c ... hour=180hr

3 indicators of a dead tropics
A-atlantic high too strong and too far south due to the negative NAO
B-The strong high to the north and that low over nw south america are creating ripping low level easterlies
C-Again that strong high to the north and low over west africa is ripping down montrous amounts of bone dry air into the tropics.

I fully expect things to go downhill from here with the most unfavorable conditions from mid-aug to mid oct.

[Alyono]

The logic wouldn't make sense for transition years if we go by that. For example spring of 2010 was a waning El Nino as was 1998, but quickly became strong Ninas later in the year. Do we define them as El Nino years? No they are La Nina years. But ENSO is defined by 5 consecutive trimonthlies, once you lose the reading it is no more. There are some cases you can argue it dips slightly below but then return to the enso state as still that event. However the remainder of 1992 did not thus the 1992-1993 season was not El Nino.

the atmosphere had not transitioned, however. The CPAC was having its most active season to date then

[MiamiensisWx]

I don't believe there's any correlation between the direction of the first storm at landfall and future tracks. Ana was moving NW, not NNW at landfall. I measure 326.1 deg, which is still NW as NNW starts at 326.26 deg. What are the statistics for first storm movement at landfall? What years are included, what is the distribution of directions?

I used the official HURDAT database from 1851 to 2014. Thanks for correcting my estimate for Ana, but for my purposes, Ana still meets the criteria of a storm moving between west and north-northwest at landfall. As for years, I already mentioned the seasons that met my criteria. Regarding distribution of directions, how would that make a difference in my instance? Please clarify (and hopefully don't run away as soon as I ask).

As for correlations, there's a good correlation between moderate to strong El Ninos and a lack of East U.S. Coast impacts. There's no such correlation for Northern Gulf Coast impacts, or lack of impacts, in an El Nino season. With the trof along the East U.S. Coast, the storms that form north of the Caribbean will probably recurve east of the U.S. Of course, it's all a matter of timing.

That is really my instinct as well, as the mean trough is still a bit too far east for an Atlantic storm to affect the East Coast. It is also tilted somewhat from SSW to NNE, if my interpretation is correct, which would further support storms curving east of the coast. Nevertheless, I have followed your posts for many years (since 2003, in fact), and I remember that you once discussed how a +PDO/-NAO combination placed a mean trough along the East Coast from 1995 to 2003, allowing most Atlantic-forming hurricanes to curve away from the East Coast. In 2004 and 2005, obviously, that pattern switched to a stronger, west-based Bermuda High, though a bigger reason for the 2005 landfalls was the fact that so many storms formed far to the west. Since 2005 (and especially since 2009), however, you have said that we have returned to a mean East Coast trough, accounting for the relative lack of Atlantic hurricanes hitting the U.S. So for all but two seasons of the 15-year-long active cycle since 1995, we have basically seen a persistent East Coast trough, with 2010-14 showing almost uninterrupted trough conditions.

I know that you are close to Dr. Gray and Dr. Klotzbach. Before 2004-05, they and you, among some others, said that the overall pattern would shift and lead to more U.S. hurricanes, and particularly major hits, over the next decade or so before the +AMO ended. In 2004, for instance, you stated:

...

So what's happening now? Well from 1995-2003 we've seen the formation of 32 major hurricanes but only 3 landfalls. Climo says at least 10 of those should have made landfall. But from 1995-2003 the North Atlantic oscillation has been mostly negative, meaning weaker Bermuda High and recurvature prior to reaching the U.S. This is what you've been observing in recent years, but things are changing.

Very recently, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (related to SSTs in the eastern Pacific west of California) has switched to cold-phase. This mult-decadal oscillation has not been in a prolonged cold phase in combination with above-normal Atlantic SSTs since the 1940s-1960s. This PDO affects the trof/ridge relationship downstream. I.E., that protective east coast trof will likely be on its way out. Already, I'm seeing signs of a stronger Bermuda High ridging farther west.

This is exactly the setup we had for the 1940s through the 1960s when Florida was absolutely pummeled by major hurricanes. And that's why I say to ignore the numbers forecast and look at the patterns. I think we'll be seeing less storms in the near future but more major hurricanes and a significantly increased risk of major hurricane landfalls, particularly in Florida.

[MiamiensisWx's note: We actually saw a dominantly negative PDO during 2010-13, yet with a mean trough along the Eastern Seaboard. For what it's worth, there seems to be a greater correlation between May-June SSTA off the East Coast (a function of the TNA index) and the position of the mean trough in August-September.]

I have looked at the frequency of major U.S. hurricane hits from 1995 to 2014 and in the previous +AMO cycles in the late 19th century and from 1926-69. Based on what I've seen, the frequency of major landfalls per every nine years has been notably lower in the latest active cycle than in the previous two +AMO periods. We have also seen a reduced frequency of upper-end major landfalls--Category 4 and 5. I know that data for landfalls before 1900 is suspect, but we have fairly good data since then, and even these show a reduced frequency of major and Cat. 4/5 hits in the latest +AMO. Almost all of the major landfalls since 1995 occurred in just two seasons, 2004 and 2005, and past history indicates that we should have seen at least two Cat. 4/5 hits by now, not one (Charley 2004). (Of course, I am not discounting the fact that weaker storms can still be very destructive.)

To be blunt, while I appreciate their (and your) work and understand the difficulties of the field, the facts seem to indicate that Messrs. Gray and Klotzbach, and you, have failed to see your expectations verify for the latest active cycle. What bothers me, however, is not so much that the expectations have not been fulfilled, but rather that explanations for the apparent failure(s) are lacking. I have not seen a convincing explanation not only for the recent downturn in the +AMO (other than the truism that every +AMO comes with blips), but also for the unfavorable shear, low instability, and other negative factors in the Atlantic (even when El Niño was absent in 2012 and 2013), which, since 2011, have resulted in a net decrease in the number of hurricanes forming south of 25°N, compared to that earlier in the +AMO, such as from 1995-2010. I have not seen a convincing explanation for the lack of major U.S. landfalls, and especially for the persistent East Coast trough for nearly 15 years.

To be even more blunt, if the unutterable climate change is in any way responsible, at least partially, for some, or all, of these changes, then I can reach no other conclusion other than that emergency managers, meteorologists, and posters on this forum are exaggerating, overestimating, or even hyping the hurricane "threat" to the U.S.--a threat that may no longer be as significant as it once was.

Watch those SST anomaly graphics - a high warm anomaly doesn't necessarily mean high heat contact is also high there. Check out the Gulf of Alaska and the bright reds there. I wouldn't expect a hurricane to form there because SSTs are much higher than normal.

I was referring to the seasonal correlation between SST anomalies and steering currents, not between SST anomalies and storm formation.

[Yellow Evan]

There is nothing to suggest that conditions will become favorable in the deep tropics, een in the long range.

You do realize we are looking at a super El Nino conditions down there. When we get a nice MJO/KW outburst eventually, which isn't expected in the short term contrary to some posts above, then, all of a sudden, yes, the SE US/Gulf will become very very favorable though.

[WPBWeather]

There is nothing to suggest that conditions will become favorable in the deep tropics, een in the long range.

You do realize we are looking at a super El Nino conditions down there. When we get a nice MJO/KW outburst eventually, which isn't expected in the short term contrary to some posts above, then, all of a sudden, yes, the SE US/Gulf will become very very favorable though.

We do not have a super El Nino yet.

And there is nothing to suggest that things will stay forever hostile in the Atl unless you have a special source in S. Nevada you would care to share.

[Andrew92]

The logic wouldn't make sense for transition years if we go by that. For example spring of 2010 was a waning El Nino as was 1998, but quickly became strong Ninas later in the year. Do we define them as El Nino years? No they are La Nina years. But ENSO is defined by 5 consecutive trimonthlies, once you lose the reading it is no more. There are some cases you can argue it dips slightly below but then return to the enso state as still that event. However the remainder of 1992 did not thus the 1992-1993 season was not El Nino.

the atmosphere had not transitioned, however. The CPAC was having its most active season to date then

Just a general question for anyone who knows: What would cause the atmosphere not to respond to El Nino transitioning into La Nina like then, or what happened in 1983? Could it have been related to the warm Pacific and less active Atlantic cycle taking place at that time? Or is it something else that we might have to watch for when this event dissipates, assuming we have La Nina immediately afterwards, say next year?

-Andrew92

[Yellow Evan]

The logic wouldn't make sense for transition years if we go by that. For example spring of 2010 was a waning El Nino as was 1998, but quickly became strong Ninas later in the year. Do we define them as El Nino years? No they are La Nina years. But ENSO is defined by 5 consecutive trimonthlies, once you lose the reading it is no more. There are some cases you can argue it dips slightly below but then return to the enso state as still that event. However the remainder of 1992 did not thus the 1992-1993 season was not El Nino.

the atmosphere had not transitioned, however. The CPAC was having its most active season to date then

Just a general question for anyone who knows: What would cause the atmosphere not to respond to El Nino transitioning into La Nina like then, or what happened in 1983? Could it have been related to the warm Pacific and less active Atlantic cycle taking place at that time? Or is it something else that we might have to watch for when this event dissipates, assuming we have La Nina immediately afterwards, say next year?

-Andrew92

The 83-85 Ninas are odd since they had very high MEI values.

[Ntxw]

That is a good question andrew92, I'd like to know as well. The top 5 ACE seasons in the eastern Pacific are not directly during El Nino (200+ ace units seasons) but are all associated with +PDO. This is off topic though for epac threads.

[Yellow Evan]

That is a good question andrew92, I'd like to know as well. The top 5 ACE seasons in the eastern Pacific are not directly during El Nino (200+ ace units seasons) but are all associated with +PDO. This is off topic though for epac threads.

The most important Thing in an EPAC season is the PDO, since it gives storms more space. That is well documented and that is why I say sometimes, El Ninos are overrated.

[tolakram]

To be blunt, while I appreciate their (and your) work and understand the difficulties of the field, the facts seem to indicate that Messrs. Gray and Klotzbach, and you, have failed to see your expectations verify for the latest active cycle. What bothers me, however, is not so much that the expectations have not been fulfilled, but rather that explanations for the apparent failure(s) are lacking. I have not seen a convincing explanation not only for the recent downturn in the +AMO (other than the truism that every +AMO comes with blips), but also for the unfavorable shear, low instability, and other negative factors in the Atlantic (even when El Niño was absent in 2012 and 2013), which, since 2011, have resulted in a net decrease in the number of hurricanes forming south of 25°N, compared to that earlier in the +AMO, such as from 1995-2010. I have not seen a convincing explanation for the lack of major U.S. landfalls, and especially for the persistent East Coast trough for nearly 15 years.

To be even more blunt, if the unutterable climate change is in any way responsible, at least partially, for some, or all, of these changes, then I can reach no other conclusion other than that emergency managers, meteorologists, and posters on this forum are exaggerating, overestimating, or even hyping the hurricane "threat" to the U.S.--a threat that may no longer be as significant as it once was.

I think it's interesting to remember that it was Gray who theorized that global warming, if it did exist, might suppress hurricane formation rather than enhance it. That said, while entertaining, has nothing to do with anything we are seeing now IMO.

I think the bias here is expecting the Atlantic to constantly be some hurricane machine that is predictable and consistent based on all the indicators we have discovered so far. Many of us woke up in the 2004/2005 seasons and have based our expectations on those metrics, rather than the typical boring season with struggling storms and a few big ones.

Buildup on the coasts is going to lead to a major disaster, again. It's not a question of if, it's when. Warnings about strike probability are just that, probability. Forecasters know this is important due to the number of people now living in harms way. I can't fathom why someone would think forecasters are hyping this when they are simply looking at the chances and making their best forecasts with the information they have.

[gatorcane]

Well said Mark. I agree 100%. 2013 is a great example which shows that we are far from really predicting how active a season will be. That season was supposed to be very active but was completely the opposite. There is just no guarantee in the tropics El nino or no El nino.

[wxman57]

I don't believe there's any correlation between the direction of the first storm at landfall and future tracks. Ana was moving NW, not NNW at landfall. I measure 326.1 deg, which is still NW as NNW starts at 326.26 deg. What are the statistics for first storm movement at landfall? What years are included, what is the distribution of directions?

I used the official HURDAT database from 1851 to 2014. Thanks for correcting my estimate for Ana, but for my purposes, Ana still meets the criteria of a storm moving between west and north-northwest at landfall. As for years, I already mentioned the seasons that met my criteria. Regarding distribution of directions, how would that make a difference in my instance? Please clarify (and hopefully don't run away as soon as I ask).

I was just curious as to the statistics of movement at landfall for the first storm from 1851-2015. How many were moving W, WNW, NW, ...etc.? What's the distribution of directions?

As for my statement prior to the 2004 season:

"This is exactly the setup we had for the 1940s through the 1960s when Florida was absolutely pummeled by major hurricanes. And that's why I say to ignore the numbers forecast and look at the patterns. I think we'll be seeing less storms in the near future but more major hurricanes and a significantly increased risk of major hurricane landfalls, particularly in Florida."

I'd say that turned out quite well (bold part). About 1 in 3 major hurricanes of the past has made a U.S. landfall, making the current nearly 10-yr drought quite unusual. One would think that such a drought cannot continue much longer.

[Ntxw]

:uarrow: Well said Mark. I agree 100%. 2013 is a great example which shows that we are far from really predicting how active a season will be. That season was supposed to be very active but was completely the opposite. There is just no guarantee in the tropics El nino or no El nino.

2013 was a snowball debacle for sure was a neutral enso year and many, including myself, concluded neutrals would bring high activity. That's the business of it though neutral is that neutral, there is no tipping hand to bias one way or another with no dominating factors that you typically look for when you have a Nino/Nina. El Nino does give a very good insight on statistics, especially the bigger ones. The 5 biggest ones are all below average seasons, and the top 3 were even less. We've already seen this El Nino show it's hand with the insane shear values in the Carib. But as you say there is no guaranty because it's all about timing and the window, below average doesn't mean lightning can't strike. Where does it form and where does it hit even if the window is just a few weeks, that we have no idea. All we can go by is odds, thus why ENSO is used so often.

[MiamiensisWx]

To be blunt, while I appreciate their (and your) work and understand the difficulties of the field, the facts seem to indicate that Messrs. Gray and Klotzbach, and you, have failed to see your expectations verify for the latest active cycle. What bothers me, however, is not so much that the expectations have not been fulfilled, but rather that explanations for the apparent failure(s) are lacking. I have not seen a convincing explanation not only for the recent downturn in the +AMO (other than the truism that every +AMO comes with blips), but also for the unfavorable shear, low instability, and other negative factors in the Atlantic (even when El Niño was absent in 2012 and 2013), which, since 2011, have resulted in a net decrease in the number of hurricanes forming south of 25°N, compared to that earlier in the +AMO, such as from 1995-2010. I have not seen a convincing explanation for the lack of major U.S. landfalls, and especially for the persistent East Coast trough for nearly 15 years.

To be even more blunt, if the unutterable climate change is in any way responsible, at least partially, for some, or all, of these changes, then I can reach no other conclusion other than that emergency managers, meteorologists, and posters on this forum are exaggerating, overestimating, or even hyping the hurricane "threat" to the U.S.--a threat that may no longer be as significant as it once was.

I think it's interesting to remember that it was Gray who theorized that global warming, if it did exist, might suppress hurricane formation rather than enhance it. That said, while entertaining, has nothing to do with anything we are seeing now IMO.

Dr. Gray, whose expertise, it should be noted, does not specifically apply to climate change or its affects on tropical cyclones, was not the only specialist to theorize that climate change might reduce the average number of storms in the Atlantic or elsewhere. There are actually at least a few independent studies that suggest a similar outcome ("recent climate model simulations project a decrease or no change in global tropical cyclone numbers in a warmer climate"). Also, claiming with absolute certainty that climate change "has nothing to do with anything we are seeing now" is no different than claiming with absolute certainty that climate change is entirely human-induced and/or will lead to more intense tropical cyclones. Both reflect the same approach and do not allow room for uncertainty, much less the cool, curious, non-ideological introspection that is essential to science. So I must respectfully but firmly disagree with you here--on the basis of the scientific method alone.

I think the bias here is expecting the Atlantic to constantly be some hurricane machine that is predictable and consistent based on all the indicators we have discovered so far. Many of us woke up in the 2004/2005 seasons and have based our expectations on those metrics, rather than the typical boring season with struggling storms and a few big ones.

I was discussing trends in U.S. major hurricane landfalls, not the total number of storms, so your point seems somewhat irrelevant to my post. No one with knowledge of the tropics should suppose that Atlantic activity is constant, even during a +AMO cycle; I never have. Furthermore, the late 19th century showed that there have been several consecutive active seasons (meaning high ACE, in my definition, not necessarily a lot of named storms) with U.S. major hits at a higher frequency than that of the latest +AMO since 1995, bearing in mind much less data coverage prior to 1900. Years with at least 100 ACE from the period 1878-1899 include:

1878 (two U.S. hurricanes)
1880 (four U.S. hurricanes, one major)
1886 (seven U.S. hurricanes, two major)
1887 (four U.S. hurricanes)
1889 (one U.S. hurricane)
1891 (two U.S. hurricanes)
1892
1893 (five U.S. hurricanes, three major)
1894 (two U.S. hurricanes, one major)
1896 (two U.S. hurricanes, one major)
1898 (three U.S. hurricanes, one major)
1899 (two U.S. hurricanes, one major)

Note that I included landfalls as well as hurricane impacts from near misses. The frequency of majors is extremely high, and likely higher than that since 1995, given the likelihood that some of the non-major hits may have been majors, having hit sparsely settled areas.

As for my statement prior to the 2004 season:

"This is exactly the setup we had for the 1940s through the 1960s when Florida was absolutely pummeled by major hurricanes. And that's why I say to ignore the numbers forecast and look at the patterns. I think we'll be seeing less storms in the near future but more major hurricanes and a significantly increased risk of major hurricane landfalls, particularly in Florida."

I'd say that turned out quite well (bold part). About 1 in 3 major hurricanes of the past has made a U.S. landfall, making the current nearly 10-yr drought quite unusual. One would think that such a drought cannot continue much longer.

When did the phrase “near future” apply: to the 2004 season, to the next five seasons, the next decade? It was part of the sentence that I highlighted, yet you left it unaddressed, as if I had never considered it, and focused on the “significantly increased risk of major hurricane landfalls.” Knowing that you value contextual delimiters (such as time range), and considering the structure of your sentence, I’m puzzled as to why you omitted the first, key part of it. Also, given the other statistics that I presented, and the fact that you even acknowledge that the current "drought" is "quite unusual," I'm rather stunned that you can say that your expectations "turned out quite well." Please clarify.

Well said Mark. I agree 100%. 2013 is a great example which shows that we are far from really predicting how active a season will be. That season was supposed to be very active but was completely the opposite. There is just no guarantee in the tropics El nino or no El nino.

I’m at a loss as to why, when I make a point(s) that, to me, raises valid questions, one common response is to not address the question, but rather to use the lack of activity to prove that it just can’t be predicted (and hence implicitly shoot down efforts to improve forecasting through better understanding). The reasoning seems circular and unhelpful to me, for it defeats the purpose of scientific inquiry.

2013 was a snowball debacle for sure was a neutral enso year and many, including myself, concluded neutrals would bring high activity. That's the business of it though neutral is that neutral, there is no tipping hand to bias one way or another with no dominating factors that you typically look for when you have a Nino/Nina. El Nino does give a very good insight on statistics, especially the bigger ones. The 5 biggest ones are all below average seasons, and the top 3 were even less. We've already seen this El Nino show it's hand with the insane shear values in the Carib. But as you say there is no guaranty because it's all about timing and the window, below average doesn't mean lightning can't strike. Where does it form and where does it hit even if the window is just a few weeks, that we have no idea. All we can go by is odds, thus why ENSO is used so often.

No one with knowledge of the tropics would conclude that all neutral seasons bring enhanced activity. The evidence that 2013 would be an active season encompassed all the traditional indicators besides neutral ENSO: above-average SST anomalies in the tropical Atlantic, with a positive TNA in place; weaker-than-average trades due to a negative NAO; below-average sea level pressures in the MDR; and a neutral Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) in August-October, meaning little negative effect on instability. All the standard indicators were positive for an active season with above-average ACE, which is why Gray and Klotzbach forecast such a season. There were in fact several "tipping hands" favoring an active season in 2013, as a judicious and sound meteorology would have indicated. Yet some things, or something, canceled out factors that would almost certainly have brought about an active year in the recent past (before 2011).

As an aside, in case someone suspects that I'm one of those heretical global-warming extremists, I would like to add that I have never believed, and shall not believe, that climate change is directly responsible for singular, damaging events, since such events have always occurred and other factors (i.e., demographics, topography, quirky meteorology) ultimately influence how "damaging" an event is. I have never supposed, for instance, that the sudden dip in Atlantic SST anomalies during the summer of 2013 can be entirely attributable to reduced sea-ice extent (i.e., freshwater melt diluting the Gulf Stream/cooling the MDR) near Greenland; the time scale was too brief, and the long-term effects of ice melt more subtle, to subsume such a drastic change under the effects of sea-ice melt. The key message to take from climate change is that it never supersedes other, natural factors that have always occurred, but instead influences them in ways that are still to be fully assessed. While not every extreme event or persistent pattern can be attributable to climate change, and while each is definitely influenced by familiar meteorology, an increase in the frequency or duration of such an event could indicate the subtle influence of climate change on the oceanic-atmospheric feedback loop.

[Ntxw]

No one with knowledge of the tropics would conclude that all neutral seasons bring enhanced activity. The evidence that 2013 would be an active season encompassed all the traditional indicators besides neutral ENSO: above-average SST anomalies in the tropical Atlantic, with a positive TNA in place; weaker-than-average trades due to a negative NAO; below-average sea level pressures in the MDR; and a neutral Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) in August-October, meaning little negative effect on instability. All the standard indicators were positive for an active season with above-average ACE, which is why Gray and Klotzbach forecast such a season. There were in fact several "tipping hands" favoring an active season in 2013, as a judicious and sound meteorology would have indicated. Yet some things, or something, canceled out factors that would almost certainly have brought about an active year in the recent past (before 2011).

Of course, lesson well learned now from that. Being new to the tropics then as many were, when you heard drums of neutral and 2005 that was a first starting point for many. But the reasoning is that without a solid Nina or Nino (not always the case but definitely helps your cause) the risk of being wrong seems a bit higher as in a neutral year without those background signals to help.

[Yellow Evan]

In hindsight, 2013 wasn't as surprising as made out to be above. Even in 2011 and 2012, the deep tropics were slightly less conducive than in years past and many storms were struggled with their inner core due to lack of instability. Vertical instability was terrible through much of 2013, and I doubt anyone truly expected several major hurricanes that year. With that said, 2013 was still a major disappointment and forecasting bust.

[tolakram]

Also, claiming with absolute certainty

I did no such thing, my comment was just a humorous aside and that was all the thought I put into it. Gray's comment was during an unrelated interview and he had a small rant about global warming and 2005. Remember this is a friendly forum, not a debate room.

We are just 10 years away from 2005, I'm not sure in that short period of time we can glean any significant trends. That pretty much sums up my opinion on the matter, and it's just my opinion.

[tolakram]

Going to start saving some graphics of the indicators for reference.

The usual instability chart for the tropical Atlantic:


I like this graphic better, it's the 24 hour forecast of instability anomalies throughout the basin.


Wind Shear anomalies


SST anomalies


and finally, the cumulative 48 hour formation probability anomaly:


all from this page: http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/TCFP/atlantic.html

[blp]

Going to start saving some graphics of the indicators for reference.

The usual instability chart for the tropical Atlantic:
[]http://imageshack.com/a/img910/2259/kGs1yI.gif[/img]

I like this graphic better, it's the 24 hour forecast of instability anomalies throughout the basin.
[]http://imageshack.com/a/img673/2261/NNeOIN.gif[/img]

Wind Shear anomalies
[]http://imageshack.com/a/img633/589/gdeCxC.gif[/img]

SST anomalies
[]http://imageshack.com/a/img540/2126/ay9ub6.gif[/img]

and finally, the cumulative 48 hour formation probability anomaly:
[]http://imageshack.com/a/img905/7113/0uCEFD.gif[/img]

all from this page: http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/TCFP/atlantic.html

The graphics for East Coast don't look bad and the SST's are primed up. That is my area this year along with the Gulf. I think due to a stronger ridge this year some of the development will make it further west toward land.

[TheStormExpert]

The West Atlantic ridging MAY be somewhat stronger, BUT there is still a Semi-Permanent trough along the East Coast/Northeast U.S. As we head into the peak months of August, September, and October(especially September onward) we will more than likely see the Bermuda High break down and cave in quite a bit due to the troughs becoming more stronger with the change of season. This happens basically every year(with the exception of years like 2004 which are VERY rare IMO) and has allowed us to escape MANY MANY direct hits from hurricanes! Now if the peak was a month or two earlier this would be a WHOLE different story IMO and the U.S. would be notorious with hurricane hits.

All in all I expect this season to be no different, even if the steering pattern is different for now.