Failed TD List

[BadLarry95]

If anyone else knows of any I missed or from before the years I remember, feel free to add them. These are the depressions that never got a name.

2003- 2, 6, 7, 9, 14
2004- 10
2005- 10, 19, 22
2006- x
2007- 10, 15
2008- 16
2009- 1, 8
2010- 2, 5
2011- 10
2012- x
2013- 8
2014- 2
2015- 9
2016- 8
2017- 4
2018- 11
2019- 3, 15
2020- 5(?)

[storminabox]

There were 5 unnamed depressions in 2003!!! I wonder what year holds the record for the most TDs that were never named.

[EquusStorm]

I know during the 70s there used to be an absurd number of depressions per year; not sure when classification changed to be more stringent but for instance 1978 and 1979 have 12 and 17 depressions respectively listed on wiki. I assume nearly every especially significant tropical wave got listed as a depression; would have to have something like that to get those kind of numbers

[Hammy]

1974 and on is reliable on this thanks to CDMP and HURDAT--there are several other systems listed as "unnamed" which were presumably added post-season or were invests or equivalents that were kept in, but these are the numbered depressions.

1974: TD1 (June, BoC), TD4 (August, W GoM), TD9 (September, MRD+went over Greater Antilles), TD12 (September, E GoM)
1975: TD3 (July, BOC), TD4 (July, moved into Southeast), TD6 (September, MDR), TD7 (September, GoM), TD12 (October, GoM), TD15 (November, NW Caribbean)
1976: TD10 (October, MDR)
1977: TD4 (September, BoC), TD6 (October, central subtropical Atlantic), TD9 (November, western Atlantic)
1978: TD4 (August, MDR), TD8 (September, eastern Atlantic), TD9 (September, BoC), TD12 (September, eastern Atlantic)
1979: TD1 (June, Jamaica to SC); TD4 (July, off FL--similar to TD5 this year), TD6 (July-August, recurve); TD8 (August, BoC), TD13 (September, central Atlantic), TD14 (October, NW Carib), TD15 (November, subtropical Atlantic)
1980: TD1 (July, GoM); TD4 (August, absorbed by Bonnie), TD6 (August, MDR); TD14 (November, NW Carib)
1981: TD2 (June, GoM--similar track to 2001's Allison); TD4 (July, GoM), TD7 (August, MDR), TD8 (August, BoC), TD13 (September, W Atlantic--may have been removed from HURDAT), TD15 (September, MRD)
1982: TD3 (September, MDR), TD6 (September, MDR--may have been removed from HURDAT), TD7 (September, western Atlantic)
1983: TD1 (July, Caribbean), TD2 (July, MDR), TD6 (September, MDR--may have been removed from Hurdat)
1984: TD1 (June, western Atlantic), TD2 (June, BoC), TD3 (July, Caribbean), TD7 (September, BoC)
1985: TD6 (September, Caribbean), TD13 (December, SW Caribbean)
1986: TD3 (July, W Atlantic), TD5 (August, MDR), TD6 (September, BoC)
1987: TD1 (May, W Atlantic), TD4 (August, MDR), TD6 (September, MDR), TD8 (September, Caribbean), TD9 (September, into Carolinas), TD11 (September, MDR), TD14 (November, NW Caribbean+GoM)
1988: TD1 (May, NW Carib), TD4 (August, W Atlantic), TD5 (August, MDR+recurve), TD6 (August, Caribbean), TD10 (September, NW GoM), TD15 (September, eastern MDR), TD18 (October, behind Joan)
1989: TD1 (June, BoC), TD6 (August, MDR), TD9 (August, MDR), TD13 (October, MDR)
1990: TD1 (May, NW Carib), TD11 (September, MDR)

1991: TD2 ,TD4 ,TD5 ,TD10
1992: TD1 ,TD2 ,TD7
1993: TD1 ,TD10
1994: TD2 ,TD5 ,TD8 ,TD9 ,TD10
1995: TD6 ,TD14
1996: NA
1997: TD5
1998: NA
1999: TD2 ,TD7 ,TD11 ,TD12
2000: TD1, TD2 ,TD4 ,TD9
2001: TD2 ,TD9
2002: TD7 ,TD14

2003 and on that was posted earlier are not missing any.

[chaser1]

Here's my theory and I'm sticking to it. The reason that there were generally more unnamed T.D.'s from the early 1970's up to the early 2000's then there are in recent years, is pretty simple. Back "in the day" NHC policy toward tropical cyclone classifications as a whole, were more conservative. An up grade from a T.D. to a T.S. would rarely occur as quick as NHC is willing to pull the trigger during recent years. This would especially hold true for quick spin-up's or heavily sheared systems in the sub-tropics or higher latitudes. Sure, there's merit to the argument that Data analysis or newer tools exist now compared to years past therefore perhaps there's an increased capacity for Hurricane Forecasters (or any of us) to make a case for a depression (or even the present GOM disturbance approaching Apalachicola) to ... kinda...maybe...sorta be labeled a Tropical Storm. In years past one element of Tropical meteorology that played a far greater determining factor toward whether a tropical disturbance would be upgraded or not was "persistance". Years ago there was a vigilance to not jump the gun and I believe the result of which were an increase number of T.D.'s that frankly just didn't meet muster.

One other point. It is my contention that the "highest reported winds" of a good number of T.S.'s (and Hurricanes) over the past decade or two are simply NOT reflective of what is actually being felt on the ground - as in where the majority of humans actually live & experience conditions. I make this point with regard to a fair number of recent year classified Tropical Storms that make landfall in a adequately populated region yet sustained winds simply do not reflect the advertised intensity. I'm not talking about 20 meter winds over open water, or elevated oil platforms, an offshore buoy, or on some offshore barrier island. It just seems that we're allowing ourselves to find a lesser number of qualifying denominators with little or no regard for persistence during the process of Tropical Cyclones classifications and especially tropical cyclone upgrades. What would be unacceptable and possibly result in an increased risk of life, might be the thirst to qualify a T.S. or hurricane when those affected simply tire of preparing for wolf when only a lamb show's up.

Bottom line is, if just a couple of parameters need be met for just an hour or two then don't you think it fairly easy to make a case for upgrading a T.D. to a T.S.? Read the initial Discussion for Edouard. The bar used to be set higher two decades ago (trust me, few fish or beach umbrellas were harmed in the making of THIS storm).

[Ubuntwo]

Here's my theory and I'm sticking to it. The reason that there were generally more unnamed T.D.'s from the early 1970's up to the early 2000's then there are in recent years, is pretty simple. Back "in the day" NHC policy toward tropical cyclone classifications as a whole, were more conservative. An up grade from a T.D. to a T.S. would rarely occur as quick as NHC is willing to pull the trigger during recent years. This would especially hold true for quick spin-up's or heavily sheared systems in the sub-tropics or higher latitudes. Sure, there's merit to the argument that Data analysis or newer tools exist now compared to years past therefore perhaps there's an increased capacity for Hurricane Forecasters (or any of us) to make a case for a depression (or even the present GOM disturbance approaching Apalachicola) to ... kinda...maybe...sorta be labeled a Tropical Storm. In years past one element of Tropical meteorology that played a far greater determining factor toward whether a tropical disturbance would be upgraded or not was "persistance". Years ago there was a vigilance to not jump the gun and I believe the result of which were an increase number of T.D.'s that frankly just didn't meet muster.

One other point. It is my contention that the "highest reported winds" of a good number of T.S.'s (and Hurricanes) over the past decade or two are simply NOT reflective of what is actually being felt on the ground - as in where the majority of humans actually live & experience conditions. I make this point with regard to a fair number of recent year classified Tropical Storms that make landfall in a adequately populated region yet sustained winds simply do not reflect the advertised intensity. I'm not talking about 20 meter winds over open water, or elevated oil platforms, an offshore buoy, or on some offshore barrier island. It just seems that we're allowing ourselves to find a lesser number of qualifying denominators with little or no regard for persistence during the process of Tropical Cyclones classifications and especially tropical cyclone upgrades. What would be unacceptable and possibly result in an increased risk of life, might be the thirst to qualify a T.S. or hurricane when those affected simply tire of preparing for wolf when only a lamb show's up.

Bottom line is, if just a couple of parameters need be met for just an hour or two then don't you think it fairly easy to make a case for upgrading a T.D. to a T.S.? Read the initial Discussion for Edouard. The bar used to be set higher two decades ago (trust me, few fish or beach umbrellas were harmed in the making of THIS storm).

You make some good points... Although with regards to your point on highest reported winds, there's not exactly much that can be done to combat that. It is inherent with the nature of tropical cyclones that the highest winds will only be felt at the immediate coast, and even then only in the tiny RMW. With Harvey for example, the highest winds recorded on land were 96kt. Does that make it a 96kt storm? Of course not, traditional flight level wind reductions and SFMR net 115kt. That's within a maybe one mile wide area of the eyewall, and those winds were likely only felt on the tiny portion of the uninhabited barrier island that took that small section of eyewall. But if those winds exist, they can't just be disregarded. Perhaps the greater issue is the emphasis placed onto the public of peak winds instead of the broader impacts of TCs.

[Hammy]

[snipped for length]

Bottom line is, if just a couple of parameters need be met for just an hour or two then don't you think it fairly easy to make a case for upgrading a T.D. to a T.S.? Read the initial Discussion for Edouard. The bar used to be set higher two decades ago (trust me, few fish or beach umbrellas were harmed in the making of THIS storm).

I think a large part of the change as far as having higher number of TD's back in the 70s comes more from better data and a better understanding of tropical and non-tropical systems--in recent years for example even with recon they've discovered systems that don't look all that strong or tropical on satellite are in fact such, rather than a rush to classify--everything this year has without question met the "higher bar" so to speak and if anything they seem to wait a bit too long to call a depression a depression--which could be another reason for less. Not to mention especially years ago they would simply ignore smaller systems that would not strengthen much or affect land (giving the older records a bias favoring longer and stronger storms.)

There is also the issue of satellite quality--we know a lot more now than we did during the 70s regarding satellite presentation and intensity of weaker systems (as well as increased knowledge of tropical/non-tropical) so in all likelihood, once the reanalysis has reached that point, we're going to find a lot more 'lesser' storms and in fact the number of failed TD's will also more than likely fall dramatically. Something that today would easily meet the satellite criteria for a strong tropical storm or (especially with smaller systems) Cat 1 hurricane, the lack of understanding and quality of satellite at the time would likely cause such storms to be listed as depressions.

[djones65]

Exactly!!! It's not a change in protocol in my opinion; its a change in technology.
When we first had satellite imagery available in the '60s it required a tremendous amount of "subjective" analysis which is least accurate scientifically and still is. Dvorak offered us a "semi-objective" technique somewhat in the mid to late 70s with flight level wind data but without the now believed reduction for surface winds. Then came the 80s with an over reliance in my opinion on minimum central pressure. In the 90s we thought we understood better about the vertical relationship between flight level and surface wind reduction and relied on that instead of pressure. After 2000 we added microwave satellite data, SFMR, Scaterometry data and have a much more reliable set of tools to measure wind speed and intensity. And they improve every year.
I personally think tropical depressions will soon become obsolete and replaced with "potential storm" regardless of location and only upgrade those storms deserving a name which are producing gale force winds or higher >40 mph.