2005 Activity Calendar

[SkeetoBite]

Since 2005 is included as an analog year in the major forecasts for this season, I wanted to have a tool to compare the seasons to as we move forward.

The statistics for 2005 have been beat to death over the past 4.5 years, but just looking at the calendar is pretty interesting and revealing.

Click the extremely large thumbnail below to open the extremely large calendar image. Sorry it's so big, but to be meaningful and include the relevant data, the size was necessary!



Note that no "re-analysis" data is included (built with raw 2005 season end statistics). This will be close enough for my purposes. I hope you find it useful.

[HURRICANELONNY]

I'm going with closer to 98 as an analog year. La Nina is coming fast. While in 2005 we were ending an El Nino with Neutral conditions.

[SkeetoBite]

I'm going to make up one for each analog year. This one was the most difficult, so it's all down hill from here.

[KWT]

I don't know whether its possible at all but could something be done with the top 8 busiest seasons in a sort of comprasion map?

I've started something like that in graph form to see how the seasons compared, all to say we've already on average had one storm by now...

[jinftl]

Interesting to note than even June through early July 2005 was not too remarkable in terms of noteable development. We did see 2 tropical storms in June 2005, but it wasn't until over a month into that season that we saw the first hurricane (Cindy on July 5).

The hurricane season runs 183 days from June 1 through November 30. Even in the most active season on record, we went through 34 days, or 19%, of the season without a hurricane forming. All the action was in the remaining 81%!!!

Also, Arlene didn't form until June 8, 2005....so we are tied with 2005 so far at 0 storms month-to-date. 2005 was cited as one of several analog....not mirror-image - seasons. Tracking to the busiest season on record is pretty much a guarantee of the season ahead 'falling short'. This season will likely fall short of 2005 storm #s, but that is no guarantee it won't blow it away in terms of damage $ if the wrong place is hit with a worst case scenario (actually, a worst case scenario isn't even needed to do that....bring a strong Cat 3 over Miami/Fort Lauderdale with a large wind field and you have our nation's first $100 million+ storm).

[KWT]

Quite a lot of those 34 days were in June though, the season itself from July-November had only a couple of breaks of a few days, amazingly busy!

[jinftl]

True, but the two tropical storms that formed in June 2005 weren't what made the season memorable......even the most destructive, active season on record took 34 days to get it together enough to produce its first hurricane. It's not as if we entered the first day of the 2005 season with a Cat 4 approaching land. In other words, a quiet June is not only to be expected, but bears little relation to what could lay ahead.

Quite a lot of those 34 days were in June though, the season itself from July-November had only a couple of breaks of a few days, amazingly busy!

[KWT]

Ultimatly though as has been said time and time again you don't need a 2005 season to have a destructive season, some of the worst seasons of the past were average or even below average in terms of numbers.

I'm purely interested in the statistical side of things with threads like this, the human impact will need to be discused when the time comes, lets hope for fishes this season people!

[jinftl]

Agree...that is one thing that is not mentioned enough when it comes to season forecasts of # of storms. A season of 20 fish storms couldn't hold a candle to a season like 1992 which featured 7 named storms for the entire season. Of course one of those was named Andrew.

From a statistical standpoint, 2005 was an outlier season....several standard deviations away from what is the 'average' for # of storms. Highly improbable that the 2010 season...or any season in the next 25 to 50 years....will reach the totals we saw that season in terms of storm #s.

Ultimatly though as has been said time and time again you don't need a 2005 season to have a destructive season, some of the worst seasons of the past were average or even below average in terms of numbers.

I'm purely interested in the statistical side of things with threads like this, the human impact will need to be discused when the time comes, lets hope for fishes this season people!

[Ptarmigan]

Agree...that is one thing that is not mentioned enough when it comes to season forecasts of # of storms. A season of 20 fish storms couldn't hold a candle to a season like 1992 which featured 7 named storms for the entire season. Of course one of those was named Andrew.

From a statistical standpoint, 2005 was an outlier season....several standard deviations away from what is the 'average' for # of storms. Highly improbable that the 2010 season...or any season in the next 25 to 50 years....will reach the totals we saw that season in terms of storm #s.

Indeed. 2005 type seasons are very rare. The closest I can think of are 1887, 1916 (strong La Nina at the time), and 1933.

[StormClouds63]

I agree with HURRICANELONNY ... 1998 is a more realistic analog year.

[jinftl]

This is the first season where 2005 is even being tossed around as a potential analog year.....that doesn't mean we will see another Katrina/Rita/Wilma....but those who study this for a living even mentioning that season in their discussions for the upcoming season is significant. It's not like we have one rogue meterologist suggesting we will see a hyperactive peak season....i have yet to see a forecast from an agency that doesn't indicate an above normal to well-above normal season.

That said, it will be the tracks of these systems that determine if we see a season with damage in the 100's of billions of dollars or just a 'whole bunch of fish storms'. Even in 2005, it was just a handful of storms that did most of the damage - Dennis, Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. In 6-8 weeks, we will see what begins to unfold in the basin.....if not sooner.

[HURRICANELONNY]

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/data/sst/anom ... 6.1998.gif

I think 98 had overall the same or warmer SST's as this year.

[KWT]

Nah overall 2010 is light years ahead of 1998 at this stage, those maps don't really portray the true extent of the Gulf anomalies which are now getting towards 1-2C+ in the northern part of the Gulf now...

The only season that can touch this one with regards to the SSTs is 2005...

I think there is a shot at getting 20+, this year does have certain charcteristics that could allow this to occur, however I've got a few uncertainties about a couple of things which makes me think the 16-18NS range is a good un...

Of course how many of them impact on land as Joe B would say, is going to be the key.

[jinftl]

Looking at the data....the sst anomalies from Dakar to Galveston, the transition to la nina, the forecast for overall lower than normal pressures across the basin, and tchp in the western carribean already being at peak season levels...and perhaps it is because i was less aware of the underlying factors that predict activity in 2005....i have never seen a season with the factors lining up to support volume in terms of # of storms like this year. It's as if Mother Nature herself is on a quest to show us the taunts we gave her last year about her wimpiness in the atlantic are going to be distant memories.

Steering patterns....that will be the key. Generally speaking, the further west systems develop, the greater the likelihood they effect the Islands or U.S. We shall see...but in a non-hype tone, i do believe we will see at least one multi-billion dollar storm this season....at a minimum. And I would not be surprised to see most of the atlantic coastlines under at least a hurricane watch at some point this season.

Nah overall 2010 is light years ahead of 1998 at this stage, those maps don't really portray the true extent of the Gulf anomalies which are now getting towards 1-2C+ in the northern part of the Gulf now...

The only season that can touch this one with regards to the SSTs is 2005...

I think there is a shot at getting 20+, this year does have certain charcteristics that could allow this to occur, however I've got a few uncertainties about a couple of things which makes me think the 16-18NS range is a good un...

Of course how many of them impact on land as Joe B would say, is going to be the key.

[KWT]

Wellthe more storms you get the bigger the risk for big landfalling systems thats for sure.

What makes 2005 very interesting is the busiest month in terms of numbers was actually October. July matched both August and September, which shows how well balanced the whole season was. 3 storms developing in November is a good return as well...

[jinftl]

Interesting to look back at the Discussions published by the NHC for the early storms of the 2005 season....Arlene and Bret. Reminds us that even systems in a season like 2005 have to deal with shear, poor organization, etc.

TROPICAL DEPRESSION ONE (Arlene) DISCUSSION NUMBER
NWS TPC/NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
11 PM EDT WED JUN 08 2005

THE BROAD WIND STRUCTURE...THE CURRENT LACK OF CENTRAL CONVECTION...
AND SOUTHERLY VERTICAL WIND SHEAR SEEN IN SATELLITE IMAGERY ALL
SUGGEST THAT INTENSIFICATION SHOULD BE SLOWER THAN NORMAL.
INDEED...LARGE-SCALE MODELS SUGGEST THAT MODERATE SOUTHERLY TO
SOUTHWESTERLY SHEAR SHOULD PERSIST ALONG THE FORECAST TRACK FOR THE
NEXT THREE DAYS. INTENSITY GUIDANCE MODELS RESPOND TO THIS BY
FORECASTING ONLY MODEST STRENGTHENING...WITH SHIPS AND THE GFDL
BOTH CALLING FOR WINDS TO REACH ABOUT 50 KT IN 36-48 HR. THE
INTENSITY FORECAST CALLS FOR SIMILAR STRENGTHENING UNTIL
LANDFALL...FOLLOWED BY EVENTUAL DISSIPATION OVER THE EASTERN UNITED
STATES.


TROPICAL STORM BRET DISCUSSION NUMBER
NWS TPC/NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
11 PM EDT TUE JUN 28 2005

ON THEIR LAST PASS THROUGH BRET NEAR 00Z...THE AIRCRAFT CREW
REPORTED THAT THE PRESSURE HAD RISEN TO 1005 MB...THAT THE SEA
STATE LOOKED LESS DISTURBED THAN IT HAD BEEN...AND THAT THE RADAR
PRESENTATION HAD DETERIORATED. THUS IT APPEARS THAT THE EARLIER
DEVELOPMENT TREND HAS STALLED. CLOUD TOP TEMPERATURES IN THE CDO
FEATURE HAVE ALSO WARMED OVERALL THIS EVENING BUT ARE BEGINNING TO
COOL AGAIN NOW.


And then July came....and the rest started to become history!!!

[gatorcane]

Thanks for this graphic. So if we look at 2005, by the end of June we have had 2 named systems already. By the end of July we had 7 named systems. This year we have had no named systems, and looks like there is a possibility we won't even have a named system in June as I look at the available model guidance.

If this season is going to be anything close to 2005, it looks like some named systems need to form in July. At this point, I do think we will get 2 or 3 before we head into the typically active months of Aug - Oct. But I don't think we will get 7 named systems before August this year.

[NOLA2010]

Interesting to note than even June through early July 2005 was not too remarkable in terms of noteable development. We did see 2 tropical storms in June 2005, but it wasn't until over a month into that season that we saw the first hurricane (Cindy on July 5).

The hurricane season runs 183 days from June 1 through November 30. Even in the most active season on record, we went through 34 days, or 19%, of the season without a hurricane forming. All the action was in the remaining 81%!!!

Also, Arlene didn't form until June 8, 2005....so we are tied with 2005 so far at 0 storms month-to-date. 2005 was cited as one of several analog....not mirror-image - seasons. Tracking to the busiest season on record is pretty much a guarantee of the season ahead 'falling short'. This season will likely fall short of 2005 storm #s, but that is no guarantee it won't blow it away in terms of damage $ if the wrong place is hit with a worst case scenario (actually, a worst case scenario isn't even needed to do that....bring a strong Cat 3 over Miami/Fort Lauderdale with a large wind field and you have our nation's first $100 million+ storm).

Well we actually have had a 100 million+ storm. Katrina was $90 BILLION and Andrew was $40 BILLION.

[jinftl]

oops...meant billion...the list of $100 million+ damage storms would be extensive to say the least!!! Thanks for keeping me honest!!!

Interesting to note than even June through early July 2005 was not too remarkable in terms of noteable development. We did see 2 tropical storms in June 2005, but it wasn't until over a month into that season that we saw the first hurricane (Cindy on July 5).

The hurricane season runs 183 days from June 1 through November 30. Even in the most active season on record, we went through 34 days, or 19%, of the season without a hurricane forming. All the action was in the remaining 81%!!!

Also, Arlene didn't form until June 8, 2005....so we are tied with 2005 so far at 0 storms month-to-date. 2005 was cited as one of several analog....not mirror-image - seasons. Tracking to the busiest season on record is pretty much a guarantee of the season ahead 'falling short'. This season will likely fall short of 2005 storm #s, but that is no guarantee it won't blow it away in terms of damage $ if the wrong place is hit with a worst case scenario (actually, a worst case scenario isn't even needed to do that....bring a strong Cat 3 over Miami/Fort Lauderdale with a large wind field and you have our nation's first $100 million+ storm).

Well we actually have had a 100 million+ storm. Katrina was $90 BILLION and Andrew was $40 BILLION.