Are we entering a new era of hurricane development!

[Audrey2Katrina]

I should have known this would have turned out as a GW thread

Happens almost anytime the topic of "increased activity" gets breached. *sigh*

Getting back to the topic I think we are obviously in an upswing of activity; albeit I tend to agree with the cycle models.

I know it'll only get changed again; but I'd like to see the NHC update that "costliest, deadliest, and most intense" list including the 2005 season.

A2K

[furluvcats]

NBCintern!!! *rolls eyes
*cheerleader!

[x-y-no]

If only the author waited a few more years....

My point is that an honest author, when quoting such a passage years later, would include the date it was written rather than allowing the false impression that it's a contemporaneous quote.

[NBCintern]

If only the author waited a few more years....

My point is that an honest author, when quoting such a passage years later, would include the date it was written rather than allowing the false impression that it's a contemporaneous quote.

X-Y-NO, there isn't an author out there that posts research that will include a whole year they writing the paper on. There has to be a cut-off or else you would have to wait and wait for the research to be completed. I am sure the 2006 year won't be written for another 2-3 years from now, if not longer..

[MiamiensisWx]

I agree with Jan, and I would like to take it a step further. Many storms in the past (even the Florida Keys 1935 Labor Day Hurricane) likely weakened before landfall, including in the U.S., even if HURDAT data doesn't indicate it. Also, even though Camille (likely), Ivan, Frances, Lili, Katrina, Rita, Dennis, and other very recent storms weakened immensely just before landfall doesn't mean that all will. The fact that we came VERY close to having Katrina make landfall at 160MPH should say something. If you think most or all storms will weaken immensely before landfall and will not be as bad as thought, I have one word for you, kenl01: Charley.

[NBCintern]

I agree with Jan, and I would like to take it a step further. Many storms in the past (even the Florida Keys 1935 Labor Day Hurricane) likely weakened before landfall, including in the U.S., even if HURDAT data doesn't indicate it. Also, even though Camille (likely), Ivan, Frances, Lili, Katrina, Rita, Dennis, and other very recent storms weakened immensely just before landfall doesn't mean that all will. The fact that we came VERY close to having Katrina make landfall at 160MPH should say something. If you think most or all storms will weaken immensely before landfall and will not be as bad as thought, I have one word for you, kenl01: Charley.

Charley was unusual in that it acutally bomber just before making landfall and making toothpicks out of those mobilehomes.

[curtadams]

Charley was unusual in that it acutally bomber just before making landfall and making toothpicks out of those mobilehomes.

People lived in those mobile homes, and many lost everything they had. Please be respectful of them and what they went through.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Actually, Audrey, a June Storm, rapidly showed signs of intensification before making landfall... just ask the old-timers around Cameron--although now they have Rita to talk about as well.

As for Camille weakening "immensely"... that is just patently untrue. The damage, surge AND wind she did was unbelievable. I saw it first hand, and it was MUCH smaller than Katrina, hence the smaller surge--if you want to call a 25 foot surge small.

A2K

[NBCintern]

Charley was unusual in that it acutally bomber just before making landfall and making toothpicks out of those mobilehomes.

People lived in those mobile homes, and many lost everything they had. Please be respectful of them and what they went through.

Hye, where in Orange do you live?

[MiamiensisWx]

As for Camille weakening "immensely"... that is just patently untrue. The damage, surge AND wind she did was unbelievable. I saw it first hand, and it was MUCH smaller than Katrina, hence the smaller surge--if you want to call a 25 foot surge small.

A2K

Oh... I meant that more recent storms than Camille often weakened immensely or weakened a bit before landfall. I think that Camille was a Category Five at landfall, albeit a low-end one, and that it weakened to 160MPH before landfall after a 180MPH to 190MPH peak in the south-central Gulf. Yes, Camille was much smaller than Katrina, but it was probably a bit larger than Andrew. A very tragic storm indeed!

Sorry for not explaining myself better.

[curtadams]

X-Y-NO, there isn't an author out there that posts research that will include a whole year they writing the paper on. There has to be a cut-off or else you would have to wait and wait for the research to be completed. I am sure the 2006 year won't be written for another 2-3 years from now, if not longer..

The author did nothing wrong by publishing when he did. But the people citing him, including you, do wrong by ignoring the fact that he published immediately before by far the most intense period of Atlantic storms in history.

[arcticfire]

I don't know why this debate is even a debate. If 50 storms hit the US all in one spot this year someon would pull up a paper from 1925 stating the totally valid data derived from one ship log written in 1854 about a captain who saw 25 hurricains dancing the jig and say it's perfectly normal.

Eventually when enough homes get obliterated trendy science will start to say what everyone else already knew 10 years prior that hurricains are getting worse and there will be new papers written to prove it. Then all the hub bub will be about the "new" hurricain era we suddenly entered into no one could have seen comming.

For now though whatever will keep people buying beachfront property is what trendy science will say.

[NBCintern]

X-Y-NO, there isn't an author out there that posts research that will include a whole year they writing the paper on. There has to be a cut-off or else you would have to wait and wait for the research to be completed. I am sure the 2006 year won't be written for another 2-3 years from now, if not longer..

The author did nothing wrong by publishing when he did. But the people citing him, including you, do wrong by ignoring the fact that he published immediately before by far the most intense period of Atlantic storms in history.

Uh, curt, I never said he did anything wrong. It's just difficult to write about something and include the year it was written.

[curtadams]

I don't know why this debate is even a debate. If 50 storms hit the US all in one spot this year someon would pull up a paper from 1925 stating the totally valid data derived from one ship log written in 1854 about a captain who saw 25 hurricains dancing the jig and say it's perfectly normal.

Eventually when enough homes get obliterated tendy science will start to say what everyone else already knew 10 years prior that hurricains are getting worse and there will be new papers written to prove it. Then all the hub bub will be about the "new" hurricain era we suddenly entered into no one could have seen comming.

For now though whatever will keep fools buying beachfront property is what trendy science will say.

I know I'm not supposed to do this - but

[x-y-no]

If only the author waited a few more years....

My point is that an honest author, when quoting such a passage years later, would include the date it was written rather than allowing the false impression that it's a contemporaneous quote.

X-Y-NO, there isn't an author out there that posts research that will include a whole year they writing the paper on. There has to be a cut-off or else you would have to wait and wait for the research to be completed. I am sure the 2006 year won't be written for another 2-3 years from now, if not longer..

I think you're missing my point too. The WMO paper was written in 1997. It was then being quoted selectively by an author from TechCentral in 2005. I think it behooves that author, quoting an eight year old paper, to let the reader know that what he's quoting is eight years old. I think that's what someone genuinely interested in seeking the truth (rather than promulgating an agenda by any means) would do.

[benny]

Not sure what this thread has evolved into.. but we have had 12 hurricane strike the US in the past two years. That breaks the 1886-1887 record of 11 hurricane strikes in two years. However you can't make a trend based on two years. It is probably fair to say that we have since 1851 never seen this many major hurricanes make landfall in the past 2 years..7 is a ridiculous number.. I think the old record was 5 in 1954-55 (and some of those are likely not to stay major hurricanes at landfall).

We'll see what happens in 2006.. but if we get 6 hurricanes make landfall I will be a tad worried...