Official TS Bret

[KatDaddy]

Two in June.............wow! The active cycle continues A long season ahead of us. I am thinking 1995 and 1933 number of storms and even possibly more.

[Derek Ortt]

sea surface temps are only one parameter. Contrary to what some may say, if other factors are unfavorable, you can have SST in excess of 200F and you still wont get development. Also, it is <b>NOT</b> SST, but the difference between the SST and the upper environment that causes the insability. Some studies have shown that increased SST do not lead to more storms, just slightly more intense storms as the temp difference actually remains somewhat the same as upper air temps also warm, though they can grow more intense due to heat content

[wxman57]

...Some studies have shown that increased SST do not lead to more storms, just slightly more intense storms as the temp difference actually remains somewhat the same as upper air temps also warm, though they can grow more intense due to heat content

That has been my experience, Derek. I did extensive research into storm intensities in warm vs. cool Atlantic SST regimes, thinking I might find a correlation between higher SSTs and increased numbers of storms. However, what I found was that there was virtually no difference in storm numbers. In fact, there were very slightly more named storms per season when the Atlantic was cooler (by a few tenths of a storm).

[Josephine96]

2 storms before July 1.. Sounds like it's gonna be a very busy season

[artist]

Derek - I'm not questioning your post - just wondered how they do compare.

[Swimdude]

Two storms. Only happened 12 times in the last 150 years or so. WOOOO HOOOO BRET!!!!



I can't even describe how [or why] excited I am! YIPPEE!

[Derek Ortt]

i'm not sure what the sst's are, but I don't think it matters for total number of storms

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

So thats how cyclones form. From the difference an temperature between the layers of Atmosphere. In which they transport the heat or equal out the different temperatures. They are important.

[drezee]

2 storms in June vs. inactive years is a load of crap...
If you really want to look at the correlation of seasonal parameters with those years such as '97 (the strongest El nino on record)...does not compute. Dr. Gray has the right idea, until someone improves on it, then pound sand for all I care.

[Derek Ortt]

Dr Gray wrote a paper which indicated a negative correlation with June storms vs seasonal activity. Perhaps it is not me that needs to pound the sand, just because there is something that you disagree with

[drezee]

My intent was not to be confrontational. I just see so many so-called correlations that rarely if ever have anything to do with the season. There is also a "correlation" with two June storms and El Niño years, but should we forget that this is not an El Niño.

[Derek Ortt]

however, the wind patterns of the epac are more ninoish (such as Adrian moving west to east, etc). It does take some time for the atmosphere to recover from an el nino

from the CDC website, 1983 actually had La Nina oceanic conditions late in the season, but the atmosphere couldn't react in time. Last yera, we had an el nino

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

One more thing 1995 had a very strong July. In to tell you the truth. If last year had a July. Like 1995 did they would of had numbers close to it. July is still pretty early to start a season out like that.

[HurricaneBill]

I'm sure Derek will point out that the 1995 season had a quiet September. Only Marilyn formed.

[recmod]

2. This tends to mean we're more likely to have an inactive season rather than an active one since we had 2 forming in June (2003 doesn't count since one was April).

Be careful Derek about making sweeping generalizations like that. Sure, you can pull up a few years' records to support this "theory", but I can also pull up quite a few years worth of statistics to debunk that....read on...


Let's look at years that had 2 or more named systems by the end of June and compare how the season as a whole ended up with total number of named systems. Using Unisys as a data base, I found 11 years since 1900 that had two tropical storms or hurricanes form by the end of june. Here are the statistics:

1902: 1 Hurricane, 1 T. Storm.....season total~ 5 storms
1906: 1 Hurricane, 1 T. Storm.....season total~ 11 storms
1909: 1 Hurricane, 2 T. Storms...season total~ 11 storms
1933: 1 May T. Storm, 1 June Hurricane...season total~ 21 storms
1934: 1 May T. Storm, 1 June Hurricane...season total~ 11 storms
1936: 1 Hurricane, 2 T. Storms....season total~ 16 storms
1959: 1 May T. Storm, 1 June T. Storm...season total~ 11 storms
1968: 2 Hurricanes, 1 T. Storm....season total~ 7 storms
1981: 1 May T. Storm, 1 June T. Storm...season total~ 11 storms
1986: 1 Hurricane, 1 T. Storm...season total~ 6 storms
2003: 1 April T. Storm, 1 June T. Storm...season total~ 16 storms


SO......the people who claim that a lot of early season activity signals a slower season overall would use 1902, 1968 and 1986 as their support data.
All the other years were above normal in total storm activity. One additional thing to keep in mind: the actual total number of storms that formed in the early 1900's (before the satellite era) was probably a bit higher than the figures posted, since it is almost certain that some obscure North Atlantic fish storms went un-noticed and not tallied.


The bottom line that I can put together from this data......there really is little correlation between early activity and total season activity. I think each year is its own individual entity and my opinion is that all the environmental factors have fallen into place in 2005 to make this year a whooper in terms of total storm formation.

I know the pro mets will tear my non-scientific post apart, but I think my statements bear some merit.

--Lou

[bevgo]

This could really be an interesting year!

[Derek Ortt]

I wouldn't use 1981 or 2003 since those years had a storm forming well out of season.

1997 should also be included due to the subtrop

now, I did say more likely to be less active, didn't give a certainty

[drudd1]

2. This tends to mean we're more likely to have an inactive season rather than an active one since we had 2 forming in June (2003 doesn't count since one was April).

Be careful Derek about making sweeping generalizations like that. Sure, you can pull up a few years' records to support this "theory", but I can also pull up quite a few years worth of statistics to debunk that....read on...


Let's look at years that had 2 or more named systems by the end of June and compare how the season as a whole ended up with total number of named systems. Using Unisys as a data base, I found 11 years since 1900 that had two tropical storms or hurricanes form by the end of june. Here are the statistics:

1902: 1 Hurricane, 1 T. Storm.....season total~ 5 storms
1906: 1 Hurricane, 1 T. Storm.....season total~ 11 storms
1909: 1 Hurricane, 2 T. Storms...season total~ 11 storms
1933: 1 May T. Storm, 1 June Hurricane...season total~ 21 storms
1934: 1 May T. Storm, 1 June Hurricane...season total~ 11 storms
1936: 1 Hurricane, 2 T. Storms....season total~ 16 storms
1959: 1 May T. Storm, 1 June T. Storm...season total~ 11 storms
1968: 2 Hurricanes, 1 T. Storm....season total~ 7 storms
1981: 1 May T. Storm, 1 June T. Storm...season total~ 11 storms
1986: 1 Hurricane, 1 T. Storm...season total~ 6 storms
2003: 1 April T. Storm, 1 June T. Storm...season total~ 16 storms


SO......the people who claim that a lot of early season activity signals a slower season overall would use 1902, 1968 and 1986 as their support data.
All the other years were above normal in total storm activity. One additional thing to keep in mind: the actual total number of storms that formed in the early 1900's (before the satellite era) was probably a bit higher than the figures posted, since it is almost certain that some obscure North Atlantic fish storms went un-noticed and not tallied.


The bottom line that I can put together from this data......there really is little correlation between early activity and total season activity. I think each year is its own individual entity and my opinion is that all the environmental factors have fallen into place in 2005 to make this year a whooper in terms of total storm formation.

I know the pro mets will tear my non-scientific post apart, but I think my statements bear some merit.

--Lou

Reminds me of sitting in statistics classes many years ago in college. It didn't take me long to realize that you can generally take any set of statistical results and draw numerous conclusions.

[Stratosphere747]

Brownsville to Maine has a chance to be hit by a significant hurricane this year.

Get over the amount of tropical systems that may actually develop.

It only takes one, gosh forbid we have a year like last year that had 4.....

[Swimdude]

I love how insignificant Bret looks in the scheme of things. Hehehe...