Will 2020 reach hyperactive status in terms of ACE?

[ElectricStorm]

Many of the named storms this season were VERY short-lived and weak. Take "Alpha", for example. Upgraded as it move inland into Portugal? The NHC would never have named such a system in the past. Ignore the named storm numbers. We've had only 9 hurricanes and 3 major hurricanes, which is about what was predicted hurricane-wise but below what was predicted in terms of major hurricanes. ACE-wise, it's only an average season.

Why ignore the named storm numbers? Because many didn't last long or were weak? Longevity potential doesn't factor into the classification of storms. If they meet the classification, they're named. We're not in the past, we're in the present. They're named now thanks to better technological tools and access to data, unless you are implying NHC are naming storms for an alternative reason.

The number of named storms continues to go up, partly because we have better technology to detect weak, short-lived storms far out to sea. The NHC has also changed what qualifies as a TS in recent decades. They're naming subtropical storms now, too. All of this leads to more named storms than in the past, but not more hurricanes or major hurricanes. That's why the number of named storms, relative to climatology, is not very significant. A total of 9 hurricanes (maybe 10) with only 3 major hurricanes is not particularly impressive. Consider that one of those hurricane upgrades was the one that moved inland into Belize (Hanna?). That may have been a questionable upgrade, in my opinion.

It was Nana and yes I agree it was a questionable upgrade. But Gamma I think should (and I think it will) be upgraded to a hurricane so the numbers would even out. 9 hurricanes and 3 majors isn't all too impressive by itself although it is above average. But getting to Greek letters has to be counted. Even with our much improved technology, this is only the second time we have reached Greek letters. It would be different if was like a version of *wait for it* 2013, where we only have a couple hurricanes and no majors, but given the overall numbers, this season is hyperactive

[SconnieCane]

Above-average? Yes. Active? Most definitely. Hyperactive? Not quite in my unprofessional opinion.

Even removing four named storms, which I think is the most that could be done by wxman57's standards, we'd still be into the Greek names for only the second time in history. However, I see I'm not the only one perplexed and (from a meteorology geek, not a rooting-for-death-and-destruction perspective) a little disappointed that this season didn't feature at least one Irma or Ivan-caliber, 40-70 ACE storm with a gorgeous, clear stadium eye for days on end.

[ElectricStorm]

Above-average? Yes. Active? Most definitely. Hyperactive? Not quite in my unprofessional opinion.

Even removing four named storms, which I think is the most that could be done by wxman57's standards, we'd still be into the Greek names for only the second time in history. However, I see I'm not the only one perplexed and (from a meteorology geek, not a rooting-for-death-and-destruction perspective) a little disappointed that this season didn't feature at least one Irma or Ivan-caliber, 40-70 ACE storm.

I will say I fully expected one of those, or at least some type of Cat 5 as we are running out of time to get one (not saying I want destruction on anyone but Cat 5's are insane to track). It is kinda funny how the only season in the 5 active years in a row that we've had that reached Greek letters is the only one without a Cat 5

[tolakram]

Why? Why is activity also associated with strength of storms? The two seem completely different to me. In fact, some of the worst cat 5's happened in otherwise slow years.

Background conditions being good enough to form storms were predicted and happened. Storms finding pockets of conditions good enough to strengthen was rare this year. I don't see anything odd or unusual about the year, other than the unfortunate bad luck that LA got hit multiple times.

[TheStormExpert]

Why? Why is activity also associated with strength of storms? The two seem completely different to me. In fact, some of the worst cat 5's happened in otherwise slow years.

Background conditions being good enough to form storms were predicted and happened. Storms finding pockets of conditions good enough to strengthen was rare this year. I don't see anything odd or unusual about the year, other than the unfortunate bad luck that LA got hit multiple times.

I will agree we’ve seen far worse and damaging storms in less active years. Just look at Andrew in 1992 or even Dorian last year as it wasn’t too necessarily overly above average.

[Shell Mound]

Many of the named storms this season were VERY short-lived and weak. Take "Alpha", for example. Upgraded as it move inland into Portugal? The NHC would never have named such a system in the past. Ignore the named storm numbers. We've had only 9 hurricanes and 3 major hurricanes, which is about what was predicted hurricane-wise but below what was predicted in terms of major hurricanes. ACE-wise, it's only an average season.

Why ignore the named storm numbers? Because many didn't last long or were weak? Longevity potential doesn't factor into the classification of storms. If they meet the classification, they're named. We're not in the past, we're in the present. They're named now thanks to better technological tools and access to data, unless you are implying NHC are naming storms for an alternative reason.

The number of named storms continues to go up, partly because we have better technology to detect weak, short-lived storms far out to sea. The NHC has also changed what qualifies as a TS in recent decades. They're naming subtropical storms now, too. All of this leads to more named storms than in the past, but not more hurricanes or major hurricanes. That's why the number of named storms, relative to climatology, is not very significant. A total of 9 hurricanes (maybe 10) with only 3 major hurricanes is not particularly impressive. Consider that one of those hurricane upgrades was the one that moved inland into Belize (Nana). That may have been a questionable upgrade, in my opinion.

What is your view as to why this season was relatively inactive despite a warm Atlantic, active African monsoon, and La Niña conditions?

[CyclonicFury]

Why ignore the named storm numbers? Because many didn't last long or were weak? Longevity potential doesn't factor into the classification of storms. If they meet the classification, they're named. We're not in the past, we're in the present. They're named now thanks to better technological tools and access to data, unless you are implying NHC are naming storms for an alternative reason.

The number of named storms continues to go up, partly because we have better technology to detect weak, short-lived storms far out to sea. The NHC has also changed what qualifies as a TS in recent decades. They're naming subtropical storms now, too. All of this leads to more named storms than in the past, but not more hurricanes or major hurricanes. That's why the number of named storms, relative to climatology, is not very significant. A total of 9 hurricanes (maybe 10) with only 3 major hurricanes is not particularly impressive. Consider that one of those hurricane upgrades was the one that moved inland into Belize (Nana). That may have been a questionable upgrade, in my opinion.

What is your view as to why this season was relatively inactive despite a warm Atlantic, active African monsoon, and La Niña conditions?

Relatively inactive? 2020 is not by any means inactive. 26 named storms aside, 9 (likely soon to be 10) hurricanes and 3 major hurricanes are both above average. Not to mention a record 10 CONUS landfalls, including 5 hurricane landfalls.

[TheStormExpert]

The number of named storms continues to go up, partly because we have better technology to detect weak, short-lived storms far out to sea. The NHC has also changed what qualifies as a TS in recent decades. They're naming subtropical storms now, too. All of this leads to more named storms than in the past, but not more hurricanes or major hurricanes. That's why the number of named storms, relative to climatology, is not very significant. A total of 9 hurricanes (maybe 10) with only 3 major hurricanes is not particularly impressive. Consider that one of those hurricane upgrades was the one that moved inland into Belize (Nana). That may have been a questionable upgrade, in my opinion.

What is your view as to why this season was relatively inactive despite a warm Atlantic, active African monsoon, and La Niña conditions?

Relatively inactive? 2020 is not by any means inactive. 26 named storms aside, 9 (likely soon to be 10) hurricanes and 3 major hurricanes are both above average. Not to mention a record 10 CONUS landfalls, including 5 hurricane landfalls.

A better question is what caused this season to underperform in terms of Cape Verde season long-tracking hurricanes and ACE? We had all the favorable ingredients in place but something must’ve been missing.

[CyclonicFury]

What is your view as to why this season was relatively inactive despite a warm Atlantic, active African monsoon, and La Niña conditions?

Relatively inactive? 2020 is not by any means inactive. 26 named storms aside, 9 (likely soon to be 10) hurricanes and 3 major hurricanes are both above average. Not to mention a record 10 CONUS landfalls, including 5 hurricane landfalls.

A better question is what caused this season to underperform in terms of Cape Verde season long-tracking hurricanes and ACE? We had all the favorable ingredients in place but something must’ve been missing.

I think a lot of it had to do with the large size of the disturbances that formed over the MDR in early September, as well as a perfectly timed TUTT related to Typhoon Maysak that prevented significant intensification early on with Paulette or Rene. SSTs and velocity potential patterns were not the problem. Mid-level dry air may have been a bigger issue than most predicted. I was a bit surprised August wasn't more active in the MDR, but August has been fairly quiet in recent years.

As for ACE, that's ticking up now and likely to pass 130 with Epsilon.

[TheStormExpert]

Relatively inactive? 2020 is not by any means inactive. 26 named storms aside, 9 (likely soon to be 10) hurricanes and 3 major hurricanes are both above average. Not to mention a record 10 CONUS landfalls, including 5 hurricane landfalls.

A better question is what caused this season to underperform in terms of Cape Verde season long-tracking hurricanes and ACE? We had all the favorable ingredients in place but something must’ve been missing.

I think a lot of it had to do with the large size of the disturbances that formed over the MDR in early September, as well as a perfectly timed TUTT related to Typhoon Maysak that prevented significant intensification early on with Paulette or Rene. SSTs and velocity potential patterns were not the problem. Mid-level dry air may have been a bigger issue than most predicted. I was a bit surprised August wasn't more active in the MDR, but August has been fairly quiet in recent years.

As for ACE, that's ticking up now and likely to pass 130 with Epsilon.

I will admit that I even noticed SAL and mid-level dry air sticking around longer than normal.

[MarioProtVI]

With Epsilon having become much stronger then expected and becoming a major, it is likely to stay 100-110 mph for the next few days before weakening and becoming ET, which should add at least 10-12 ACE to our total (rising to at least 130-135). Given how favourable November seems to be looking (considerably below average shear in the Caribbean and a wet Caribbean too), it’s certainly possible we get a slow-moving major down there (Lenny-esque or Otto) which could add on another 15-30 ACE which would push 2020 to hyperactivity.

[Shell Mound]

A better question is what caused this season to underperform in terms of Cape Verde season long-tracking hurricanes and ACE? We had all the favorable ingredients in place but something must’ve been missing.

I think a lot of it had to do with the large size of the disturbances that formed over the MDR in early September, as well as a perfectly timed TUTT related to Typhoon Maysak that prevented significant intensification early on with Paulette or Rene. SSTs and velocity potential patterns were not the problem. Mid-level dry air may have been a bigger issue than most predicted. I was a bit surprised August wasn't more active in the MDR, but August has been fairly quiet in recent years.

As for ACE, that's ticking up now and likely to pass 130 with Epsilon.

I will admit that I even noticed SAL and mid-level dry air sticking around longer than normal.

Why was that the case, given the record wetness over the Sahel + strong African monsoon? Perhaps the amplitude of the waves advected more SAL...

[aspen]

2020 may not hit hyperactive ACE totals, but it is now hyperactive in terms of my Instantaneous Cyclone Energy (ICE) metric, thanks to Hurricane Epsilon’s surprise RI into a major. Its peak of 100 kt/951 mbar gives it 66.21 units of ICE, brining 2020’s total up to 607.76 — 1.57x average, and the highest since 2017.

[Nuno]

2020 may not hit hyperactive ACE totals, but it is now hyperactive in terms of my Instantaneous Cyclone Energy (ICE) metric, thanks to Hurricane Epsilon’s surprise RI into a major. Its peak of 100 kt/951 mbar gives it 66.21 units of ICE, brining 2020’s total up to 607.76 — 1.57x average, and the highest since 2017.

Hopefully this puts to bed the "was the hurricane season that spawned 27 storms hyperactive??" debate

[Ryxn]

I say it is near certain at this point. Less than 10 units to go!

[Hammy]

2020 may not hit hyperactive ACE totals, but it is now hyperactive in terms of my Instantaneous Cyclone Energy (ICE) metric, thanks to Hurricane Epsilon’s surprise RI into a major. Its peak of 100 kt/951 mbar gives it 66.21 units of ICE, brining 2020’s total up to 607.76 — 1.57x average, and the highest since 2017.

Hopefully this puts to bed the "was the hurricane season that spawned 27 storms hyperactive??" debate

Blame NOAA for applying the term exclusively to ACE--and the discussion revolved around whether or not the NOAA forecasts of such would play out.

[al78]

What is your view as to why this season was relatively inactive despite a warm Atlantic, active African monsoon, and La Niña conditions?

Relatively inactive? 2020 is not by any means inactive. 26 named storms aside, 9 (likely soon to be 10) hurricanes and 3 major hurricanes are both above average. Not to mention a record 10 CONUS landfalls, including 5 hurricane landfalls.

A better question is what caused this season to underperform in terms of Cape Verde season long-tracking hurricanes and ACE? We had all the favorable ingredients in place but something must’ve been missing.

I think there was a persistent TUTT in the tropical Atlantic which resulted in developing storms struggling to intensify. In a sense 2005 was a bit like that. The MDR activity that year was mediocre in terms of storm quality (if strength is related to quality), plenty of storms in the open Atlantic but those storms generated very few major hurricane days. The storms that became powerful did so when they moved into the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico, with unfortunate consequences for the Gulf states and the Yucatan. 2005 was very bad luck for the U.S. with the west side of the basin being favourable, the open Atlantic much less so, and the steering winds directing much of what did develop straight into that favourable region (once a storm makes it into a favourable Gulf, someone is going to get whacked), hence Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Rita, Wilma.

[al78]

The number of named storms continues to go up, partly because we have better technology to detect weak, short-lived storms far out to sea. The NHC has also changed what qualifies as a TS in recent decades. They're naming subtropical storms now, too. All of this leads to more named storms than in the past, but not more hurricanes or major hurricanes. That's why the number of named storms, relative to climatology, is not very significant. A total of 9 hurricanes (maybe 10) with only 3 major hurricanes is not particularly impressive. Consider that one of those hurricane upgrades was the one that moved inland into Belize (Nana). That may have been a questionable upgrade, in my opinion.

What is your view as to why this season was relatively inactive despite a warm Atlantic, active African monsoon, and La Niña conditions?

Relatively inactive? 2020 is not by any means inactive. 26 named storms aside, 9 (likely soon to be 10) hurricanes and 3 major hurricanes are both above average. Not to mention a record 10 CONUS landfalls, including 5 hurricane landfalls.

Relatively inactive is not the same as actually inactive. Nobody is saying it hasn't been an active season. Three major hurricanes is low for a season with such an extreme number of named storms. You typically get three major hurricanes in seasons with half the number of storms of this year so that is not impressive. Didn't 2004 have five or six majors, and that only got half way through the alphabet? 1999 is another year which had five majors and less than half the number of storms of this year. It is therefore reasonable to question what made the 2020 season less active in terms of ACE or storm peak intensity than would be expected for such a high number of named storms. In one sense the U.S. has dodged a bullet in that if the storms this year had lifecycles like 2004 storms, there could have easily been at least three Laura equivalents coming ashore on the Gulf coast.

[Ubuntwo]

What is your view as to why this season was relatively inactive despite a warm Atlantic, active African monsoon, and La Niña conditions?

Relatively inactive? 2020 is not by any means inactive. 26 named storms aside, 9 (likely soon to be 10) hurricanes and 3 major hurricanes are both above average. Not to mention a record 10 CONUS landfalls, including 5 hurricane landfalls.

Relatively inactive is not the same as actually inactive. Nobody is saying it hasn't been an active season. Three major hurricanes is low for a season with such an extreme number of named storms. You typically get three major hurricanes in seasons with half the number of storms of this year so that is not impressive. Didn't 2004 have five or six majors, and that only got half way through the alphabet? 1999 is another year which had five majors and less than half the number of storms of this year. It is therefore reasonable to question what made the 2020 season less active in terms of ACE or storm peak intensity than would be expected for such a high number of named storms. In one sense the U.S. has dodged a bullet in that if the storms this year had lifecycles like 2004 storms, there could have easily been at least three Laura equivalents coming ashore on the Gulf coast.

We're at 4 majors, plus a couple edge cases. Biggest inhibitor was the proximity to land with which most systems developed.

[Hypercane_Kyle]

What is your view as to why this season was relatively inactive despite a warm Atlantic, active African monsoon, and La Niña conditions?

Relatively inactive? 2020 is not by any means inactive. 26 named storms aside, 9 (likely soon to be 10) hurricanes and 3 major hurricanes are both above average. Not to mention a record 10 CONUS landfalls, including 5 hurricane landfalls.

Relatively inactive is not the same as actually inactive. Nobody is saying it hasn't been an active season. Three major hurricanes is low for a season with such an extreme number of named storms. You typically get three major hurricanes in seasons with half the number of storms of this year so that is not impressive.

4* majors: Laura, Teddy, Delta, Epsilon. 5 majors if Zeta is upgraded post-season, which I think is likely. Might even see another major in November, which could make the total 6+

Didn't 2004 have five or six majors, and that only got half way through the alphabet? 1999 is another year which had five majors and less than half the number of storms of this year. It is therefore reasonable to question what made the 2020 season less active in terms of ACE or storm peak intensity than would be expected for such a high number of named storms.In one sense the U.S. has dodged a bullet in that if the storms this year had lifecycles like 2004 storms, there could have easily been at least three Laura equivalents coming ashore on the Gulf coast.[

Senior meteorologists, such as Eric Blake, have made no secret of their dislike of ACE as a measurement for seasonal activity. While it's true this season has been lacking in long-tracked, it's made up for in surprise. Let's take Zeta, for example: here's a storm that was predicted less than 48-hours in advance to make landfall as a tropical storm/minimal hurricane at best. The storm made landfall basically as a Category 3. Many people were caught completely off guard. Hanna, Sally, and Laura are other examples. No bullet has been dodged. I'd rather take the storm I know is coming days in advance than the one I've had little warning of. Here in Florida we knew Irma was coming nearly a week in advance and the entire state was prepared for the storm that, despite having an impact, wasn't nearly the storm we were fearing. And also don't forget many of the storms in 2004-2005 were weakening on approach, not rapidly intensifying (Charley and Wilma were the only two that were intensifying).

2020 may not be 2005 or 2004, but it's an entirely different beast that has been a nightmare from both an impact and forecasting perspective.