Will 2020 reach hyperactive status in terms of ACE?

[Jr0d]

:uarrow:
I'm not a fan of weak tropical storms, activity for me is ACE, even with name records, 2005 or 2017 or 2010 >>>>>> 2020

Not even the NHC considers ACE a good measurement, just FYI. Eric Blake is pretty vocal about that.

Not a fan of it either. Mostly because it does not take into account the size of the storm, though I am not sure how that would affect the overall metric with this season's energy compared to past hyper active years.

This has been a hyper-active season, despite the relatively low ACE value.

[cycloneye]

I am referring to hyperactive in terms of ACE which, according to Wikipedia, requires an ACE value of 152.5 or more.

Right now, the basin is at 121.4 and needs 31.1 more do attain hyperactive status. The total ACE for all Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean storms for 2020 (excluding Isaias which was brief in the eastern Caribbean) is 52.8 units.

The last 5 Gulf/Caribbean storms total 19.2 ACE and if you include Laura, it is 32 units. I think if we get a strong storm or 2 plus a few weak and or short-lived storms, we could reach hyperactivity status.

If you think reaching 152.5 is too easy, we could put the bar at 2010's 165.5 units.

However, it's fair to presume that 200 units is out of reach.

Where will 2020's ACE finish?

□Less than 130
□130-139 1 vote
□140-149
□150-159
□160 or more

Will 2020 reach hyperactivity?

□Yes
□No 3 votes

Will 2020 surpass 2010's ACE?

□Yes
□No 3 votes

Will 2020 surpass 2016's ACE (141.3)?

□Yes
□No

Thoughts?

If the pair of areas that the models are showing in SW Caribbean and in Central Atlantic pan out, then 2020 will surpass the 152.5 threshold and it will be a true hyperactive season when all is set and done.

[aspen]

I am referring to hyperactive in terms of ACE which, according to Wikipedia, requires an ACE value of 152.5 or more.

Right now, the basin is at 121.4 and needs 31.1 more do attain hyperactive status. The total ACE for all Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean storms for 2020 (excluding Isaias which was brief in the eastern Caribbean) is 52.8 units.

The last 5 Gulf/Caribbean storms total 19.2 ACE and if you include Laura, it is 32 units. I think if we get a strong storm or 2 plus a few weak and or short-lived storms, we could reach hyperactivity status.

If you think reaching 152.5 is too easy, we could put the bar at 2010's 165.5 units.

However, it's fair to presume that 200 units is out of reach.

Where will 2020's ACE finish?

□Less than 130
□130-139 1 vote
□140-149
□150-159
□160 or more

Will 2020 reach hyperactivity?

□Yes
□No 3 votes

Will 2020 surpass 2010's ACE?

□Yes
□No 3 votes

Will 2020 surpass 2016's ACE (141.3)?

□Yes
□No

Thoughts?

If the pair of areas that the models are showing in SW Caribbean and in Central Atlantic pan out, then 2020 will surpass the 152.5 threshold and it will be a true hyperactive season when all is set and done.

If Epsilon sticks around for a while as a hurricane and generates up to 10 ACE, and Zeta becomes a 20 ACE major, then 2020 will reach hyperactive ACE levels. Zeta could perhaps get up to 30+ ACE if it’s a TC in the Caribbean for longer and/or gets stronger than most of the models currently show. I wouldn’t doubt it also making a run for Cat 5 status, since Delta blew up so quickly in the same region.

[Sciencerocks]

2020 is 2005 without the power! 2017 was more impressive by far then 2020 when talking about bone breaking power and awe. There's a reason that ace is so low and would remain below ace even with 28 storms as 2005 had.

[TheStormExpert]

2020 is 2005 without the power! 2017 was more impressive by far then 2020 when talking about bone breaking power and awe. There's a reason that ace is so low and would remain below ace even with 28 storms as 2005 had.

This!

Some folks including me thought that this season would at least be able to generate hyperactive levels of ACE. But for some reason something kept this season back from doing so. We still had 27 named storms and a few more could be on the way before it’s over but there has been a lot of weak storms that either failed to obtain hurricane intensity or gain us much ACE. Teddy was the true long-tracker of the season.

[Nuno]

Even with the ACE number, I'd still classify 2020 as a hyperactive season though.

[ElectricStorm]

Even with the ACE number, I'd still classify 2020 as a hyperactive season though.

Yeah same here. Easily hyperactive when you take all the factors into account

[wxman57]

One thing to consider is that the 30-yr average ACE is going to change significantly at the end of this season. Currently, we're using the 1981-2010 period for the average of about 104-105 ACE. However, the most recent 30-yr period yields an average of a little over 124 ACE per season. that puts 2020 right about average at 123 pts. Not even close to "hyperactive".

[CyclonicFury]

One thing to consider is that the 30-yr average ACE is going to change significantly at the end of this season. Currently, we're using the 1981-2010 period for the average of about 104-105 ACE. However, the most recent 30-yr period yields an average of a little over 124 ACE per season. that puts 2020 right about average at 123 pts. Not even close to "hyperactive".

I had mentioned this before in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=31&t=121460

If NHC keeps the definitions based on the same % of normal, 2020 and even 2008 would be classified as "near normal" seasons. I'm not sure how you can call 26-9-3 (likely soon to be 26-10-3) "near normal."

[wxman57]

One thing to consider is that the 30-yr average ACE is going to change significantly at the end of this season. Currently, we're using the 1981-2010 period for the average of about 104-105 ACE. However, the most recent 30-yr period yields an average of a little over 124 ACE per season. that puts 2020 right about average at 123 pts. Not even close to "hyperactive".

I had mentioned this before in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=31&t=121460

If NHC keeps the definitions based on the same % of normal, 2020 and even 2008 would be classified as "near normal" seasons. I'm not sure how you can call 26-9-3 (likely soon to be 26-10-3) "near normal."

Many of the named storms this season were VERY short-lived and weak. Take "Alpha", for example. Upgraded as it move inland into Portugal? The NHC would never have named such a system in the past. Ignore the named storm numbers. We've had only 9 hurricanes and 3 major hurricanes, which is about what was predicted hurricane-wise but below what was predicted in terms of major hurricanes. ACE-wise, it's only an average season.

[TheStormExpert]

One thing to consider is that the 30-yr average ACE is going to change significantly at the end of this season. Currently, we're using the 1981-2010 period for the average of about 104-105 ACE. However, the most recent 30-yr period yields an average of a little over 124 ACE per season. that puts 2020 right about average at 123 pts. Not even close to "hyperactive".

I had mentioned this before in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=31&t=121460

If NHC keeps the definitions based on the same % of normal, 2020 and even 2008 would be classified as "near normal" seasons. I'm not sure how you can call 26-9-3 (likely soon to be 26-10-3) "near normal."

Many of the named storms this season were VERY short-lived and weak. Take "Alpha", for example. Upgraded as it move inland into Portugal? The NHC would never have named such a system in the past. Ignore the named storm numbers. We've had only 9 hurricanes and 3 major hurricanes, which is about what was predicted hurricane-wise but below what was predicted in terms of major hurricanes. ACE-wise, it's only an average season.

If a season like this were to occur back in the 1933, it wouldn’t have been a hyperactive season in terms of named storms. A lot of these storms were even lucky they got named.

[CyclonicFury]

I had mentioned this before in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=31&t=121460

If NHC keeps the definitions based on the same % of normal, 2020 and even 2008 would be classified as "near normal" seasons. I'm not sure how you can call 26-9-3 (likely soon to be 26-10-3) "near normal."

Many of the named storms this season were VERY short-lived and weak. Take "Alpha", for example. Upgraded as it move inland into Portugal? The NHC would never have named such a system in the past. Ignore the named storm numbers. We've had only 9 hurricanes and 3 major hurricanes, which is about what was predicted hurricane-wise but below what was predicted in terms of major hurricanes. ACE-wise, it's only an average season.

If a season like this were to occur back in the 1933, it wouldn’t have been a hyperactive season in terms of named storms. A lot of these storms were even lucky they got named.

I wouldn't say they were "lucky" to get named or did not deserve to be named, it's just modern technology is better at detecting weak short lived storms than in the past.

[gatorcane]

One thing to consider is that the 30-yr average ACE is going to change significantly at the end of this season. Currently, we're using the 1981-2010 period for the average of about 104-105 ACE. However, the most recent 30-yr period yields an average of a little over 124 ACE per season. that puts 2020 right about average at 123 pts. Not even close to "hyperactive".

I had mentioned this before in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=31&t=121460

If NHC keeps the definitions based on the same % of normal, 2020 and even 2008 would be classified as "near normal" seasons. I'm not sure how you can call 26-9-3 (likely soon to be 26-10-3) "near normal."

Many of the named storms this season were VERY short-lived and weak. Take "Alpha", for example. Upgraded as it move inland into Portugal? The NHC would never have named such a system in the past. Ignore the named storm numbers. We've had only 9 hurricanes and 3 major hurricanes, which is about what was predicted hurricane-wise but below what was predicted in terms of major hurricanes. ACE-wise, it's only an average season.

Agree Wxman57. I will also add that early season indicators did suggest ACE may not be as hyperactive as some thought which was discussed in the indicators thread. I think there were some expectations we would see an outbreak of Cape Verde high ACE long trackers like Irma or some of the 2004 hurricanes but that didn’t happen. Still time to get a big ACE producer in the Caribbean though but the hour glass is starting to empty.

[TheStormExpert]

Many of the named storms this season were VERY short-lived and weak. Take "Alpha", for example. Upgraded as it move inland into Portugal? The NHC would never have named such a system in the past. Ignore the named storm numbers. We've had only 9 hurricanes and 3 major hurricanes, which is about what was predicted hurricane-wise but below what was predicted in terms of major hurricanes. ACE-wise, it's only an average season.

If a season like this were to occur back in the 1933, it wouldn’t have been a hyperactive season in terms of named storms. A lot of these storms were even lucky they got named.

I wouldn't say they were "lucky" to get named or did not deserve to be named, it's just modern technology is better at detecting weak short lived storms than in the past.

Let’s just put it this way, I don’t believe we’d reach the Greek Alphabet if modern technology wasn’t so far along. In my opinion this season has been impressive but not too overly impressive.

I mean we saw several hurricanes including one major hurricane make landfall in the U.S. Not to mention all but Delta rapidly intensified up to landfall.

[Nuno]

One thing to consider is that the 30-yr average ACE is going to change significantly at the end of this season. Currently, we're using the 1981-2010 period for the average of about 104-105 ACE. However, the most recent 30-yr period yields an average of a little over 124 ACE per season. that puts 2020 right about average at 123 pts. Not even close to "hyperactive".

I had mentioned this before in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=31&t=121460

If NHC keeps the definitions based on the same % of normal, 2020 and even 2008 would be classified as "near normal" seasons. I'm not sure how you can call 26-9-3 (likely soon to be 26-10-3) "near normal."

Many of the named storms this season were VERY short-lived and weak. Take "Alpha", for example. Upgraded as it move inland into Portugal? The NHC would never have named such a system in the past. Ignore the named storm numbers. We've had only 9 hurricanes and 3 major hurricanes, which is about what was predicted hurricane-wise but below what was predicted in terms of major hurricanes. ACE-wise, it's only an average season.

Why ignore the named storm numbers? Because many didn't last long or were weak? Longevity potential doesn't factor into the classification of storms. If they meet the classification, they're named. We're not in the past, we're in the present. They're named now thanks to better technological tools and access to data, unless you are implying NHC are naming storms for an alternative reason.

[Nuno]

If a season like this were to occur back in the 1933, it wouldn’t have been a hyperactive season in terms of named storms. A lot of these storms were even lucky they got named.

I wouldn't say they were "lucky" to get named or did not deserve to be named, it's just modern technology is better at detecting weak short lived storms than in the past.

Let’s just put it this way, I don’t believe we’d reach the Greek Alphabet if modern technology wasn’t so far along. In my opinion this season has been impressive but not too overly impressive.

I mean we saw several hurricanes including one major hurricane make landfall in the U.S. Not to mention all but Delta rapidly intensified up to landfall.

Luckily technology is further along so the whole point is moot

[ElectricStorm]

If a season like this were to occur back in the 1933, it wouldn’t have been a hyperactive season in terms of named storms. A lot of these storms were even lucky they got named.

I wouldn't say they were "lucky" to get named or did not deserve to be named, it's just modern technology is better at detecting weak short lived storms than in the past.

Let’s just put it this way, I don’t believe we’d reach the Greek Alphabet if modern technology wasn’t so far along. In my opinion this season has been impressive but not too overly impressive.

I mean we saw several hurricanes including one major hurricane make landfall in the U.S. Not to mention all but Delta rapidly intensified up to landfall.

But technology is this far along... I don't understand why people keep trying to make that comparison. We live in a time where technology allows the NHC to classify more systems than they were in the past. Sure if this season happened 30+ years ago then some of these storm wouldn't have been named... but we don't live 30+ years ago. That's where we are at and that's how it's going to be. Yes it's a "near normal" season in terms of ACE, but in terms of overall activity, it's hyperactive. Not even that debatable in my opinion.

[TheStormExpert]

I wouldn't say they were "lucky" to get named or did not deserve to be named, it's just modern technology is better at detecting weak short lived storms than in the past.

Let’s just put it this way, I don’t believe we’d reach the Greek Alphabet if modern technology wasn’t so far along. In my opinion this season has been impressive but not too overly impressive.

I mean we saw several hurricanes including one major hurricane make landfall in the U.S. Not to mention all but Delta rapidly intensified up to landfall.

But technology is this far along... I don't understand why people keep trying to make that comparison. We live in a time where technology allows the NHC to classify more systems than they were in the past. Sure if this season happened 30+ years ago then some of these storm wouldn't have been named... but we don't live 30+ years ago. That's where we are at and that's how it's going to be. Yes it's a "near normal" season in terms of ACE, but in terms of overall activity, it's hyperactive. Not even that debatable in my opinion.

Even 15 years ago we’ve probably would’ve not seen so many named storms had a season like 2020’s happened over what happened in 2005.

Honestly if it wasn’t for the current state of technology this season would’ve likely been classified as average or even below average, especially with ACE.

[wxman57]

I had mentioned this before in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=31&t=121460

If NHC keeps the definitions based on the same % of normal, 2020 and even 2008 would be classified as "near normal" seasons. I'm not sure how you can call 26-9-3 (likely soon to be 26-10-3) "near normal."

Many of the named storms this season were VERY short-lived and weak. Take "Alpha", for example. Upgraded as it move inland into Portugal? The NHC would never have named such a system in the past. Ignore the named storm numbers. We've had only 9 hurricanes and 3 major hurricanes, which is about what was predicted hurricane-wise but below what was predicted in terms of major hurricanes. ACE-wise, it's only an average season.

Why ignore the named storm numbers? Because many didn't last long or were weak? Longevity potential doesn't factor into the classification of storms. If they meet the classification, they're named. We're not in the past, we're in the present. They're named now thanks to better technological tools and access to data, unless you are implying NHC are naming storms for an alternative reason.

The number of named storms continues to go up, partly because we have better technology to detect weak, short-lived storms far out to sea. The NHC has also changed what qualifies as a TS in recent decades. They're naming subtropical storms now, too. All of this leads to more named storms than in the past, but not more hurricanes or major hurricanes. That's why the number of named storms, relative to climatology, is not very significant. A total of 9 hurricanes (maybe 10) with only 3 major hurricanes is not particularly impressive. Consider that one of those hurricane upgrades was the one that moved inland into Belize (Nana). That may have been a questionable upgrade, in my opinion.

[SconnieCane]

Many of the named storms this season were VERY short-lived and weak. Take "Alpha", for example. Upgraded as it move inland into Portugal? The NHC would never have named such a system in the past. Ignore the named storm numbers. We've had only 9 hurricanes and 3 major hurricanes, which is about what was predicted hurricane-wise but below what was predicted in terms of major hurricanes. ACE-wise, it's only an average season.

Why ignore the named storm numbers? Because many didn't last long or were weak? Longevity potential doesn't factor into the classification of storms. If they meet the classification, they're named. We're not in the past, we're in the present. They're named now thanks to better technological tools and access to data, unless you are implying NHC are naming storms for an alternative reason.

The number of named storms continues to go up, partly because we have better technology to detect weak, short-lived storms far out to sea. The NHC has also changed what qualifies as a TS in recent decades. They're naming subtropical storms now, too. All of this leads to more named storms than in the past, but not more hurricanes or major hurricanes. That's why the number of named storms, relative to climatology, is not very significant. A total of 9 hurricanes (maybe 10) with only 3 major hurricanes is not particularly impressive. Consider that one of those hurricane upgrades was the one that moved inland into Belize (Hanna?). That may have been a questionable upgrade, in my opinion.

Seeing as Hanna actually hit your home state as an intensifying high-end Cat. 1...