NOAA'S May Outlook=13-16 named storms,8-10 canes,4-6 majors

[wxman57]

SSTs alone don't affect the number of named storms, only potential max intensity. We had a very unusual setup last year in the NW Caribbean and southern Gulf. Pressures there were unusually low in 2005, with very low wind shear. It was similar to the monsoonal gyre that sets up in the western Pacific each year. I remember that as of mid may, the ITCZ and associated tropical waves were located well north of 10N. Some waves were entering the eastern Caribbean around 15N. Certainly not normal for early season. As a result, there was quite a bit of development in June/July in 2005.

So far in 2006, the ITCZ is located a good bit farther south, much closer to normal. Tropical waves are moving westward into S. America south of 10N. This might indicate a more "normal" early season (June/July) with perhaps only a storm or two prior to the first week of August. Looking in the NW Caribbean, the pressures are higher than in 2005, but I am concerned about a persistent convergence boundary (an old frontal zone) that could be the focus for an early-season development as soon as next week. But I don't see one after the other developing through June/July.

By August/September, I expect about the typical 5-6 named storms each month, followed by a sharp drop-off in October. So 13-16 named storms looks like a pretty good range. I'll be at least somewhat surprised if Dr. Gray keeps his forecast at 17. He might drop it by a storm or two. Even his analog years have much less activity than 17 named storms.

[CHRISTY]

were the form and were they hit to me is the most important thing to keep in mind!it only takes one....so if indeed we end up having a slower year then 2005 but we have a bunch of landfalls like for example 3 or 4 major hurricanes affecting populated cities then 2006 might very well might end up being a real bad season.

PS!we dont need 20 storms in order to have a real bad year.

[wxman57]

were the form and were they hit to me is the most important thing to keep in mind!it only takes one....so if indeed we end up having a slower year then 2005 but we have a bunch of landfalls like for example 3 or 4 major hurricanes affecting populated cities then 2006 might very well might end up being a real bad season.

PS!we dont need 20 storms in order to have a real bad year.

I'd point out -- there were only 4 named storms in 1983, and a Cat 2/3 hit the Houston/Galveston area. There were only 7 named storms in 1992 (Andrew) and 6 named storms in 1965 (Betsy). Doesn't take a lot of storms to make for a very bad season.

Get your preparations done ASAP!

[cycloneye]

were the form and were they hit to me is the most important thing to keep in mind!it only takes one....so if indeed we end up having a slower year then 2005 but we have a bunch of landfalls like for example 3 or 4 major hurricanes affecting populated cities then 2006 might very well might end up being a real bad season.

PS!we dont need 20 storms in order to have a real bad year.

Hugo in 1989 was very bad for us here in Puerto Rico and it was a normal season with 11.The message here is dont pay attention to the number of named storms but to how many hit land.

[CHRISTY]

were the form and were they hit to me is the most important thing to keep in mind!it only takes one....so if indeed we end up having a slower year then 2005 but we have a bunch of landfalls like for example 3 or 4 major hurricanes affecting populated cities then 2006 might very well might end up being a real bad season.

PS!we dont need 20 storms in order to have a real bad year.

Hugo in 1989 was very bad for us here in Puerto Rico and it was a normal season with 11.The message here is dont pay attention to the number of named storms but to how many hit land.

Iam glad we all agree on this then...

[Gorky]

This season probably will be calmer than 2005... as in '2004 style calm' A season half as active as last years would be certainly still be memorable....

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

I've heard it said that it will not be as bad this year as last. Bad is a relative term. If you get the only bad hurricane in a season, it is still a bad season for you.


BTW I stick by my prediction. Record season. We will see though. Just my two cents.

[HouTXmetro]

Why do the expersts say the water isn't warm enough to support the conditions we had last year? Doesn't really make sense since the GOM is warmer.

[wxman57]

Why do the expersts say the water isn't warm enough to support the conditions we had last year? Doesn't really make sense since the GOM is warmer.

The SSTs could be 212F and it wouldn't guarantee greater TC numbers. If the atmosphere above the water (i.e., wind shear conditions) isn't favorable for development, then no TCs will develop no matter how warm the water is. So the key is whether or not wind shear will be so low over a large area as in 2005. Odds are highly against such an occurrence.

[Downdraft]

I'd say 4 to 6 majors running loose in the Atlantic basin is enough to worry about. 2005 is in the books 2006 is almost here. Andrew came in a below normal year and nobody in Homestead can remember the name of the storm that came after him.

[ROCK]

Why do the expersts say the water isn't warm enough to support the conditions we had last year? Doesn't really make sense since the GOM is warmer.

The SSTs could be 212F and it wouldn't guarantee greater TC numbers. If the atmosphere above the water (i.e., wind shear conditions) isn't favorable for development, then no TCs will develop no matter how warm the water is. So the key is whether or not wind shear will be so low over a large area as in 2005. Odds are highly against such an occurrence.

I agree, but what worries me is the above normal sst's in the GOM that could rapidly strengthen a TS, ala Rita. Anything even close to home brewed could bomb in the GOM if given the chance.

[SouthFloridawx]

I just listened to the press conference and here is the following that I got out of it. Now you have to take into account that every year is a new year. 2006 is not 2005 or 2004.

1. 2006 expected to be above normal hurricane season
2. Preparation (Max Mayfield urging the media to stress preparation!!)
3. Low windshear in the atlantic
4. Above Normal SST'S in the atlantic
5. Many people still recovering from the last 2 seasons that need to have a plan. As well as everyone needs to have a plan.


I'll listen to it again later tonight and see what else I pick up from it.

[HouTXmetro]

Didn't most of our sytems last year start in the carribean and GOM? I don't think it's a fair statement to say that's a reason for a less active season when the carrib and Gom are already boiling.

[boca]

wxman57 has a good point about the ITCZ its further south so maybe we won't have 10 storms in June and July.

[wxman57]

wxman57 has a good point about the ITCZ its further south so maybe we won't have 10 storms in June and July.

That is true, no matter how favorable the environment might be if that "initial disturbance" is lacking, then it's hard to get development. In 2004, the waves were all moving west along about 10N, inland across S. America, then out into the Pacific. In 2005, the waves were farther north in May/June - as far north as 15N. That took them over the low wind shear area in the central and NW Caribbean, resulting in lots of early-season (June-July) development.

So far this May, the ITCZ is back down south where it was in 2004 (or even farther south). That's good news. I do worry about the weak convergence zone that keeps hanging around the NW Caribbean, though. Even a weak wave passing well to the south could be enough to get something going if there's any convection in the NW Caribbean. That's what the GFS has been trying to do with the NW Caribbean for the past 4 days for around June 2-5.

[george_r_1961]

Im sticking to ,my numbers: 20/10/5. If im wrong im wrong. Remember we havent been naming subtropical systems till recently and im getting a feeling we may see a couple of them pop up off the Carolinas or between Bermuda and Puerto Rico. The GOM is looking better for development now as well. Been a hurricane nerd for 35+ years now; call it a gut feeling or whatever but im thinking this could be another bad year.

[JPmia]

I believe those are low estimates. My estimate is 18 to 21 named storms, 11 to 13 hurricanes and 5 to 7 major hurricanes.

As an aside and no negativity meant. I do believe that if you would have predicted that prior to the 2005 season people would be calling you crazy for such high numbers. As we can see by the forecast numbers poll, most people are picking high numbers.

Yet even those numbers are quite a bit lower than some predictions...the highest is 30 named storms, 18 hurricanes and 11 major hurricanes (which is the normal number of named storms).

The 2005 season numbers are probably a 1 in 200 year event. The number of seassons with even 17 or 18 named storms in the past 100 years is very small. Odds are we won't see as many named storms as Dr. Gray is predicting. I think he's erring non the high side now.

It's surprising that so many people (at S2K) are predicting such high numbers (20 or more). Chances of a repeat of 2005 are extremely remote. As the Bermuda High gets stronger in the coming decade, I would expect the average number of named storms to decline, probably closer to 12-13 per year (allowing for the naming of 1-2 semi-tropical storms each year).

Wxman57, would that stronger Bermuda High mean more U.S. landfalls but fewer storms on average? What is the significance of a stronger Bermuda High in the coming decade for storms and landfalls?