scoreboard: 2005 vs 1933...update

[Swimdude]

Who cares if 1933 might've had undetected storms. Can we prove that? No.

So let's assume we're gonna kick 1933's @$$. Woo!

[ict1523]

Who cares if 1933 might've had undetected storms. Can we prove that? No.

So let's assume we're gonna kick 1933's @$$. Woo!

Yes whats recorded is the only thing that counts.

[mike18xx]

Who cares if 1933 might've had undetected storms. Can we prove that? No. So let's assume we're gonna kick 1933's @$$. Woo!

Yes whats recorded is the only thing that counts.

*Laffs*

Tell it to poor Dino Rossi!

[dwg71]

1933 had 7 storms that were 40KTS or less very weak tropical stroms. I'm not saying they werent ligit, but could be an estimation of winds and maybe/maybe not.

2005 will not exceed 21 named storms in my opinion. If we dont have one named by Sunday that would leave us with 7 in the first 2 months.
If it looked like this 5 August 5 Sept 3 Oct, you'd still be short.

I might be wrong, but I dont see 22 storms...

More like 15-17 with 8 canes and 3 majors. That would be 9/6/1 from this point forward, very realistic. Those calling for the name list to be exhausted are being a bit unrealistic. It would take an average of 5 a month for the next 4 months to get there. So far we have been at a 3.5 pace.

[rockyman]

Here are my "homemade" graphics comparing 1933 to 2005...info taken from wunderground.com/tropical






From this info (ignoring the possibility of "missed" 1933 cyclones), we're are ahead of 1933 by a small margin.

[wxwatcher91]

that's good... here's one that is not cumulative...

[dwg71]

That would be 35 named storms for 2005...thats not going to happen..

[LSU_Weatherguy]

that's good... here's one that is not cumulative...

A Storm in Dec. I think NoT

[dhweather]

Otto in Dec 2004

[JamesFromMaine2]

I my self don't know how many storms we will get this year and I feel its pointless to even try and figure it out cause really you can't! Its nice to see where we are compaired to 1933 and its nice to think about maybe breaking the record but lets stay civil about it! Its not going to do any one any good fighting over it I mean come on the season will unfold over time and who knows whats going to happen. I don't think you can really base this season on past seasons except for 1933 because already this season has been very active! Before this season if any one had even tryed to say that by the end of july there would be 7 named storms they prob. would have been laughed at. But its happening so please just try to keep an open mind about things maybe we will get 35 named storms maybe we will only get 1 or 2 more named storms who knows! But like I said lets ALL just try and keep an open mind and watch as the season unfolds!

[Weather Wizard]

1933 had 7 storms that were 40KTS or less very weak tropical stroms. I'm not saying they werent ligit, but could be an estimation of winds and maybe/maybe not.

2005 will not exceed 21 named storms in my opinion. If we dont have one named by Sunday that would leave us with 7 in the first 2 months.
If it looked like this 5 August 5 Sept 3 Oct, you'd still be short.

I might be wrong, but I dont see 22 storms...

More like 15-17 with 8 canes and 3 majors. That would be 9/6/1 from this point forward, very realistic. Those calling for the name list to be exhausted are being a bit unrealistic. It would take an average of 5 a month for the next 4 months to get there. So far we have been at a 3.5 pace.

I don't know why you think it can't happen? It's happened before so why couldn't it happen again. Especially in a time where the tropics have been way more active than it was in the 30's.

'33 had 7-Aug, 5-Sep, 3-Oct, 1-Nov, 16 total storms forming after 8/1.
'95 had 7-Aug, 3 Sep, 4 Oct, 0-Nov, 14 total storms forming after 8/1.

Add those two totals to what we have so far and you're looking at 21 to 23 storms. Yes, it's very possible.

[dwg71]

1933 had 7 storms that were 40KTS or less very weak tropical stroms. I'm not saying they werent ligit, but could be an estimation of winds and maybe/maybe not.

2005 will not exceed 21 named storms in my opinion. If we dont have one named by Sunday that would leave us with 7 in the first 2 months.
If it looked like this 5 August 5 Sept 3 Oct, you'd still be short.

I might be wrong, but I dont see 22 storms...

More like 15-17 with 8 canes and 3 majors. That would be 9/6/1 from this point forward, very realistic. Those calling for the name list to be exhausted are being a bit unrealistic. It would take an average of 5 a month for the next 4 months to get there. So far we have been at a 3.5 pace.

I don't know why you think it can't happen? It's happened before so why couldn't it happen again. Especially in a time where the tropics have been way more active than it was in the 30's.

'33 had 7-Aug, 5-Sep, 3-Oct, 1-Nov, 16 total storms forming after 8/1.
'95 had 7-Aug, 3 Sep, 4 Oct, 0-Nov, 14 total storms forming after 8/1.

Add those two totals to what we have so far and you're looking at 21 to 23 storms. Yes, it's very possible.

Didnt say it wasnt possible, I'm just saying I dont think it will happen. I dont think its possible to have 27 named systems. I just cant see that happening.

[NateFLA]

Certainly is something scary to think about.

Maybe we can start a hurricane relocation program.. the goverment would be glad to fund it!

[AussieMark]

1933 had 7 storms that were 40KTS or less very weak tropical stroms. I'm not saying they werent ligit, but could be an estimation of winds and maybe/maybe not.

2005 will not exceed 21 named storms in my opinion. If we dont have one named by Sunday that would leave us with 7 in the first 2 months.
If it looked like this 5 August 5 Sept 3 Oct, you'd still be short.

I might be wrong, but I dont see 22 storms...

More like 15-17 with 8 canes and 3 majors. That would be 9/6/1 from this point forward, very realistic. Those calling for the name list to be exhausted are being a bit unrealistic. It would take an average of 5 a month for the next 4 months to get there. So far we have been at a 3.5 pace.

Your Major count is very low.

over the past decade there just two seasons has seen 1 or less major hurricanes form in the August-September period. Both those years were El Ninos

1995: 3
1996: 4
1997: 1
1998: 2
1999: 4
2000: 2
2001: 2
2002: 1
2003: 3
2004: 6

Over the past 10 years its a average of 2.8 majors per season in the August-September period

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

2001 had 4 major hurricanes Erin,Felix,Iris,Mitchelle.
2002 had 2 which was Isiodor,Lili.


http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atl ... index.html

[AussieMark]

2001 had 4 major hurricanes Erin,Felix,Iris,Mitchelle.
2002 had 2 which was Isiodor,Lili.


http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atl ... index.html

Just talking about hurricanes which were majors in August-September period

[gpickett00]

if you look at the tracks of the 1933 storms, they had a bunch of BS storms similar to gert

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

Gert was not Bs. He had a closed LLC in which was deeping at the coast. He also had reports of 45 mph winds. Which lasted more then 18 hours. If Gert was BS Then Bret was to. In one more thing given time Gert could of become quite strong. The enviroment was nearly perfect.

Grace was Bs....

[Patrick99]

If we could somehow review hurricane seasons hundreds, thousands of years back, I bet we'd find that 1933s, 1995s, and 2005s? are not that uncommon at all.

[Hurricaneman]

If we could somehow review hurricane seasons hundreds, thousands of years back, I bet we'd find that 1933s, 1995s, and 2005s? are not that uncommon at all.

True, we dont know what happened long ago