Active Period Miscalculation?

[Frank2]

In a sad way, that is pretty funny, but, as TWC mentioned yesterday, 1,880 people were killed during Katrina, just 10 days after my post last year, with another 300 still missing, though Washington officals were quoted as saying that they may never know the final death toll.

As far as what was mentioned last year compared with this year - last year at this time, there had been 9 named storms, with 2 being major hurricanes, as opposed to this season's weak totals.

Let's hope and pray that the same thing won't be repeated this year...

Frank

[Frank2]

By the way, MWatkins - the moderator's job is to moderate, not to ridicule members who are posting their own opinion...

Frank

[fci]

OK, I am going to buck the trend and say that I don't think there is any such thing as an "active" period.
The numbers vary year to year based on what Mother Nature wants to do.

Some years explode and others tend to have the upper level troughs, increase shear and differings SST's.

Yeah, statistics will show trends and the such but just when the "genius'" think they have it figured out; a season like 2005 comes and blows them away or a "non-Season" comes and does the same.

And it all gets chalked up to "averages".
Because when you add it all up and divide, ultimately an average comes out and the number of storms over a period of time come close to average.,

But which year will be "average"????

Part of science is trying to figure out when it is going to be active and when not and trying to predict activity and, in turn; save lives.

But when we come down to it, we hardly have a clue as to when and where a storm will form (within reason of course since there are areas prone to development and those not) and where it will go. Hence, the huge 5 day cone and models that differ greatly and no real understanding as to when things will be active and when not.

So, while we try our best to figure it all out, when all is said and done, WE REALLY HAVE NO CLUE!!

That's what makes it so darn fun to track them, predict them, discuss them and agonize over them. That's also what makes them so darn scary and dangerous.

Insults and criticism are welcome!!

My $.02

[Jim Hughes]

FYI -- I've done considerable research on hurricane activity from 1851-present. During the last "active cycle" (warm Atlantic phase), there were no more named storms than during the cold phase. In face, I got an average of about 0.1 less named storms per season when the Atlantic heated up in the 1930s-1960s.

However, there were about twice as many major hurricanes when the Atlantic heated up and many more landfalling major hurricanes. So "active cycle" does not necessarily mean more named storms.

I'd love to see the hard numbers on this. 1900- 1930 was less active than 1930-60. So I am trying to figure out where you are getting these higher Cold averages from. 1851- 1900?

This would be an unreliable data base to rely on especially when trying to figure out the AMO phase. The latter seems to be related to temperatures in the stratosphere and this seems to be related to space weather changes. So I am very sorry but I am skeptical about all of this.

You can easily go to the Unisys web site, click each year, and average the number of NS/H/IH for any period:

http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/index.html

Cold cycles: 1900-1925 and 1970-1994

Warm cycles: 1926-1969 and 1995-2005

I have all the Unys data in front of me on a chart between 1900-2001 (Needs to be updated.)

Now I have not averaged out the groups you mentioned but I can visually scan these years and easily see that 1900-25 was less than 1926-69. I added the data up in my head the 1970 - 1994 time frame (Named storms) and it came out below 10.0 average. ... maybe 9.4.

A quick item stands out here. The named storm total average was close to 10.0 prior to the current upsurge since 1995. The 1926-69 group exceeds the 1900--25 group. So it had to have played a bigger role in making the average around 10.0 because the 1970-1994 could not raise it higher since it was less the this itself.

So I am very sorry but the numbers just do not add up. At least not from 1900 up until today. But originally you did say from 1850's in your defense. But like I mentioned before. I would consider this a somewhat unreliable data base to draw a conclusion from. Because most of the recent data points toward more storm totals and not just majors alone.

[Frank2]

I'd appreciate an apology from mwatkins...

[Jim Hughes]

This discussion seems familiar...like it happened almost exactly this time last season.

Oh wait...it did...almost to the day.

http://www.storm2k.org/phpbb2/viewtopic ... highlight=

And look where we ended up.

MW

This is untrue Mike and you are playing with samntics here. At this time last year we had many more named storms. NOAA an Gray had raised their storm totals and not lowered them.

We also had a LA Nina developing and I mentioned this very thing in this forum last September. (Which went wayside BTW.) This helped.

Now we have the exact opposite thing occuring in regards to the EL Nino but some people around here want to harp on the SST's as the lone indicator. Some reputable ENSO forecasters, who are connected with NOAA, use the MEI as a measuring tool, and it shows a weak El Nino present.

So if everyone wants to use last year's comments as an example they can do this but this seasons environment is much different and the predictors are different.

And if the experts had thought that we would see an above average season they would have not lowered their totals since we were evidently running one named storm above average at the time of their early August updates.

[Derek Ortt]

the lasta ctive cycle was over 40 years. Also, there is some indications that we may be entering into a 1500 year long term active cycle, based upon ome research at LSU on the sedimentary layers in the Louisiana marshes, which records the frequency of landfalling hurricanes.

Therefore, I am quite confident that this cycle is not ending, absed upon a normal start to the season. One should just look to 1998 when we only had 4 storms by the end of August

[Frank2]

True enough, Jim - I hope Mike will amend his sarcasm, as it was a very poor example of S2K as a whole.

Since I have many contacts in the business, I wouldn't want to give this site a poor rating, but will, if this is not corrected.

Perhaps my first impression of this site was correct - it's for children who wish for bad weather...

Frank

[Extremeweatherguy]

True enough, Jim - I hope Mike will amend his sarcasm, as it was a very poor example of S2K as a whole.

Since I have many contacts in the business, I wouldn't want to give this site a poor rating, but will, if this is not corrected.

Perhaps my first impression of this site was correct - it's for children who wish for bad weather...

Frank

well if you feel that way Frank, then may be this site isn't for you. Seems like you are getting all worked up over nothing really. I don't think Mike was intentionally calling you out or anything.

[cvalkan4]

I am really grateful to Mike for referencing the discussion last year. Frank, your comments then were amazingly similar to your comments now. I can understand your being a little embarrassed to have that pointed out, considering how last season turned out. But I don't think Mike is at fault. And your threats to complain about S2K to your "connections" certainly diminish my respect for you.

[Frank2]

The point I was making, is that anyone who would go through the time and trouble to search what was posted a year ago, just to embarrass someone who's posting their own opinion of a current trend, is not doing the job they were assigned...

Frank

[Extremeweatherguy]

I am really grateful to Mike for referencing the discussion last year. Frank, your comments then were amazingly similar to your comments now. I can understand your being a little embarrassed to have that pointed out, considering how last season turned out. But I don't think Mike is at fault. And your threats to complain about S2K to your "connections" certainly diminish my respect for you.

I agree cvalkan4. I am thankful to Mike for pointing that out. I am really surprised by Frank's reaction though, as it was totally uncalled for.

[Frank2]

...you might feel diminshed by my comment, but, I can only view this site not by it's members comments, such as my own, but, by those who are assigned to moderate the site's activity, as they are entrusted to maintain a certain level of professionalism at all times...

Frank

[Extremeweatherguy]

The point I was making, is that anyone who would go through the time and trouble to search what was posted a year ago, just to embarrass someone who's posting their own opinion of a current trend, is not doing the job they were assigned...

Frank

still though, is that a good enough reason to want to threaten storm2k with you saying you will tell your connections what a bad site this is?

[AussieMark]

I assume Mike was just just saying that threads like this seem to pop to often

[Extremeweatherguy]

I assume Mike was just just saying that threads like this seem to pop to often

yeah, I don't think he was trying to call out anyone in particular. He was just trying to give an example of why you should never say a season is over before it's over.

[cycloneye]

I assume Mike was just just saying that threads like this seem to pop to often

That is it.I dont see anything offensive from what Mike posted to Frank at all.

[vacanechaser]

The point I was making, is that anyone who would go through the time and trouble to search what was posted a year ago, just to embarrass someone who's posting their own opinion of a current trend, is not doing the job they were assigned...

Frank

still though, is that a good enough reason to want to threaten storm2k with you saying you will tell your connections what a bad site this is?

no, he wants to resort open threats and name calling.... that just shows what type of person we are dealing with here...

Perhaps my first impression of this site was correct - it's for children who wish for bad weather

wow, sorry, us kids enjoy a good storm.. maybe this is just the wrong fourm for you there FRANK... i read in here somewhere you said you worked for the NHC at one time??? if thats the case, i see why you're not there anymore..


Jesse V. Bass III
http://www.vastormphoto.com
Hurricane Intercept Research Team

[Jim Hughes]

True enough, Jim - I hope Mike will amend his sarcasm, as it was a very poor example of S2K as a whole.

Since I have many contacts in the business, I wouldn't want to give this site a poor rating, but will, if this is not corrected.

Perhaps my first impression of this site was correct - it's for children who wish for bad weather...

Frank

I have no problem with him pulling out last years comments . My comments were directed at the thought behind it . Using this as a reference, in to trying to say that "this" season is going to turn around, just because last year's naysayers were wrong.

Some young people around here are gong to feed off of this an I believe they would be better off researching things like the ENSO instead of wasting all of their time watching every liitle tropical wave. Since they believe each wave is going to be something because of all this hype.

[Jack8631]

Anyway..

There does seem to be something to Multi Decadal Signal. It's more of a trend than anything..there will stil be slow seasons ( not saying 2006 will be slow - still way too early to tell)

Some light reading on the subject