I get this sinking feeling its going to ramp up...

[quandary]

Yes... please give us a lot of big fish storms. The nice thing is that this year, the media will be all over all the fish storms as long as they are powerful, so there'll be the excitement and buzz about these storms (though on this board the buzz is there for a wave) without the necessary destruction that follows.

[spinfan4eva]

I think we will see Alberto in July

I agree...maybe not even till August.

[Extremeweatherguy]

I think we will see Alberto in July

I agree...maybe not even till August.

[canegrl04]

My how things can change

[souljoy]

Nah, I'm hoping for a good season of tropical storms that bring us rain and little wind. Just like Alberto all season would be fine! WIshful thinkin' on my part !

[CharleySurvivor]

The more quiet it is, the more it makes me smile! I'm in no hurry to start worrying about them.

Of course it is interesting to track hurricanes and all, it's just nice to know nobody has to worry for their life/family or house.

If they were all 'fishes', then it would be totally different....I would say ''bring them on"

[Dean4Storms]

I had a sinking feeling and it turned out to be gas.

[Ivanhater]

I had a sinking feeling and it turned out to be gas.

[tgenius]

I do not think we will see Beryl in June.. early July sounds more viable... though Miami could always use the rain!

[boca]

Despite Alberto S FL is still 9 inches below normal in rainfall.

[kenl01]

Just out of curiosity, I wonder how the media would be screaming their illiterate lunacy today if we had another hurricane like the one on June3rd, 1825, which caused severe damage to Charleston Harbor and also NYC Harbor ??

I can't possibly imagine this today.

And back then, we used to have "real" hurricanes moving well inland with gusts to 160+mph at landfall far more frequently than today.

[curtadams]

And back then, we used to have "real" hurricanes moving well inland with gusts to 160+mph at landfall far more frequently than today.

Dude! Where are you getting these nifty time-travelling anemometers? Can you send a few back to the Mouths of the Mississippi last year to find out what Katrina's winds were at landfall?

[kenl01]

And back then, we used to have "real" hurricanes moving well inland with gusts to 160+mph at landfall far more frequently than today.

Dude! Where are you getting these nifty time-travelling anemometers? Can you send a few back to the Mouths of the Mississippi last year to find out what Katrina's winds were at landfall?

Katrina was just a cat 3 at landfall, analysis later revealed.

[curtadams]

And back then, we used to have "real" hurricanes moving well inland with gusts to 160+mph at landfall far more frequently than today.

Dude! Where are you getting these nifty time-travelling anemometers? Can you send a few back to the Mouths of the Mississippi last year to find out what Katrina's winds were at landfall?

Katrina was just a cat 3 at landfall, analysis later revealed.

Oh, but kenny-boy, those are just best estimates! Can't we please borrow those wonderful time-travelling anemometers of yours to know for sure?

[AnnularCane]

And back then, we used to have "real" hurricanes moving well inland with gusts to 160+mph at landfall far more frequently than today.

Back in my day, we had REAL hurricanes, not those pansy little wind gusts you young whippersnappers like to call "hurricanes" today. And I used to walk 50 miles to school uphill in a hurricane both ways, barefoot!

[kenl01]

And back then, we used to have "real" hurricanes moving well inland with gusts to 160+mph at landfall far more frequently than today.

Back in my day, we had REAL hurricanes, not those pansy little wind gusts you young whippersnappers like to call "hurricanes" today. And I used to walk 50 miles to school uphill in a hurricane both ways, barefoot!

sounds like fun there ! yeaugh I just looked at Audrey from 1957, gusts to 180mph at the offshore oil rigs in LA on the 27th. Storm surge of 12' inundated flat LA coast as much as 25 miles inland. Now that was a biggie for June.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Katrina was just a cat 3 at landfall, analysis later revealed

No offense, but I really take umbrage at the use of the term "just"... I don't want to open any more of the wind debates on this but I will say that NOT ALL meteorologists agree on that status at first landfall. Yes, the "official" NHC report places it at "just" high-end 3. For my part, and the part of many others less inclined to say their piece on it.. I respectfully disagree, I can't "prove" this anymore than anyone else can say they've tested all the areas--even the NHC report acknowledges the possibility of Cat 4 "winds" ... please don't reopen the debate about it with comments such as this (and I ask this with all due respect) as it gets nowhere; equally please, and I'm not being sarcastic, but only making a sincere request, ask that you acknowledge that this rating is according to the "official NHC report" as it is not unanimously agreed upon--even by well respected pro mets. I'll let it go there and hope others will do the same. I apologize for bringing this up again, but the term "just a Cat 3" sort of rubbed me the wrong way... not your fault, perhaps I need a "chill pill"

In concluding "Just" a Cat 3, is really a bit of a trivialization of a truly "major" hurricane. Even assuming they had ALL the data, and it was a cat 3 of any magnitude whatsoever, somehow or other the term "Just" seems out of place. A major Cat 3 can wreak indescribable havoc and tragedy. I think Katrina (whatever she was) has truly proven that point. I know the folks in Buras, Slidell, and along the destroyed areas of the MGC would agree with that. Appreciate the time and hope no offense was taken, as none was intended.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Dude! Where are you getting these nifty time-travelling anemometers? Can you send a few back to the Mouths of the Mississippi last year to find out what Katrina's winds were at landfall?

In all fairness to Ken, here, the anemometers have been around since the 1400's. Certainly many were in place for some of those earlier storms; albeit I concede the accuracy of their readings can justifiably be called into question with improved technology comes greater accuracy and your point is well taken, as a LOT of those "older" storms are being reanalyzed for just this very reason.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

sounds like fun there ! yeaugh I just looked at Audrey from 1957, gusts to 180mph at the offshore oil rigs in LA on the 27th. Storm surge of 12' inundated flat LA coast as much as 25 miles inland. Now that was a biggie for June.

I do recall Audrey well... see screen name!

That was back as we were in a fairly active cycle--much like the one we've been in the last few years. Hopefully, since more than a few June and July storms truly become threats to the GOM, the season will wait till August to heat up, and please, God, keep anything big away from this area!

A2K

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

Yes... please give us a lot of big fish storms. The nice thing is that this year, the media will be all over all the fish storms as long as they are powerful, so there'll be the excitement and buzz about these storms (though on this board the buzz is there for a wave) without the necessary destruction that follows.

Amen brother amen.