Nothing will form until August #2

[benny]

In response to boca_chris' topic yesterday claiming that nothing will happen until August.. I decided to post reasons that might back up his (?) claim. Before you read these realize I am just playing devil's advocate...

1) Other really active years have basically waited until August.
2004 was a great example. Nothing until Alex which formed at 1800utc on July 31. Close enough. In 1980 and 1955, almost the same thing happened. 2000 didn't have anything form until 3 Aug and we still got 8 hurricanes. 1950 is the classic example. one of the most active years ever and nothing before Aug 11. I will concede that we could have missed something before the era of satellite but still ... having nothing before August in an active era of hurricanes is certainly possible.

2) Getting only one storm before August and then having a really active year is pretty common. 1998 and 1999 both had one junky early season storm then nothing til late August. 2001 wasn't super active but it had 9 hurricanes.. all of which after august! 1969 only had one and then 12 hurricanes followed.

Point is let's not all jump off a bridge if nothing forms until August... early season activity has little correlation with late-season stuff as a whole.. I think Chris Landsea has that in his Tropical Cyclone FAQ.

[Jim Cantore]

Only time will tell

[Extremeweatherguy]

do we have any SST maps of the Atlantic and Gulf from those years that we can compare to 2006? Because I think that these warm SSTs will be the difference this year (as it was last year and we are WARMER this year).

[benny]

do we have any SST maps of the Atlantic and Gulf from those years that we can compare to 2006? Because I think that these warm SSTs will be the difference this year (as it was last year and we are WARMER this year).

I don't have SST maps at my disposal for each of those years but they can be found at:
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/Composite/

An easier way to look at it is the cpc index page:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indic ... tl.indices

I will point out that 1998 and 1969.. two exceptionally warm years in the tropical atlantic and considerably warmer (by about a factor of two) than this year.. only had one storm before 1 Aug apiece. Early season stuff seems a little random to me.. at least taking them as a whole. I think we lose sight of the fact that just to get something forming from a wave in the deep tropical Atlantic is significant in June/July... that's hard to do even in the good years and usually portends a busy year.

[wxmann_91]

The MJO will be really important in determining when the season starts. The SST's are there, give even a marginally wet MJO phase and you'll see TC's popping everywhere (well, hopefully not literally).

[Audrey2Katrina]

Point is let's not all jump off a bridge if nothing forms until August

As far as >I< am concerned, I won't jump if nothing forms (at least anywhere near the GOM) PERIOD!

A2K

[gatorcane]

Well Benny thanks for these good points. I really think many of us on storm2k EXPECT something to from earlier than August since we have so many expectations for this year which will be following the most active year of year in recorded history.

Look at 1933 - a very active year and then look at 1934. It is quite a different story. The climatological peak is Sept 10th. Many years have featured no storms until August. Look at 1992 with Andrew. I am currently thinking that 2005 is an anomaly and will be followed by a relatively more "normal" (normal for the active period that started in 1995) season.

BUT - we can argue that a quiet early season could mean a very active late season. Also, a very active early season could be a slow late season. At any rate, time will tell. I just hope that all storms are fish and nothing major makes landfall.

Also - if nothing forms until August - do NOT write this season off!

[benny]

Well Benny thanks for these good points. I really think many of us on storm2k EXPECT something to from earlier than August since we have so many expectations for this year which will be following the most active year of year in recorded history.

Look at 1933 - a very active year and then look at 1934. It is quite a different story. The climatological peak is Sept 10th. Many years have featured no storms until August. Look at 1992 with Andrew. I am currently thinking that 2005 is an anomaly and will be followed by a relatively more "normal" (normal for the active period that started in 1995) season.

BUT - we can argue that a quiet early season could mean a very active late season. Also, a very active early season could be a slow late season. At any rate, time will tell. I just hope that all storms are fish and nothing major makes landfall.

Also - if nothing forms until August - do NOT write this season off!

It is really a bit of a mystery why some years really wait until August and some just crank the whole time. SST has something to do with it but very warm years can have very quiet early season (see 1969). It isn't random but it is tough to figure out.

I am not sure what to say at this range other than 1-2 systems is the most typical number before 1 August and it is tough to figure out climate signals that point to having more/less early on. I think that's why Dr. Gray doesn't put out June/July forecasts.. just the peak of the season.

In fact this will be the year after two of the most active years on record... 2004/2005 taken together is a staggering amount of tropical cyclone activity and landfalls. Even throwing 2003 into the mix it is still the most active 3 year period for just about every tropical cyclone parameter you can think of.

[wxman57]

do we have any SST maps of the Atlantic and Gulf from those years that we can compare to 2006? Because I think that these warm SSTs will be the difference this year (as it was last year and we are WARMER this year).

SSTs are more of an indicator of potential intensity rather than development. Water temps could be 150F but if the shear is too strong then nothing can develop.

Instead, keep an eye on the ITCZ's position. Last year, the ITCZ and embedded waves were tracking unusually far to the north into the central Caribbean Sea during May-July. A weak Bermuda High and a more northward ITCZ resulted in an early-season development pattern similar to August/September. In 2004, these waves were slamming into northern South America. That's why nothing developed until July 31 in 2004.

So far this year, it looks like the Bermuda High is stronger and waves are tracking farther to the south into S. America. Good news, possibly. With tens of thousands of Gulf Coast residents living in trailers that can't hold up in even a weak TS, and no shelters in sight, they can't take any storm. Let's just hope that northing develops until perhaps the 2nd or 3rd week of August.

Normally, only about half of the time does anything develop before August. Think of all the A storms that formed in August. I'd be quite happy if there were zero named storms in 2006. But, I know that's unlikely.

Personally, I think we could see 1 or possibly 2 named storms prior to August 1st. Maybe a weak TS forming in the NW Caribbean then tracking N-NE and/or one in the SW Atlantic well out to sea. I think Dr. Gray's early-season prediction is probably high. Not many seasons in the past 100 years had 17 named storms. Of course, with the naming of subtropical storms and 1 or 2 questionable "political upgrades" each season these days, I think the new "normal" number will be closer to 12-13 named storms.

[Audrey2Katrina]

with the naming of subtropical storms and 1 or 2 questionable "political upgrades"

Not at all trying to ask for anything "politically charged" inasmuch as names or blames; but could you elaborate further on what a "political upgrade" might constitute? Honestly, that phrase piqued my curiosity.

A2K

[benny]

with the naming of subtropical storms and 1 or 2 questionable "political upgrades"

Not at all trying to ask for anything "politically charged" inasmuch as names or blames; but could you elaborate further on what a "political upgrade" might constitute? Honestly, that phrase piqued my curiosity.

A2K

Political upgrades??? That is an interesting accusation..

[wxman57]

with the naming of subtropical storms and 1 or 2 questionable "political upgrades"

Not at all trying to ask for anything "politically charged" inasmuch as names or blames; but could you elaborate further on what a "political upgrade" might constitute? Honestly, that phrase piqued my curiosity.

A2K

Political upgrades??? That is an interesting accusation..

Just kind of a term I've coined to represent some questionable upgrades in recent years that were probably done because of the possibility of development. Like "Tropical Wave Grace" along the upper TX coast a few years back. It clearly had no LLC, but it was producing heavy squalls in the offshore drilling areas. The NHC named it Grace but could find no LLC. Same thing with Gert last year. Recon could find no LLC. Sometimes, the NHC will upgrade a questionable system that's impacting (or nearly impacting) people just to get their attention and to allow emergency managers to implement their pre-storm plans just in case. It's not necessarily wrong for the NHC to upgrade these type of questionable systems, as their main purpose is to keep the public out of harm's way. But such upgrades may add a named storm or two to the seasonal count.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Point clarified. Thanks!

A2K

[rockyman]

I think the 2005 benchmark shows that a REALLY ACTIVE season starts early and keeps going late...Those years mentioned in Post 1 (thanks, Benny!) were active in September and October...but not really that active overall based on 2005. If we have another year with Cat 4s in July, I'll buy the global warming theory hook, line, and sinker.

PS. It's also interesting to note that the first storm of the former champion season (1933) formed on May 14th...so we're already behind schedule
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/at1933.asp


:edit...Did I miss something?...Wunderground is showing that Emily was a Cat 5... http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/at200505.asp

[CHRISTY]

Well actually i think JUNE will tell us alot....remember last year it all began with Tropical storm Arlene which formed on june 8 i believe and then turned into a tropical storm the next day on june 9....she almost made to hurricane strength i believe her peak winds were 70 mph,but she ended up weaking to 60 mph before makeing lanfall in pensacola florida.

[gatorcane]

I actually wouldn't mind an active early season (with just tropical storms and depressions) because it could increase the chances of a slower late season - of course this is not certain.

[weatherwoman132]

wouldnt that be scary/horrible if a hurricane hit some place on june 6th? I think it would be, there would probably be lots of problems.

[Dean4Storms]

Nobody can say beyond a wild guess at which point we get the first named system this year in the Atlantic basin. One stubborn stalled front in the GOM could produce an early TC anytime from here on out!!!

[wxman57]

=
:edit...Did I miss something?...Wunderground is showing that Emily was a Cat 5... http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/at200505.asp

It was determined post-season that Emily reached Cat 5 status between recon fixes and it was upgraded to a Cat 5.

[benny]

with the naming of subtropical storms and 1 or 2 questionable "political upgrades"

Not at all trying to ask for anything "politically charged" inasmuch as names or blames; but could you elaborate further on what a "political upgrade" might constitute? Honestly, that phrase piqued my curiosity.

A2K

Political upgrades??? That is an interesting accusation..

Just kind of a term I've coined to represent some questionable upgrades in recent years that were probably done because of the possibility of development. Like "Tropical Wave Grace" along the upper TX coast a few years back. It clearly had no LLC, but it was producing heavy squalls in the offshore drilling areas. The NHC named it Grace but could find no LLC. Same thing with Gert last year. Recon could find no LLC. Sometimes, the NHC will upgrade a questionable system that's impacting (or nearly impacting) people just to get their attention and to allow emergency managers to implement their pre-storm plans just in case. It's not necessarily wrong for the NHC to upgrade these type of questionable systems, as their main purpose is to keep the public out of harm's way. But such upgrades may add a named storm or two to the seasonal count.

Ah yes... Grace. I do remember that one. It had a broad circulation to it but well-defined???... ehhh probably not. Plenty of wind to support TS force though.

I don't know what you are talking about with Gert. It was intensifying as it made landfall..If you are talking questionable TCs from last year, start with Lee. I don't think that practice would have changed through the years anyway if you think there is a bias toward starting systems near land... so I doubt it would have changed climatology at least in the modern era.