It's becoming pretty clear that the 2006 hurricane season will be less active than 2005, and, is why our former HRD Director (now deceased) had always said that making statements such as last year's, "We are now entering a period of increased hurricane activity, over the next 15 to 20 years" to not be a good idea, since, even during the active phase of a hurricane cycle, there will be some seasons that are slower than others.
As of this morning, the tropics are very quiet, with strong shear and ULL's still evident in several areas of the Caribbean and Atlantic.
Will this season be even slower than 2004? It remains to be seen, but, if true, it would be welcome news for everyone still in the process of rebuilding after the '04 and '05 hurricane seasons (including down here - many still suffer with roof leaks)...
Frank
Slow "Active Phase" Hurricane Cycles
Moderator: S2k Moderators
Forum rules
The posts in this forum are NOT official forecasts and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K. For official information, please refer to products from the National Hurricane Center and National Weather Service.
Slow "Active Phase" Hurricane Cycles
Last edited by Frank2 on Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
0 likes
-
DESTRUCTION5
- Category 5
- Posts: 4423
- Age: 43
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 11:25 am
- Location: Stuart, FL
I hope so Frank !
I would be very glad to see this season far more quiet than in 2004. After last years activity I'm really tired of hearing about another hurricane every week like in 2005 - that was rediculous. I mean, "some action" is alright with me, like Gaston of 2004, but as far as seeing a repeat of last year ? No way !
So I'm happy this year is more quiet compared to last, already 4 storms behind last year.
People need a break........
I would be very glad to see this season far more quiet than in 2004. After last years activity I'm really tired of hearing about another hurricane every week like in 2005 - that was rediculous. I mean, "some action" is alright with me, like Gaston of 2004, but as far as seeing a repeat of last year ? No way !
So I'm happy this year is more quiet compared to last, already 4 storms behind last year.
People need a break........
0 likes
-
gatorcane
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 23693
- Age: 47
- Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 3:54 pm
- Location: Boca Raton, FL
Re: Slow "Active Phase" Hurricane Cycles
Frank2 wrote:It's becoming pretty clear that the 2006 hurricane season will be less active than 2005, and, is why our former HRD Director (now deceased) had always said that making statements such as last years "We are now entering a period of increased hurricane activity, over the next 15 to 20 years" to not be a good idea, since, even during the active phase of a hurricane cycle, there will be some seasons that are slower than others.
As of this morning, the tropics are very quiet, with strong shear and ULL's still evident in several areas of the Caribbean and Atlantic.
Will this season be even slower than 2004? It remains to be seen, but, if true, it would be welcome news for everyone still in the process of rebuilding after the '04 and '05 hurricane seasons (including down here - many still suffer with roof leaks)...
Frank
Not so fast folks - 2004 didn't get cranking until August with our first TS not until the end of July.....
be careful here on speculating whether this season will be slower than 2004
0 likes
Hello again,
Well, it's not -removed-, but, during my years with the HRD, our Director at the time (he a research meteorologist) often did say that he felt it not wise to make such statements - truly, the only people that have benefited from such dire long-term predictions are those who advertise endlessly for generators, shutters, etc. - it's been a financial windfall for them all.
I also mentioned it at this time because OCM's at TWC and NBCWP have been raising questions over the past couple of weeks, as to the predictions that this would be an active season (though per Bill Gray, he and the NHC both had forecast a not-as-active season in 2006).
Still, many in the public (media included) have misinterpreted the official statement (mentioned in my initial post here) made last year to mean that the high level of activity seen in '04 and '05 would be repeated year after year, for the next 15 to 20 years - some I have spoken to have said that this is what this statement means to them, and, is why our former Director always said it's a bad idea to make a comment like this, since, the public will always hold a person to their word - weather is very unpredictable, and, to make a firm statement like that is often opening the door for a certain amount of embarrassment.
Sure, the environment can change quickly, as it did in '04, and after a lull in July of '05, but, at least for today, the atmosphere is very unfavorable for cyclone formation, and, it's possible that while there won't be a total absence of named storms or hurricanes, the total number may be far less than last year.
Frank
Well, it's not -removed-, but, during my years with the HRD, our Director at the time (he a research meteorologist) often did say that he felt it not wise to make such statements - truly, the only people that have benefited from such dire long-term predictions are those who advertise endlessly for generators, shutters, etc. - it's been a financial windfall for them all.
I also mentioned it at this time because OCM's at TWC and NBCWP have been raising questions over the past couple of weeks, as to the predictions that this would be an active season (though per Bill Gray, he and the NHC both had forecast a not-as-active season in 2006).
Still, many in the public (media included) have misinterpreted the official statement (mentioned in my initial post here) made last year to mean that the high level of activity seen in '04 and '05 would be repeated year after year, for the next 15 to 20 years - some I have spoken to have said that this is what this statement means to them, and, is why our former Director always said it's a bad idea to make a comment like this, since, the public will always hold a person to their word - weather is very unpredictable, and, to make a firm statement like that is often opening the door for a certain amount of embarrassment.
Sure, the environment can change quickly, as it did in '04, and after a lull in July of '05, but, at least for today, the atmosphere is very unfavorable for cyclone formation, and, it's possible that while there won't be a total absence of named storms or hurricanes, the total number may be far less than last year.
Frank
Last edited by Frank2 on Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:08 am, edited 5 times in total.
0 likes
-
beachbum_al
- Category 5
- Posts: 2163
- Age: 55
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 9:23 pm
- Location: South Alabama Coast
- Contact:
Well all I know that 2004 was horrible for us in Alabama along the Coast and it only takes 1 storm to make it a horrible hurricane season if that storm strikes you. As for it not being as active as 2005. In my personal opinion I don't think we will see a year like we did in 2005 for a very long time. That was just an unusual year.
0 likes
-
cheezyWXguy
- Category 5
- Posts: 6132
- Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 12:29 am
- Location: Dallas, TX
-
Jim Hughes
- Category 3
- Posts: 825
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 1:52 pm
- Location: Martinsburg West Virginia
I wouldn't call it a false warning, either, but, what was mentioned last year was something that did not serve a purpose, in my opinion, other than to compound the public's fears of a growing trend in natural disasters.
The old NHC "on the map" policy worked well for many years, however, at that time, most residents knew better when it came to being prepared, and, if a slow or busy season presented itself, they were either greatful or prepared, compared with many Gulf Coast and Florida residents of today, who do not seem to understand the importance of having everything in place from year to year.
Frank
The old NHC "on the map" policy worked well for many years, however, at that time, most residents knew better when it came to being prepared, and, if a slow or busy season presented itself, they were either greatful or prepared, compared with many Gulf Coast and Florida residents of today, who do not seem to understand the importance of having everything in place from year to year.
Frank
0 likes
Re: Slow "Active Phase" Hurricane Cycles
Frank2 wrote:It's becoming pretty clear that the 2006 hurricane season will be less active than 2005, and, is why our former HRD Director (now deceased) had always said that making statements such as last year's, "We are now entering a period of increased hurricane activity, over the next 15 to 20 years" to not be a good idea, since, even during the active phase of a hurricane cycle, there will be some seasons that are slower than others.
Active phase? Inactive phase? Does any of it really matter at this point? To those of us who live along the coast, all we can do is prepare for the worst and hope for the best. History's lessons should have taught us well.
We can speculate for the next months about how the season will turn out. But I hope you're not advocating anything less than 100% preparation.
Hurricane Andrew is a prime example - a killer storm in an inactive year. And we can't predict the power, intensity or size of storms that form. Look at Andrew again - Andrew was a small compact storm that wiped out South Dade but barely touched Palm Beach County.
Personally, I'm hoping 2006 is the most boring storm season on record. That my hurricane supplies rot. But I'm not counting on it. Not by a long shot.
BocaGirl
Barbara
0 likes
-
NBCintern
While I respect your opinion and analogy whose to say that come August, September, October, we will not see a dramatic upswing in the number of canes developing. Mother nature has taught us not to count on climo for upswings and downswings or cycles. She makes the rules and if she wants to start out slow and then fast, so be it.
0 likes
-
KFDM Meteorologist
- Professional-Met
- Posts: 1314
- Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 9:52 pm
- Location: Upper Texas Coast/Orange County
A season like 1933 or 2005, as we can see, is generally a once-in-a-lifetime event. It took 72 years after 1933 for a record breaking (over 20 named storms) season to return. So if history tells us anything, the next record breaking season should be at least 70 years away (around 2077).
Also, the year 1933 may have had the same number of storms as last year. Back then we had no satellite data or aircraft to track all the other "swirls" that were named last year. If current technology had existed back in 1933, there could very easily have been 28 named storms in 1933. So 2005 may have not actually broken any records.
Also, the year 1933 may have had the same number of storms as last year. Back then we had no satellite data or aircraft to track all the other "swirls" that were named last year. If current technology had existed back in 1933, there could very easily have been 28 named storms in 1933. So 2005 may have not actually broken any records.
0 likes
-
Jim Cantore
beachbum_al wrote:Well all I know that 2004 was horrible for us in Alabama along the Coast and it only takes 1 storm to make it a horrible hurricane season if that storm strikes you. As for it not being as active as 2005. In my personal opinion I don't think we will see a year like we did in 2005 for a very long time. That was just an unusual year.
Look at Andrew, name another notible storm from 1992
0 likes
There were a bunch of "season cancel" threads last year too... lol and we know how that turned out.
I understnad frank's position... and agree that the media is going to hype this "active period" into a thing that when the average joe see's a season with only 8 named storms... immediatly thinks the whole idea has been a farse.
Not to sound cliche and on the bandwagon... but like others have said: "It only takes one!"
I actually had a dream last night about an Andrew like storm ripping my house apart again in south florida!
-Eric
I understnad frank's position... and agree that the media is going to hype this "active period" into a thing that when the average joe see's a season with only 8 named storms... immediatly thinks the whole idea has been a farse.
Not to sound cliche and on the bandwagon... but like others have said: "It only takes one!"
I actually had a dream last night about an Andrew like storm ripping my house apart again in south florida!
-Eric
0 likes
My point in mentioning this at all is the fact that the public (via the media) have misinterpreted last year's statement, and believe that every season will be like 2004 or 2005, for the next 15 to 20 years, and is why our former HRD Director felt it better not to make statements like this at all, because they are often misinterpreted, since, even the active periods (such as the '40s and '60s) had lean years mixed in with the active seasons.
If we are fortunate, this may be one of those lean "active" years, and, at least, in a statistical sense, so far we are in much better shape than in 2005...
Frank
If we are fortunate, this may be one of those lean "active" years, and, at least, in a statistical sense, so far we are in much better shape than in 2005...
Frank
0 likes
Frank2 wrote:My point in mentioning this at all is the fact that the public (via the media) have misinterpreted last year's statement, and believe that every season will be like 2004 or 2005, for the next 15 to 20 years, and is why our former HRD Director felt it better not to make statements like this at all, because they are often misinterpreted, since, even the active periods (such as the '40s and '60s) had lean years mixed in with the active seasons.
If we are fortunate, this may be one of those lean "active" years, and, at least, in a statistical sense, so far we are in much better shape than in 2005...
Frank
lol speak of the devil..
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/ ... -headlines
0 likes
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: LarryWx, PavelGaborik10, riapal, wileytheartist and 52 guests