Will 2020 reach hyperactive status in terms of ACE?

[tomatkins]

Relatively inactive? 2020 is not by any means inactive. 26 named storms aside, 9 (likely soon to be 10) hurricanes and 3 major hurricanes are both above average. Not to mention a record 10 CONUS landfalls, including 5 hurricane landfalls.

Relatively inactive is not the same as actually inactive. Nobody is saying it hasn't been an active season. Three major hurricanes is low for a season with such an extreme number of named storms. You typically get three major hurricanes in seasons with half the number of storms of this year so that is not impressive. Didn't 2004 have five or six majors, and that only got half way through the alphabet? 1999 is another year which had five majors and less than half the number of storms of this year. It is therefore reasonable to question what made the 2020 season less active in terms of ACE or storm peak intensity than would be expected for such a high number of named storms. In one sense the U.S. has dodged a bullet in that if the storms this year had lifecycles like 2004 storms, there could have easily been at least three Laura equivalents coming ashore on the Gulf coast.

We're at 4 majors, plus a couple edge cases. Biggest inhibitor was the proximity to land with which most systems developed.

Land interaction was definitely part of it. Laura and Isaias tracking into the GA. Delta, Gamma, and Zeta all hitting the Yucatan. A bunch of storms forming near the coast, and a bunch others strengthening up until landfall that presumably would have continued to do so with more water in front of them. Thats the big difference between 2005 and this year. 2005 didnt have an active MDR season like 2017. What it had was a whole bunch of cat 4 and 5 storms in the Gulf and Carribean - Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Rita, Wilma, and Beta compared to Laura, Delta, Zeta, Sally, and probably Eta.

[Ubuntwo]

Relatively inactive is not the same as actually inactive. Nobody is saying it hasn't been an active season. Three major hurricanes is low for a season with such an extreme number of named storms. You typically get three major hurricanes in seasons with half the number of storms of this year so that is not impressive. Didn't 2004 have five or six majors, and that only got half way through the alphabet? 1999 is another year which had five majors and less than half the number of storms of this year. It is therefore reasonable to question what made the 2020 season less active in terms of ACE or storm peak intensity than would be expected for such a high number of named storms. In one sense the U.S. has dodged a bullet in that if the storms this year had lifecycles like 2004 storms, there could have easily been at least three Laura equivalents coming ashore on the Gulf coast.

We're at 4 majors, plus a couple edge cases. Biggest inhibitor was the proximity to land with which most systems developed.

Land interaction was definitely part of it. Laura and Isaias tracking into the GA. Delta, Gamma, and Zeta all hitting the Yucatan. A bunch of storms forming near the coast, and a bunch others strengthening up until landfall that presumably would have continued to do so with more water in front of them. Thats the big difference between 2005 and this year. 2005 didnt have an active MDR season like 2017. What it had was a whole bunch of cat 4 and 5 storms in the Gulf and Carribean - Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Rita, Wilma, and Beta compared to Laura, Delta, Zeta, Sally, and probably Eta.

Yep, that's also well reflected in timing of peaks. Almost every 2005 storm peaked over open water, with weakening up until landfall. The opposite of the quick intensification to landfall we've seen so much of this year (Hanna, Isaias, Laura, Sally, Zeta all doing so)

[Kazmit]

It's weird to think that right now, the Atlantic ACE is about the same as the 2016 totals. It needs about 9 more units to get to hyperactive levels, which is certainly possible.

[Shell Mound]

What is your view as to why this season was relatively inactive despite a warm Atlantic, active African monsoon, and La Niña conditions?

Relatively inactive? 2020 is not by any means inactive. 26 named storms aside, 9 (likely soon to be 10) hurricanes and 3 major hurricanes are both above average. Not to mention a record 10 CONUS landfalls, including 5 hurricane landfalls.

Relatively inactive is not the same as actually inactive. Nobody is saying it hasn't been an active season. Three major hurricanes is low for a season with such an extreme number of named storms. You typically get three major hurricanes in seasons with half the number of storms of this year so that is not impressive. Didn't 2004 have five or six majors, and that only got half way through the alphabet? 1999 is another year which had five majors and less than half the number of storms of this year. It is therefore reasonable to question what made the 2020 season less active in terms of ACE or storm peak intensity than would be expected for such a high number of named storms. In one sense the U.S. has dodged a bullet in that if the storms this year had lifecycles like 2004 storms, there could have easily been at least three Laura equivalents coming ashore on the Gulf coast.

Exactly. This is perhaps the reason why some people have been questioning the NHC’s decision(s) in recent years, especially since 2005, to upgrade more borderline, questionable, and/or subtropical cases vs. previous decades. The definition of just what constitutes a classifiable, nameable storm will always fluctuate, based on scientific endeavour and technological innovation, including peer-reviewed research (e.g., on SFMR vs. flight-level wind), new instrumentation, better coverage vis-à-vis remote and/or in-situ sensor(s), etc. However, metrics such as ACE are steadier and can be applied consistently over longer timescales, while remaining a relatively good indicator as to just how “conducive” a season is for intense, long-lived storms, which tend to track over a wider area of the Atlantic basin, thereby illuminating the state of the ocean and atmosphere over a wide region. While one can question a number of the more marginal upgrades in 2020, and even doubt the “hurricane” status of one or two systems—mainly Nana, but perhaps Marco as well—one cannot deny, based on seasonal ACE to date, that conditions over most of the basin have been, on balance (average), more hostile than most forecasters and observers anticipated. Storms have managed to find pockets of highly favourable conditions near-shore, but that’s about it, and otherwise this season falls well short of most “hyperactive” years. Even 2005 had more and longer-lived majors in the MDR/Caribbean (including Dennis, Emily, and Wilma) than 2020 has had thus far, hence 2005’s considerably higher ACE totals. If one subtracts Nana and Marco from 2020’s official “hurricane total,” then this season’s tally drops to nine, while just about every “hyperactive” season on record since 1851 has featured a minimum of eleven hurricanes, and very often more, along with much higher proportions of (major) hurricanes to seasonal storm (and/or hurricane) totals, along with much higher seasonal ACE to date, obviously.

[Ubuntwo]

Relatively inactive? 2020 is not by any means inactive. 26 named storms aside, 9 (likely soon to be 10) hurricanes and 3 major hurricanes are both above average. Not to mention a record 10 CONUS landfalls, including 5 hurricane landfalls.

Relatively inactive is not the same as actually inactive. Nobody is saying it hasn't been an active season. Three major hurricanes is low for a season with such an extreme number of named storms. You typically get three major hurricanes in seasons with half the number of storms of this year so that is not impressive. Didn't 2004 have five or six majors, and that only got half way through the alphabet? 1999 is another year which had five majors and less than half the number of storms of this year. It is therefore reasonable to question what made the 2020 season less active in terms of ACE or storm peak intensity than would be expected for such a high number of named storms. In one sense the U.S. has dodged a bullet in that if the storms this year had lifecycles like 2004 storms, there could have easily been at least three Laura equivalents coming ashore on the Gulf coast.

Exactly. This is perhaps the reason why some people have been questioning the NHC’s decision(s) in recent years, especially since 2005, to upgrade more borderline, questionable, and/or subtropical cases vs. previous decades. The definition of just what constitutes a classifiable, nameable storm will always fluctuate, based on scientific endeavour and technological innovation, including peer-reviewed research (e.g., on SFMR vs. flight-level wind), new instrumentation, better coverage vis-à-vis remote and/or in-situ sensor(s), etc. However, metrics such as ACE are steadier and can be applied consistently over longer timescales, while remaining a relatively good indicator as to just how “conducive” a season is for intense, long-lived storms, which tend to track over a wider area of the Atlantic basin, thereby illuminating the state of the ocean and atmosphere over a wide region. While one can question a number of the more marginal upgrades in 2020, and even doubt the “hurricane” status of one or two systems—mainly Nana, but perhaps Marco as well—one cannot deny, based on seasonal ACE to date, that conditions over most of the basin have been, on balance (average), more hostile than most forecasters and observers anticipated. Storms have managed to find pockets of highly favourable conditions near-shore, but that’s about it, and otherwise this season falls well short of most “hyperactive” years. Even 2005 had more and longer-lived majors in the MDR/Caribbean (including Dennis, Emily, and Wilma) than 2020 has had thus far, hence 2005’s considerably higher ACE totals. If one subtracts Nana and Marco from 2020’s official “hurricane total,” then this season’s tally drops to nine, while just about every “hyperactive” season on record since 1851 has featured a minimum of eleven hurricanes, and very often more, along with much higher proportions of (major) hurricanes to seasonal storm (and/or hurricane) totals, along with much higher seasonal ACE to date, obviously.

Worth noting that, by and large, conditions have not been less favorable than forecast. The last NOAA prediction was 19-25/7-11/3-6, CSU was 24/12/5, TSR was 24/10/4. If you disregard storm count we are right in that forecast range (11/4).

It's also easy to say upgrades have been more marginal than in the past without historical hindsight. This may apply to some fringe tropical storms in regions where data acquisition has improved. But in stronger systems, it's harder to make a case for loosening of upgrade criteria. Especially in the pre-SFMR era, weakening up to landfall was underestimated, and systems like Zeta would likely have far higher operational intensities.

[MarioProtVI]

Relatively inactive? 2020 is not by any means inactive. 26 named storms aside, 9 (likely soon to be 10) hurricanes and 3 major hurricanes are both above average. Not to mention a record 10 CONUS landfalls, including 5 hurricane landfalls.

Relatively inactive is not the same as actually inactive. Nobody is saying it hasn't been an active season. Three major hurricanes is low for a season with such an extreme number of named storms. You typically get three major hurricanes in seasons with half the number of storms of this year so that is not impressive. Didn't 2004 have five or six majors, and that only got half way through the alphabet? 1999 is another year which had five majors and less than half the number of storms of this year. It is therefore reasonable to question what made the 2020 season less active in terms of ACE or storm peak intensity than would be expected for such a high number of named storms. In one sense the U.S. has dodged a bullet in that if the storms this year had lifecycles like 2004 storms, there could have easily been at least three Laura equivalents coming ashore on the Gulf coast.

Exactly. This is perhaps the reason why some people have been questioning the NHC’s decision(s) in recent years, especially since 2005, to upgrade more borderline, questionable, and/or subtropical cases vs. previous decades. The definition of just what constitutes a classifiable, nameable storm will always fluctuate, based on scientific endeavour and technological innovation, including peer-reviewed research (e.g., on SFMR vs. flight-level wind), new instrumentation, better coverage vis-à-vis remote and/or in-situ sensor(s), etc. However, metrics such as ACE are steadier and can be applied consistently over longer timescales, while remaining a relatively good indicator as to just how “conducive” a season is for intense, long-lived storms, which tend to track over a wider area of the Atlantic basin, thereby illuminating the state of the ocean and atmosphere over a wide region. While one can question a number of the more marginal upgrades in 2020, and even doubt the “hurricane” status of one or two systems—mainly Nana, but perhaps Marco as well—one cannot deny, based on seasonal ACE to date, that conditions over most of the basin have been, on balance (average), more hostile than most forecasters and observers anticipated. Storms have managed to find pockets of highly favourable conditions near-shore, but that’s about it, and otherwise this season falls well short of most “hyperactive” years. Even 2005 had more and longer-lived majors in the MDR/Caribbean (including Dennis, Emily, and Wilma) than 2020 has had thus far, hence 2005’s considerably higher ACE totals. If one subtracts Nana and Marco from 2020’s official “hurricane total,” then this season’s tally drops to nine, while just about every “hyperactive” season on record since 1851 has featured a minimum of eleven hurricanes, and very often more, along with much higher proportions of (major) hurricanes to seasonal storm (and/or hurricane) totals, along with much higher seasonal ACE to date, obviously.

It is extremely unlikely NHC would downgrade by a category. They are the experts, they know best (90% of the time) so they must have a reasoning for upping Nana to 65 kt, even if the data from some eyes here think it is not. The low SFMR in the FL peak is most likely due to shoaling messing with the winds. Also the excuse of Marco not being a hurricane is completely absurd as data clearly supported a hurricane. Looks aren’t everything and given how 96L could be another possible hurricane along with Gamma’s likely upgrade, that would put 2020 at 28-13-4 (well within your hurricane range for hyperactive seasons) with a possible ACE around 150-160 considering we’re at 144 or so rn and 96L/Eta could add another 5-15 especially if it gets stronger then expected and starts meandering around.

[Hypercane_Kyle]

I think downgrading Marco is a bit of a reach. From what I remember it was overwhelmingly obvious it had attained hurricane status based on recon, much more so than Nana.

[CyclonicFury]

I think downgrading Marco is a bit of a reach. From what I remember it was overwhelmingly obvious it had attained hurricane status based on recon, much more so than Nana.

Agreed. I don't even think Nana will get downgraded either since NHC is very hesitant to downgrade a system by a category. I think Nana will most likely stay 65 kt (but the peak is shifted from 06z to 00z), but the landfall intensity may be reduced.

[ElectricStorm]

I think downgrading Marco is a bit of a reach. From what I remember it was overwhelmingly obvious it had attained hurricane status based on recon, much more so than Nana.

Yeah Nana is definitely the only storm that a downgrade could be possible imo. Marco was a hurricane and the data supported it

[aspen]

I think downgrading Marco is a bit of a reach. From what I remember it was overwhelmingly obvious it had attained hurricane status based on recon, much more so than Nana.

I just checked recon data I saved during Marco’s peak. Recon found FL and SFMR winds of ~70 kt, supporting hurricane intensity despite the high pressure and less-than-impressive satellite appearance.

[CyclonicFury]

I think downgrading Marco is a bit of a reach. From what I remember it was overwhelmingly obvious it had attained hurricane status based on recon, much more so than Nana.

Yeah Nana is definitely the only storm that a downgrade could be possible imo. Marco was a hurricane and the data supported it

I think a slight downgrade for Delta is possible, probably even more likely than Nana getting downgraded IMO. NHC downgrading a storm in post-analysis is pretty rare: I can only think of 4 Atlantic TCs since 2009 that it happened - Erika and Grace in 2009, and Irma and Philippe in 2017.

[ElectricStorm]

I think downgrading Marco is a bit of a reach. From what I remember it was overwhelmingly obvious it had attained hurricane status based on recon, much more so than Nana.

Yeah Nana is definitely the only storm that a downgrade could be possible imo. Marco was a hurricane and the data supported it

I think a slight downgrade for Delta is possible, probably even more likely than Nana getting downgraded IMO. NHC downgrading a storm in post-analysis is pretty rare: I can only think of 4 Atlantic TCs since 2009 that it happened - Erika and Grace in 2009, and Irma and Philippe in 2017.

Yeah I can see a slight decrease at peak for Delta. I meant Nana is the only one that I could see them downgrading a full Category for, which I doubt they will

[Hammy]

I think downgrading Marco is a bit of a reach. From what I remember it was overwhelmingly obvious it had attained hurricane status based on recon, much more so than Nana.

Yeah Nana is definitely the only storm that a downgrade could be possible imo. Marco was a hurricane and the data supported it

I think a slight downgrade for Delta is possible, probably even more likely than Nana getting downgraded IMO. NHC downgrading a storm in post-analysis is pretty rare: I can only think of 4 Atlantic TCs since 2009 that it happened - Erika and Grace in 2009, and Irma and Philippe in 2017.

There are only two storms that I'm aware were actually downgraded an entire category post-season, both in the 1970s--Becky in 1970 was lowered from a hurricane to tropical storm, and Ellen in 1973 from 135 to 115

[Ryxn]

Atlantic only 0.2 units from attaining hyperactive status in terms of ACE.

[Ryxn]

I don't think it will. The season seems to be slowly winding down and majors have been very rare this year for all the activity. 2020 will be remembered as a uniquely bizarre hurricane season, I think.

This did not age well.

[Ryxn]

Most likely not. It would take an intense burst of late season activity to get there (about 30 ACE after Delta). Not impossible, but unlikely.

It is unclear exactly when the season will wind down, but I wouldn't be surprised if Delta is the last major, or if we only have a few more named storms for the rest of the season. We are exiting the peak portion of the season, though I think we may get one more notable storm.

Well we certainly got that burst with Epsilon, Zeta, and Eta...

[weeniepatrol]

ace hand wringers in absolute shambles

[aspen]

The saga of Hurricane Eta is far from over. After dumping rain on CA for like three full days, it is likely to regenerate in the NW Caribbean, where its future track and intensity are hard to determine due to competing or weak steering currents. It could remain a weak TS like Mitch, become a C1-2 hurricane after crossing Cuba, or get blocked in the NWCar and bomb out into a major again. Regardless, along with impacting many, many people, Eta will continue to push 2020’s ACE total ever close to and above hyperactive levels.

[EquusStorm]

Hyperactive ACE, all time named storm record tied, second most hurricanes in a season on record tied, five major hurricanes, eleven US landfalls, tragedy in Central America. Objectively an extraordinary season by EVERY metric with no excuses anymore lol. Any questions?

[1900hurricane]

Yeah, we'll probably get there.