Forum:2010 Atlantic hurricane season/Dead Basin Thing

==Dead basin thingEdit== I don't have a clue why all of you are like, "Why are there so many duds?". While doing a classification of hurricane tracks, I noticed on all seasons that had a timeline, they all started booming up near early or mid August. It seems like what happens is, a few storms pop up... then it starts going in August till September... Then slows down in October... And dwindles off by November. Maybe it was because Alex was a cat 2 (which made Bonnie and Colin seem like duds), and because the EPac started booming earlier and then abruptly stopped. I don't know, and I really would like to. Atomic7732 01:41, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * The only year I can remember where people weren't saying things were dead over and over was 2005 in the Atlantic. It doesn't seem like it can be helped. --Patteroast 02:16, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol hahaha! I see. Atomic7732 02:39, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * La Nina seasons are usually late activity starters, actually, I am not at all surprised we still at Colin. The surprising thing about Colin is that it formed during Downward MJO, so if storms can form during that, what would this season bring? Darren23Edits 03:51, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * La Nina can be fickle. Most active years start kicking it up a notch right about now. 2004's Charley formed August 10 so we did get to the 'C' storm first but our 'C' is gonna be a lot less interesting than Charley. In the last La Nina (2008), we'd had five storms, two hurricanes and one major hurricane by this point in the season, including Dolly, which hit south Texas as a Cat 2 on July 23. I still think this season's total is gonna be on the low end of the official forecast. Ever since Alex, the worldwide tropics have been quiet as a graveyard. I've never seen the West Pacific as dead as it's been, but they did pretty much have all the fun in July with two 75 kt typhoons. As I've said before, the epic silence in the Pacific does not bode well for the Atlantic. -- SkyFury 05:55, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm very surprised we've only had 3 storms in the WPac. The EPac has been the most active NHEM basin this year! I have a feeling this years Atlantic is gonna be as weird, if not weirder than 2009's. Atomic7732 06:08, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Colin is a dud like ever other storms since Alex. Rick on the other hand, is probably the best example of an epcic win. Extremely cold cloud tops, eye in a perfect circle, perfectly symmetrical, perfectly round, outflow even and extremely impressive on all quadrants. i agree,d with 78 the active cycle has ended or ending. But again, this is the time of year we get active, about one year ago the EPAC exploded. Storms just formed one after another after another. The ALT got active on August 15. YE 14:03, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think people are calling this basin dead because we were expecting a 2005-type season. Well, this year, we are probably still gonna get the predicted numbers, like CSU's 18 and NOAA's average of 17. We should see a bunch of storms in a few weeks because as I said earlier, we are currently in downward MJO. EPAC is currently upward, and thats probably why you saw Estelle. The point is, just because this basin has been average so far, doesn't mean its dead at all. Remember, 16 storms is normal for EPAC, so don't also think EPAC will have an above average season (last year was near normal, to give you some prespective). One more thing, the chances for a below normal season in ATL is 0% according to TSR and NOAA. There is about a 90% chance of an active season, and the predicted ACE numbers are leaning towards a hyperactive season, so don't count ATL out yet. Darren23Edits 20:28, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, last year's PHS was above normal (13.4 vs. 17, 3, vs. 6). Stop this, is it not going to be a hyperactive season, period, just 11 named storms. YE 20:39, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1- This states that last year was near normal. #2- I never said it was, I just said forecasters are leaning towards it. #3- Most, if not all indications lead to an above normal season, and as I said, its just early August. I'm just trying to make sure people don't get their guard down. I will be happy if this season will not be destructive, but claiming that this season will be a bust with all the evidence presented is outrageous. I'm not saying its not possible that this season will be a bust, but I'm just trying to put some sense into some people who claim this basin is dead. Darren23Edits 21:14, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. It depends which average you use. 2. Ok 3. we just slightly below average so thats why i predcit 11 named storms. BTW, the EPAC will be similar (maybe identical) to 2004. YE

Re to #1- Um, ok, but that was a credible and direct source which disagrees whith you, and would you please give me a link to your average? Re to #2- [http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2010/tws/MIATWSAT_jul.shtml? Please check all your facts]. And 1 more thing, 2004 was El Nino, and is not a good analogue, and coincidences do happen. Darren23Edits 21:59, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Darren, it is in the EPAC book which could be downloaded here. it gives both averages 1971-2006 and 1949-2006. I like to use the 1949 one. Actually, many people are comparing this year to 2004 in both basins. YE 23:20, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2 people does not count as many BTW :P Also, both can be used, but the latest one is always better because it is the most accurate total average.
 * The only reason I'm thinking the basins are dead is, the atlantic has had no interest since Alex - and it's August. The Eastern Pacific has had their hot streak in June with the record highest ACE for that month, but followed that up by being the first season in 44 years with no tropical storms in July, and Estelle isn't so interesting either. The West Pacific had only THREE named storms so far - 2009 was much worse at this time of their year. I don't think that this season is dead, but worldwide, this season is actually less active than, say last year. The East Pacific is two storms ahead of the West Pacific (I only count JMA named storms), and the Atlantic ties the basin as of now.At this rate August won't look any different than July, and I just don't see anything forming in the basins in the next week or so, and I don't give that newly - named West Pacific PAGASA named storm much of a chance either. What I mentined last year was probrably right, we are in another deadened basin period like 1977 was. I'm actually shocked, at this time. I just can't look forward to NOAA's predictions coming true, this year isn't anywhere close to active - 2009 was well ahead of this, exept in the Atlantic. However, I can't assume I'll be right on this dead streak here. 2004 and 1988 didn't start until August and everyone knows how well they went. Even if we aren't active, it doesn't mean we won't be notable. 1992, 1983, and 1930 were three of the least active, yet most notable, atlantic seasons on record. It took just Hurricane Andrew to turn 1992 from a season of nothing to a season of something. 1983 was the 4th or 3rd least active season on record (excluding ties), but Hurricane Alicia made the billion $ mark in Texas, and still remains the most recent major hurricane to hit Galveston/Houston, Although Hurricane Ike certainly had the impacts of one, and for a season with just two storms (1930), the Dominican Republic hurricane really made 1930 a notable season. I guess a saying that should be considered in the Atlantic is: don't judge June or July, judge the peak of the season, okaye?. Ryan1000 02:21, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, worldwide, this is gonna be a down year, but that's because the Pacific usually accounts for the bulk of the activity. As far as the Atlantic is concerned, this season so far is actually reminding me a bit of 2007: a lot of snub storms but when they do intensify, look out. That's kind of what I'm expecting to see, with maybe a couple of Cat 2s sprinkled in. It's still too early to rule out the official forecast verifying. 1999 had five Cat 4s, the first of which wasn't named until August 19. 1985, which saw six hurricanes make landfall in the US, didn't get to the 'C' storm until August 11. That said, the ATL, with apologies to 93L, doesn't exactly seem primed to explode. The next two weeks will give us a good indication of what kind of season we're looking at. If it doesn't get noticably livelier out there by August 20, I think it'll be extremely unlikely that this season exceeds 12 storms, 4 hurricanes and 2 major hurricanes. And remember what Andrew taught us: it only takes one bad hurricane to make it a bad season. 1992 had just six storms, but one caused over $20 billion in damage. -- SkyFury 08:15, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sky, I was sorta expecting a 2007 AHS-type year as well. I know what got us Estelle in the EPAC an anticyclone, and whats been shearing all the invests there is a trough. That trough is staring to lift, so we can get some storms. Last year around, this time the EPAC literally exploded. YE 13:39, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, SkyFury. We must wait until the heart of the season comes until we draw conclusions. If the next three or four weeks go dormant, by then i'm gonna be thinking there's something wrong with the tropics. That's not so likely, but if it does happen, then we are on a dead streak season. Only time will tell for the season. We shouldn't continue this discussion until we don't get any storms for some time. By then, we can pull up some record-dead records for the season, both here and worldwide. Ryan1000 15:50, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * West Pacific now has had five named storms and eleven depressions. The longer that a basin holds without any activity, the more that its waters will heat up. I expect a surge in activity in the Western Hemisphere around mid-to-late August. Some forecasts are predicting a strong La Nina lower than -3.0C, which would make it like 1998 in terms of the rapid fall from a strong El Nino to a strong La Nina. Upward MJO could also get into the Atlantic in a few weeks. Here are my own revised predictions for Northern Hemisphere seasons this year:
 * West Pacific: 42 depressions, 25 named storms, 14 typhoons, 7 "major" typhoons, 1 cat. 5, $6 billion in damage.
 * Central Pacific: 2 depressions, 1 named storm, 1 hurricane, no major hurricanes, no damage.
 * East Pacific: 17 depressions, 14 named storms, 8 hurricanes, 6 major hurricanes, 2 cat. 5s, $4 billion in damage.
 * Atlantic: 19 depressions, 15 named storms, 10 hurricanes, 6 major hurricanes, 2 cat. 5s, $60 billion in damage.
 * North Indian: 11 depressions, 5 named storms, 3 hurricane-strength severe cyclonic storms, 2 "major"-strength very severe cyclonic storms, no cat. 5, $3 billion in damage.


 * 2007Astro'sHurricane 20:43, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking of predictions... I'll make mine for the Atlantic now...
 * 15 storms (TD's included), 9 hurricanes, 3 major. I haven't predicted much, so it just my guess. Atomic7732 21:23, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering how weve only had 3 deps so far i think 11 deps in total for the NIO wont happen. However if youre NS prediction came true it would be the most active season in terms of NS since names were introduced, and the most amount of NS since 2000.JasonRees 00:58, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I will hold off on making my final predictions for this season until the end of August. This has been the slowest start in the West Pacific since 1998, when the first named storm didn't form until July 8 and the first typhoon didn't form until August 3 (I'm pretty sure that's a record). If you remember, the Atlantic wasn't so quiet that year. When the Pacific is quiet, 9 times out of 10, the Atlantic is active and usually destructive. In 1998, Georges killed 600 people and Mitch killed over 18,000 and was the deadliest Atlantic hurricane since the Revolutionary War. -- SkyFury 04:03, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe we can't really assume anything about us being so quiet right now; that 1008 mbar low in the Keys looks pretty ominous to me. I would think that the AHS will have 13 storms, 6 hurricanes, and 3 majors, with zero or one category 5(s), only slightly above average. About damages? 60 billion seems a little too high for an AHS, Astro. At best I would think that the AHS would have 20 to 30 billion in damage, but it's very hard for a season to make over 40 billion in damage alone, and only 2004, 2005, and 2008 have done that. I do think this season will be destructive to some extent, but not "over 60 billion dollars" destructive. I think we should keep an eye on that Gulf low, however. Ryan1000 16:34, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have raised my ALT prediction to 12-6-3. However, i don think we will see many catastrophic storms this year, though we might have an Ida-type storm or two this year. However, I think the damages will be under $10 billion ( know people on WU call me wishcasters and downcasters for this, but I have a good accuracy). YE
 * Ok, I have raised my ALT prediction to 12-6-3. However, i don think we will see many catastrophic storms this year, though we might have an Ida-type storm or two this year. However, I think the damages will be under $10 billion ( know people on WU call me wishcasters and downcasters for this, but I have a good accuracy). YE

I do believe that ATL will eventually become more active, and here are my predictions for the basins (NS-Cane-MH-C5): And YE, I think there is a good reason they call you that. I am not saying that is 100% impossible, but a near normal/below normal season forecast is wishful thinking and not backed by current evidence, hence thats why they call you that. Darren23Edits 16:51, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * WPAC: 22-12-6-1
 * EPAC: 13-6-4-1
 * ATL: 16-8-4-0
 * Then why are all the storms these year since Alex have been epic fails. YE 17:12, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, YE, don't judge June or July, judge the peak of the season, okaye? June/July aren't supposed to be active; 2002 only had 12 total storms, 8 of which were in September. 2004 had 15 storms, 8 of them in August. Give the basin time. It'll get rollin' at some point. It slowly rises from June to July, skyrockets in August, peaks at september 10, then downturns in October; there is a brief secondary peak by October 19 when the East Pacific monsoon trough extends into the Carribean, and lastly, slows down to the end of November. I think this season will be somewhat destructive, but nowhere close to 2008, even. Just be patient, everyone; this season will get rolling by late August into September. Now is not the time to let up, but NOAA's predictions aren't looking so true, I agree. Ryan1000 23:48, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * GFS is forecasting something nasty to come off Africa in five days. Multiple models also forecast something to form in the northern Gulf around the 4-5 day mark. -- SkyFury 06:36, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Guess what, 91E has died. Another epic fail. YE 12:49, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else think that the silence in the Atlantic is getting rather ominous? All the models whose long range forecast I have access to develop something big off Africa in 3-4 days (although GFS and NOGAPS appear to take it out to sea). They also all develop something out of the remnants of TD 5 in the northern Gulf in about 2-3 days. Things may be about to get a little interesting. -- SkyFury 06:16, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have seen the GFS predicting two fishes next week. However, I have a felling they are going to epic fails an get torn apart by upper-level low. I also cant see ex-Five regenerating in the Gulf. YE 14:23, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't count your epic fails before they hatch. The entire Northern Hemisphere is quiet and since most of the heat is focused on the Atlantic, when the MJO gets back here we can expect an absolute explosion of activity. The second storm on GFS doesn't look like a fail, in fact it might even head into the Carolinas or New England and end up like a Hugo or a Floyd. 2007Astro'sHurricane 15:04, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that silence is rather ominous to me, but after all of the epic fails we've had (Bonnie, Colin, and #5), I just can't see this season producing a monster storm like Andrew or Hugo. The conditions in the open tropical Atlantic are no different, or not a lot different, than when Colin was out there now. From all of the deadened activity weve had so far, I don't see anything big going on out there, or coming out there. We're halfway through August and the tropics still look like a wasteland. I don't think we'll pull a 1992 or 1988; this season will be a dead one, just like it was last year. Ryan1000 17:31, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I still think ATL will be active and will produce ~15 storms because it is La Nina. People are saying that this season is a bust because they think that ATL has been below average. Well, guess what, it is very near average. And Ryan, last year was a strong El Nino, and this year is a La Nina, and has a potential for a very strong La Nina. The basin is not dead yet, and anything is possible. This season has the capabilities of potentially producing an extremely dangerous hurricane, it just takes conditions to align right. Do not let your guard down, and if some Cape-Verde type Major Hurricanes come along, well, that would be no surprise. Darren23Edits 18:04, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Daren, no. In fact, I am not 100% convinced that there is a a La Nina. we are below the 1995-20009 average of 14 named storms. Again, we will end up being 12-6-3 IMO, and I think my prediction is generous. But again the activity cycle is ending. You might want to check out my blog and do not call me crazy, I disagree with experts 100%. It should be noted that there is a similar dissipation at Strom2k. YE Tropical Cyclone 19:04, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Then please see the definition of La Nina, and all 4 Nino regions indicate La Nina. And No, we are at average. The Average is 11-6-2 per last year's TWS.. And what evidence do you have? Give me credible expert evidence, as no offence, clearly, you are not an expert. If you disagree with experts, then you better have a very, very good argument against the expert consensus. I'm sorry, but what your're saying cannot be taken with credit. Darren23Edits 19:57, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Darren, clam down. All I am saying is the IMO we are in a weak El Nino. i have the right to my opinon. But again, SST's suggest otherwise saying that there is a weak to moderate La Nina. YE Tropical Cyclone 20:21, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

YE, it's hard enough for guys with doctorates to figure out ENSO. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you're somewhat short of a doctorate in meteorology. I often disagree with season predictions but when it comes to ENSO, I defer to the experts. Ryan, for the record, there were only six storms in 1992 (seven if you count STS 1) and only one major hurricane. That one major hurricane just happened to cause $26 bil in damage. While I don't think this will be a "dead year," I do think 18 storms is a little aggressive. Forecasters have warned that synoptic scale patterns look like they could be about to change with a more stable Azores High providing a lower-shear environment over the open Atlantic. -- SkyFury 05:00, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * I still think this season will be less active than what it was forecast; even 15 storms seems a little nasty for the AHS now. I still think it will be 12-6-3, but as you mentioned, Sky, it just takes only one bad storm to make it a bad season. Activity and notability have no direct correlation, exept in a few years like 2005. 1887 was one of the most active seasons on record, but there were hardly any signifigant storms in that season. And 1992 was one of the least active seasons, but one of the most notable, too. All in all, I do think this will be a slightly above average, though less than forecast, season, but I completly agree with the fact that it just takes one bad storm to make a season memorable for a long time to come. TD 5 looks like it wants to make a comeback, but I highly doubt it will turn into a monster for the gulf coast; category 1 or 2 is what I would call "exeptional" for that storm. It's August 16, and we still haven't had any ominous areas of development in the Atlantic, let alone the rest of the northern hemisphere. In short, this season will probrably not get to 20 storms, but still can produce at least one bad storm. We should wait for another 2 or 3 weeks until we really come into the heart of the season. By then, we could have some trouble out there. It wouldn't surprise me if we get one or two more August storms, but the most active August on record was 2004, with 8 storms in that year's August. We will NOT get 7 more named storms in the last two weeks in this August. 2002 and 2007 tie for the most active September, but all of the September storms in '07 were short-lived epic fails, exept for Felix.(Humberto, and Lorenzo weren't very signifigant other than the fact of how fast they boomed up). I can't assume this September could tie 2002 and 2007, but it will not have enough storms to catch up to 2005. We can still get just one bad storm this year, but we won't have a 2005-like season. My only fear for this season is we will have an inactive season for the most part, so people on the Gulf and east coasts will let their guard down, but then we get just one bad storm that catches them off guard and causes a great number of damages and deaths. I hope no bad storms form during this season; I mean, no one wants a bad storm to come, but I fear there will be something coming. Only time will tell what will happen this year.And by the way, Darren, not all La Nina events signify a bad season. 2007 was a La Nina, but it wasn't that bad of a season; the following year was far more destructive and deadly. 1973 was also a La Nina, but it wasn't much of a season in the Atlantic. We probrably will heat up by September, but we are coming to the end of the 1995-now hot streak in the Atlantic. When this active period ends, the Pacific will start rollin' for some time. Ryan1000 14:47, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * The question is when will the activity cycle end? As side note, the SST in the EPAC are expected be a little cooler in the ATL so expect 10 2009 type years. Here is my basin prediction

ATL 12-6-3-0

EPAC 12-6-4-1

WPAC 25-10-6-3

YE Tropical Cyclone 17:24, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, 2007 was La Nina, and yes, it was below average. But 2004 is El Nino, but was hyperactive. It is true that La Nina conditions don't guarantee an active season. And about the 2005 thing, when did experts say that? No one was expecting a 2005-type season, and it is impossible as 2005 had absolute perfect conditions. But, they did and still do predict an active season, and if you think that you can just disagree with their statements and say "I think this season will be a bust" is absolutely wrong (I'm not talking about you Ryan, I'm talking to anyone who has said this statement). They went to college studying this, and I expect most of us here did not. Yes, some forecasts have been way off, but stating that these will is just absurd. You don't now that. I know for a fact that people in the meteorological society have been angry at the people bustcasters right now. The public were angry at them for "scaring them" because of the ominous forecast, but the real dangers are the people who spread news that this season will be a bust. So I do suggest that this topic should stop, and we should wait until the end of September. And to the 2nd part: we are in moderate La Nina, and I'm expecting a long-lasting La Nina that will extend to next year and maybe until May/June/July, so don't count on the activity cycle to end just yet. And I really wan't a source on the end of the activity cycle? Did experts expect the activity cycle in 1995 to start? No. Can we predict it with accuracy? Absolutely not. So, I do not think the activity cycle will end within the next 2 years. If it does, great, no more 2005's. Darren23Edits 17:34, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, this season is a bust. SINCE WHEN DO STORMS DIE IN THE GULF. I am not expect no more than a weak La Nina and that is if we are even a weak La Nina. This is not Wikipedia, we dont need source for every stupid fact. Also, 2004 was not hyperactive, unless you mean ACE. If you are asking for a source, give me a source that says the that there are angry because this season is a bust thus far. YE Tropical Cyclone 17:58, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * We are already in moderate La Nina. And I never said people were angry this season has been a bust, people are angry because of the high forecast numbers and as a result scaring them. And we do need a source if we are making statements to make them credible. And Bonnie died because it speeded up to the ULL, Five died because of poor organization, Two didn't become a TS because of Alex. Those are the explanations. And hyperactiveness is determined by ACE, and 2004 is in the top 10. Happy? And as I said, earlier, I believe this topic should stop, because of the reasons I said earlier. Darren23Edits 18:29, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * The question is are the ULL's are going to go bye-by. Also, how can a storm die because of poor organization? I still say but consertivly 12-6-3 which is not all that inactive at all. We could have a Gustav-type storm. And what in the heck is happening to the EPAC. They make high predilections, so that people prepare. YE Tropical Cyclone 18:50, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * If nothing else in teh EPAC forms this month, shut up about the Atlantic please? lol SOmething would be wrong.atomic7732 22:32, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, there is nothing wrong with EPAC, it's just that conditions aren't favorable there because of La Nina. Darren23Edits 23:20, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Darren, I hate to break it to you, but despite what you're thinking about the heart being three weeks away, chances are, from where we are now, we won't have even a 2008 type-season; however, I completly agree with your point. It's not the forecaster's fault that they made the very active, scary prediction, it's when all these other people come in and say we'll be dead for good that kills the preperations people make for the season. Truth is, we probrably will be less active than forecast, it's just that, these people think we will have a completly dead season. SkyFury and I mentioned that it doesn't take an active season to get a notable season. Andrew permanently taught us that lesson. Every storm other than Andrew was an epic fail in 1992, but when he came along, he was at the time the costliest hurricane in U.S. history. I do not think we will get the forecasts NOAA was predicting, but I never said we won't get any notable storms this year. I'm fearing something big is lurking in the tropics this season, and no one should let their guard down just because it's mid-August. September, October, and November are yet to come, and all three months are capable of producing severe hurricanes. We shouldn't assume that this season will be dead until the season actually ends. Activity and notability rarely have any direct correlation; some exeptions are '05', '04', and '08. We need to be patient for the time being, as this season is far from over. About the active hurricane cycle, Darren? It had begun in 1995, and I had heard from climate experts that they were expecting it to last for 15-20 years from 1995, so it will probrably close up anytime from this year to 5 years from now in 2015. The reason why the mid to late 1970's, 1980's, and early 1990's were quiet was because the Cape Verde season in Africa basically shut down. From the 1970's to 1987, there was a severe drought over the Saharan desert, which sent a lot of dry air to stop any African waves from developing in that time period (The inactivity would continue until 1994 due to continued El nino events), but that drought killed all the hurricane seasons in the Atlantic ocean, and meant booming business for the Pacific ocean. From 1970 to 1994, exactly 9 major hurricanes made landfall in the United States:Celia, Carmen, Eloise, Frederic, Allen, Alicia, Elena, Hugo, and Andrew, but from 1995 until now, we have had Opal, Fran, Bret, Charley, Ivan, Jeanne, Dennis, Katrina, Rita, and Wilma-10 U.S. landfalling major hurricanes in 15 years-that averages to 2 every 3 years, but from 1970 to 1994, we had an average of one major hurricane every 2 years. One half vs. two-thirds. It's a big thing, and we might get another one of these dead periods in the near future. Also of note, the total number of hurricanes to hit the U.S. in the 1970 to 1994 period was 29 (6 from 1985 alone), but as of now, we have had 25 from '95 onward (forgive me if i'm off by one or so), but still, that is quite remarkable. Ryan1000 02:05, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * The conditions of the EPAC have still not been explain, arent post-El Nino EPAC suppose to be years interesting. i agree ,t will be LESS ACTIVE in the forecast, but not saying we could have a Gustav type storm. I have a felling we will have a rapid flip to EL Nino in a year or so, but the SST's are expected to be a little cooler than last time, but we will probably have about 15 named storms. YE Tropical Cyclone 14:04, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Remember, the real Cape Verde season hasn't even begun yet. We got an early taste of a Cape Verde wave developing into a storm in the western Caribbean, and that became Alex. Bonnie and Colin after that were duds, but only because they started out as Cape Verde waves but only barely became tropical storms. The lid on the Cape Verde season is going to come off in about a week. The continuous wave activity will banish some of the dry air, and we'll have one storm after another. A late start to the season does not imply low activity, and in fact most of the late starting seasons in recent years have become monster hurricane seasons, just look at 2004 for example. We've gone from a strong El Nino to a strong La Nina, so this could easily end up like 1998. All it takes is one storm to devastate an entire country. Cape Verde storms are dangerous, as they could hit the Caribbean Countries, the Gulf or the East Coast. The Cape Verde train this year starts in late August and probably will not stop until late November, and since the ENTIRE Northern Hemisphere has been quiet and again, most of the extra heat, moisture and energy is right in the Atlantic, once that cap comes off we'll have a freight train of storms. Not only could this storm season end up like 2008, when all of its category four storms formed after this date, but even a 1998 or a 2005 is not out of the question. 2007Astro'sHurricane 23:07, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Astro, this year's Cape Verde season is starting a little later than those other years, but the lid won't come off enough for us to have 28 named storms, yes, this season probrably will be slightly above average; I still hold my 12-6-3 prediction, but we are definitely not going to pull a 2005. 2005 had 7 named storms before August, 5 more in August, and 16 more from September to December. We will NOT have a 2005, but I can't really see even a 2008. 2008's Cape Verde season kicked off in July with Bertha and later-forming Dolly, just like 2005's. If this season's Cape Verde begun in July, then we probrably would have a 2008 or 2005 like season, too. The season generally has to start early to show a bad sign for future activity, because the contitions are favorable for a longer time period. Also, 2004, as I mentioned above, had 8 named storms in August, making it the most active August on record, and we will NOT have enough activity in the next two weeks for 7 more August storms. We will probrably get one or two more storms, but we won't have a 2004 August. Trust me, Astro, that won't happen. But September, October, and November are after that, and they could all be pretty nasty. Just be patient for now. Time will tell what will happen in the Atlantic, and worldwide, too. The Eastern and Western Pacific basins still haven't had their boom yet, either. The final predictions I'll make for the worldwide tropics are as follows:
 * WPAC:15-19 storms, 4-10 "phoons", 2-7 majors, and 1 cat. 5.
 * EPAC:9-14 storms, 4-6 'canes, 3-4 majors, and 1 cat. 5 (Celia)
 * Atlantic:8-13 storms, 3-6 'canes, 1 or 2 majors, and 0 cat. 5's.
 * SHem:24-31 storms, 14-18 cyclones, 6-12 cat. 3's, and 3 cat. 5's (by the SSHS)
 * Ryan1000 02:48, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * The thing about this season is that the air off the African coast has been just dry as a frickin' bone. The Saharan Air Layer is really thick this year. Look at this: [1]. There is a huge cloud of dust sprawled way out across the Atlantic as far west as 40W, and this is not even as bad as it's been. That's what's killing your Cape Verde season right there. The cloud has spread so far south that it covers the Cape Verde Islands, the heart of Hurricane Alley. And this makes me think of an interesting theory that some scientist has come out with: that global warming may in fact hinder hurricane development as much as promote it. While the warming of the Earth's surface may make the ocean water warmer, it can also affect atmospheric patterns in ways that don't necessarily promote tropical cyclone development. One of those atmospheric wild cards is the Saharan Air Layer. A lot of scientists think that global warming may be enhancing the SAL. I found that to be a very interesting theory. Just because the oceans are getting warmer doesn't mean hurricanes are gonna have a field day. There's a lot more at play than just the temperature of the water. -- SkyFury 07:34, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I mentioned that special fact above because some people in the U.S. are wondering why the 80's were so dead in the Atlantic. 2006 had very warm sea surface temps that weren't that much colder than 2005, but the atmospheric conditions were so unfavorable in 2006, we got nothing but a pretty average year. In the 1980's, during the Saharan drought, every African wave, or most of them, anyways, died out while crossing the Atlantic, but got going in the Eastern Pacific. In fact, all of 1990's storms in the Eastern Pacific came from westward moving African waves. If the Saharan Desert did not have their drought in the 70's to '87, then the AHS's in the 80's would look just like they were in today's active period. The truth is, the number of tropical waves to cross the Atlantic in the 80's wasn't that much lower than where it was from 1995 until now, but the African dust was nothing from 1995 until now, wheras in the 80's, it was so dense that almost all of the African waves died in the Atlantic, and redeveloped in the Eastern Pacific. If we have sea surface temps that are 1000 degrees, but crazy as shit shear and stable air, we can't really have a nasty season. In the same way, if there isn't an ounce of shear and freezing sea surface temps, then we still can't have a season. The 2005 season is a case where both factors came together, which explains the immense activity in that season. 2006 had very warm temps but very unfavorable wind shear and dry air, which corresponded to such a dead season in that year. We can't assume that the sea surface temps are the solemn reason for so many storms in 2005; if the atmospheric conditions don't correspond, then we can't have a season. In such a case, if we get knocked into an inactive period again, we might be less active then the 80's were because back in the 1980's, Global warming was not a very severe issue in the world. Now that it is, more dust will cross Africa's Saharan layer, which will kill more tropical waves. In the same way, during our next active period, 30 to 40 years from now, we could have more storms than during the one we're in now. I think the graph for hurricane activity will get steeper over time if this trend keeps up, in such a way as to where we are really quiet during our next cycle-quieter than the 80's, explosive in our next active cycle, more active than this one, then quieter than the previous quiet cycle, and more explosive than the last explosive cycle. Would you agree with this, SkyFury? I think this is a pretty decent theory for future hurricanes in the Atlantic, but patterns for seasons in the NIO and southern hemisphere have yet to be tested and figured out. The Pacific is supposed to contradict the Atlantic by most means. Ryan1000 18:32, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * The thing about this season is that the air off the African coast has been just dry as a frickin' bone. The Saharan Air Layer is really thick this year. Look at this: [1]. There is a huge cloud of dust sprawled way out across the Atlantic as far west as 40W, and this is not even as bad as it's been. That's what's killing your Cape Verde season right there. The cloud has spread so far south that it covers the Cape Verde Islands, the heart of Hurricane Alley. And this makes me think of an interesting theory that some scientist has come out with: that global warming may in fact hinder hurricane development as much as promote it. While the warming of the Earth's surface may make the ocean water warmer, it can also affect atmospheric patterns in ways that don't necessarily promote tropical cyclone development. One of those atmospheric wild cards is the Saharan Air Layer. A lot of scientists think that global warming may be enhancing the SAL. I found that to be a very interesting theory. Just because the oceans are getting warmer doesn't mean hurricanes are gonna have a field day. There's a lot more at play than just the temperature of the water. -- SkyFury 07:34, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I mentioned that special fact above because some people in the U.S. are wondering why the 80's were so dead in the Atlantic. 2006 had very warm sea surface temps that weren't that much colder than 2005, but the atmospheric conditions were so unfavorable in 2006, we got nothing but a pretty average year. In the 1980's, during the Saharan drought, every African wave, or most of them, anyways, died out while crossing the Atlantic, but got going in the Eastern Pacific. In fact, all of 1990's storms in the Eastern Pacific came from westward moving African waves. If the Saharan Desert did not have their drought in the 70's to '87, then the AHS's in the 80's would look just like they were in today's active period. The truth is, the number of tropical waves to cross the Atlantic in the 80's wasn't that much lower than where it was from 1995 until now, but the African dust was nothing from 1995 until now, wheras in the 80's, it was so dense that almost all of the African waves died in the Atlantic, and redeveloped in the Eastern Pacific. If we have sea surface temps that are 1000 degrees, but crazy as shit shear and stable air, we can't really have a nasty season. In the same way, if there isn't an ounce of shear and freezing sea surface temps, then we still can't have a season. The 2005 season is a case where both factors came together, which explains the immense activity in that season. 2006 had very warm temps but very unfavorable wind shear and dry air, which corresponded to such a dead season in that year. We can't assume that the sea surface temps are the solemn reason for so many storms in 2005; if the atmospheric conditions don't correspond, then we can't have a season. In such a case, if we get knocked into an inactive period again, we might be less active then the 80's were because back in the 1980's, Global warming was not a very severe issue in the world. Now that it is, more dust will cross Africa's Saharan layer, which will kill more tropical waves. In the same way, during our next active period, 30 to 40 years from now, we could have more storms than during the one we're in now. I think the graph for hurricane activity will get steeper over time if this trend keeps up, in such a way as to where we are really quiet during our next cycle-quieter than the 80's, explosive in our next active cycle, more active than this one, then quieter than the previous quiet cycle, and more explosive than the last explosive cycle. Would you agree with this, SkyFury? I think this is a pretty decent theory for future hurricanes in the Atlantic, but patterns for seasons in the NIO and southern hemisphere have yet to be tested and figured out. The Pacific is supposed to contradict the Atlantic by most means. Ryan1000 18:32, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Well, keep in mind that SSTs in the Atlantic were much lower in the 1980s than they are now. Remember in the early '80s, the east coast was getting slammed by massive blizzards. Record or near-record low temps were being set right and left across North America. This marked three-year dip in temps over North America corresponded with a dip in the jetstream that resulted in a harsh, almost winter-like environment over the Atlantic, with troughs (and therewith severe wind shear) extending deep into the tropics. At the same time, one of the strongest El Ninos in recorded history hit. But you brought up an interesting caveat in that the severe drought in Africa during the 1980s (very dry conditions prevailed worldwide throughout much of the 80s) would've enhanced the SAL. I think these three factors combined to cause near-record low activity in the Atlantic in the early 1980s. This, however, does not explain the inactivity in 1986-87. I think the big culprit there was another strong El Nino. The thick SAL may be partly responsible for '86, but most of the seven storms in '87 formed east of the Lesser Antilles. The SAL generally only affects areas east of 40W, not the entire basin, so I don't think it'll lead to a downswing in activity. However, I do think that it could lead to a pronounced westward shift in activity and fewer long-track Cape Verde hurricanes, or at least cause them to struggle until they emerge from the cloud at points westward. Look at 2005. Not one storm of tropical origin formed east of 40W. Vince was the only hurricane to form east of 55W, despite the fact that 2005 had more hurricanes than any other season in recorded history. All major storms except Maria did their business in the Caribbean or Gulf of Mexico. That's hardly encouraging to any of us on the Gulf Coast, but that's the kind of activity that we may be looking at in the near future. (Although note that 2004 did not have this problem) -- SkyFury 08:34, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sky, keep in mind that the Saharan drought lasted until 1987, so '86 and '87 were probrably hindered from that, too. Also, '88 and '89 were more than exeptional for AHS's, and 1990 was very active but only Diana was rather exeptional that year. And from '91 to '94, we had a last-ditch strong El Nino before the 1995 to now hot streak in the Atlantic. When I realized how quiet 2009 was, and how quiet we are so far in 2010, i've been thinking we are falling into a dead period again. Worldwide, this will be a down year, but I can't be certain when that dead streak will come, but hopefully it will be soon. However, as you mentioned, hurricane activity can be hindered as much as promoted with the SAL. We'll have to wait and see what mother nature really does to us. Ryan1000 16:31, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, there was a lot of rain was a lot of rain in the SW US, but at the same time cool weather. Wind shear was also lower than they are today in the EPAC, but the winters were slighlty warmer in the SW today. The smae shoudl apply for th next activty cycle, whcih should begin soon. The ATL will see about 8 storms per year and the EPAC will likely see about 20 named storms per year. Becuase i live in Nevada, i will look foward to both. YE Tropical Cyclone 22:40, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it is. Wind shear varies from time to time, and just because it is low today doesnt mean it will 5 days from now, and I'm sure you know that (actually, I'm not). And what's the basis to your activity cycle thing. How on earth would you know what's coming. I would like it to end and to end the misery in all the destructive ATL storms, but I believe that the only reason your saying that is because you love EPAC and you hate the inactive cycle. Well, guess what, the cycle aint gonna change only because you want it. Its gonna change eventually, but where's the proof that it will change this year? 2006 was a dead year too. 2007 was a fail year. But 2008 was an active year. What I'm trying to say is, don't make predictins which motivated only by your bias for EPAC. I think it might happen in this decade, but it also might not. Darren23Edits 23:00, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Darren, climate experts have been studying the pattern for the active Atlantic seasons since 1995, and I read and saw that they were expecting it to last for 15 to 20 years from 1995, but it's hard to pinpoint direct accuracy for this fact. I mean, you and I, and everyone else on the Wikia, want the basins to switch around as soon as this year, but we can't tell if that'll happen for sure. We've had enough bad seasons, but if it doesn't end this year, then it will probrably end in any year from 2011 to 2015, based on what climatologists have been studying. You say we can't assume when it will end, but we want it to end ASAP. SkyFury, I can tell you want the West Pacific to be active again in hopes of seeing another Tip over open waters, but a Tip would be unlikely to see in the cycle we're in. And Sky, following what you mentioned with Rick of 2009, Tip would look beautiful on the sattelites with today's technology. Ryan1000 23:14, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Syper Typhoon Nida last fall in the West Pacific was quite a storm, and almost as large as Tip. It stalled for days and pumped out lows that injected themselves into the subtropical jet before bombing themselves out at 950mb until the typhhon dissipated. Those lows eventually stroked the Hudson low and brought the jet stream south to set up a snowy winter in the US but a warm and dry one in Canada. 2007Astro'sHurricane 17:37, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ryan, I know the SAL was thick in 86/87, but in 1987, most of the storms that year formed in the eastern Atlantic, which would seem counterintuitive if you're looking at the SAL as a major cause of inactivity. In 1986, there was a strong El Nino. Only one storm formed after September 10, signifying the onset of El Nino. In 1987, the first storm didn't form until August 9, signifying the departure of El Nino. I think ENSO was the primary cause of inactivity in those two years. SAL increase alone cannot bring an end to an active cycle. A dramatic shift in large scale weather patterns would have to occur. That hasn't happened yet. We were on the 'D' storm at this point in 2000 and 2001, and were on the 'E' storm in 2004. I don't want to hear about the active cycle being over just because we're not putting up 2005-like numbers. We're actually running at about the average active cycle pace. In nine out of the past fifteen seasons, including this season, the 'D' storm formed between August 19 and August 29. Of the other eight seasons, six had at least twelve storms and five had at least eight hurricanes. -- SkyFury 01:26, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Then, please explain why the EPAC went nuts during the 80's. YE Tropical Cyclone 01:57, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Two of the strongest El Ninos in recorded history. Also the multi-decadal cycle was in favor of the Pacific during the 1980's. -- SkyFury 04:22, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Eric, in 1987, the Saharan air layer didn't dip south over Cape verde, but rather west across the Atlantic, so we had some Cape verde storms in that year, but they ran into the air layer after developing(exept for Emily, it was a rather ravenous storm that year). And the following two years, '88 and '89 were two years in the 80's that just woke up. We had a last ditch el nino in the early 90's, and in 1995, we just exploded. Since then, the Atlantic was on a roll, but we want this "roll" to end ASAP. I don't want any more terrifying atlantic seasons; when can the 80's come back to us again? I missed the quiet cycle and I want it to happen again. Ryan1000 13:40, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, there's a reason they call it the "multi-decadal cycle;" because each cycle, active and inactive, lasts multiple decades. And didn't you just say you're not interested unless the Atlantic is losing its mind? -- SkyFury 15:01, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wel,l this is when Wikipedia come into play. The peak of AMO is 2020. But the Pacific page (which is call the dedcadal oscillation noted that 2008 was the mist of the cycle. So in about 2012-2015 the activity cycle /could/ change. YE Tropical Cyclone 16:03, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * According to climatology, the season should be really picking up right about now. And it is! 2007Astro'sHurricane 17:37, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Astro! Also, everyone keep in mind that seasons immediately following an El Nino year often peak late. -- SkyFury 00:24, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * New research[2] suggests recent El Nino Modokis occurred in 1991-92, 1994-95, 2002-03, 2004-05 and 2009-2010. Since this is a year following a Modoki ("Modoki", similar, but different, is the type on El Nino that does not supress Atlantic hurricane activity) and all of those other seasons had notorious storms (Andrew, Luis, Marilyn, Opal, Roxanne, Fabian, Isabel, Juan, Dennis, Katrina, Rita, Stan, Wilma), we should still expect this to be a late-starting, hyperactive season with notorious names and notorious tracks. 2007Astro'sHurricane 02:32, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what i'm fearing, Astro and Eric. My fear for Earl could turn out to be a nightmare, the first bad storm of this year. Stay tuned on Earl. I typed my fear above. Unfortunately, it very well might happen. Ryan1000 14:36, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

===Dead basin thing (continued)Edit===
 * Our fist bad boy this year was Alex. You now what all of those years Asto mentioned expect for this year have in common, an active EPAC hurricane season. 1992 had 28 named storms, we have 6 thus far. YE Tropical Cyclone 15:09, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not true, last year was average. The average is 16.3, and there were 17 named storms. atomic7732 15:37, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Depends which average you use. the NHC site says 15, 13,4 and 15.5. YE Tropical Cyclone 16:12, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually 15.3 1 atomic7732 16:43, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, there were 20 storms last year, I count CPac storms. The CPac is not it's own season, it is with the EPac. It was thus the most acive season since 1992, the most active on record. This year cannot truly be predicted from now. Ryan1000 18:56, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2009 PHS was 95% of the ACE median (AKA, near normal). I usually dont like using #of storms for activity, because for example 1950 AHS did not have many storms, but it had an epic amount of major hurricanes, making it the 2nd most active season in terms of ACE. Anyway, 2010 EPAC, unless it gets the occasional wave or trough or whatever is there, will not have many storms. We are well behind climatology (1 month) in the number of tropical storms, a month behind in hurricanes, so unless there will be an epic amount of storms like what will happen in ATL in the next month, we will probably not see a very active season. I'm sorry YE, but its gonna be hard for a near-normal season to happen. (BTW, I'm using the 71-09 Average because apparently, the NHC thinks its accurate enough, and I agree) Using a different average leads a different result, but for the most accurate average, you have to put the most amount of accurate years.) Darren23Edits 19:09, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Darren, to tell the truth, I actually think that a season should be ranked on notablility. ACE determines how much "energy" the cyclones have in a season, but what's the point of that energy if no storms affect land? The 1950 AHS had two or three notable storms, and that's it (King, and Dog, possibly Easy). The 1992 AHS was a below average ACE of a season, but Andrew made that year very notable. The 1990 PHS was second to 1992 as the highest ACE on record(although the average ACE per storm in '90 was higher than '92) but only TS Rachel made landfall in 1990. Everything else was a fishie. The 1996 PHS wasn't very active, but it is only second to 1971 as having the highest number of landfalls in an EPac season, and great impacts, especially from Alma. No offense, but I don't care about a season if there is nothing special about it. 1887 is an example. One of the most active seasons on record, but nothing special during that year. You think that the longer strong storms last and the higher ACE they have, the more notable the season. Your ACE does come into account with storms like Allen, the 1947 hurricane, and the 1893 Charleston Hurricane, but notability is what matters most. There is no big point of a season having any worth unless a storm makes landfall and causes a great impact in the area hit. In the same way, # of storms and notability don't correspond either, or with ACE. Right now, rather than talk about ACE and dead basins, continue with what I typed about Earl above. It could be a big threat to New England. Ryan1000 19:40, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, to a meteorological standpoint, a season which is active will be more notable than a basin which is deadly. If you dont give a damn about a very active season with fishies, then this aint the proper forum for you. So what if this season is not deadly? You're just gonna disregard it just because in your mind it ain't notable? This is a hurricane meteorology forum, not the hurricane deadliness or whatever you think it is forum. Darren23Edits 19:53, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * I dotn see any reason why we cant get 12-15 named storms in the EPAC. I agree with Ryan, some years have lot's of storms, but no major impact such as 1990 PHS. On the other had 1996 PHS had a lot of impact but few storms. Darren, you just want to call 2009 "near normal" to silence EPAC lovers such as me who love last year. YE Tropical Cyclone 20:25, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't see why? You don't see why? I give up in explaining stupid facts to you. EPAC will be inactive, whether you like it or not. And accept the fact that 2009 and the NHC calls it "Near-Normal" and the ACE is Near normal and the averages are near normal. Get over it! You just dont get it do you? Darren23Edits 20:34, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2009 is just not "near-normal" in my book. I look at it this way "2009 had 20 EPAC/CPAC named cyclones the most since 1994" I have told you sevral times that post El Nino's are suppost to be at least somewhat active (12-15 NS). YE Tropical Cyclone 20:47, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Your book isnt official. And this season is different. 1998 was in H by now, 2005 was in I right now, and I really don't care about the rest the post-El-Nino's. The point is, we've seen only 5 storms, and getting to double digits would be hard enough since June was an anomaly and that gave you 4 systems and 3 storms. Darren23Edits 21:22, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong, we have had 6 storm ths far. I don't think what hard about getting another 6 storms. EPAC storms coem in buches, so if we get a bunch of two or three more storms we are at 8 or 9. YE Tropical Cyclone 21:38, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * They sometimes form in bunches. But since the mighty ATL is now stealing all the tropical waves, that wont happen. Trust me YE, EPAC will be below average (I say that with 95% certainty), so do not get your hopes up. Darren23Edits 21:41, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thus far, I am sastfied with the year. Howevr, I need 11 more stroms to be happy. Odds of that happening=good IMO. YE Tropical Cyclone 00:28, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Darren, I don't think that a season must be notable, but I view notability as more important for a season than ACE activity. It is fun to root for the big fishies to get very strong, but when it comes to things like the "Retirements at a glance" sections, I can't give these fishies any hope. I agree Darren, the EPac season will probrably be below average (no offense, YE), but again, notability and inactivity do not correlate all the time. 2002, for example, didn't turn out to be extremely active, although the ACE wasn't so far off, but when Hurricane Kenna came along, she became one of the strongest hurricanes to hit Mexico's Pacific coast, and by means of pressure, was the strongest. Let alone, 2002 was an el nino year, too. Darren, just one storm can make a bad season. We don't want any more bustcasting with fishies, and I fear something big is lurking in October of this year's Pacific season-but I just don't know what it will be. And as I mentioned, Darren, this discussion should stop. We should be paying attention to Hurricane Earl more than any "dead basin thing"s. It will be a bad storm, and it bears watching. Why don't you wan't to talk about him? If you want to talk about the EPac dead streak, go to that forum, this one isn't for the Eastern Pacific; it's for the Atlantic. Don't get me wrong, I don't want a bad season, but I don't want anyone to think there won't be any bad storms this year. If we don't lose the bust attitude or fishie attitude, it will just make things worse, trust me. I don't want anyone living in denial thinking it won't happen to them. Everyone must be prepared. Mother nature can throw anything at us at anytime. In short, my only fear is we will have a lot of fishie storms, but then we get something that isn't any fishie, and things will not look so good for those who were thinking this season was a fail. I DO NOT want this year to be like "the weatherman who cried hurricane" in which the forecasters say "get out" for the first several storms and they miss, but then a hurricane comes along and doesn't miss, but the people think it will, and bad things happen. That's what happened with Katrina. It's better to be safe than sorry. Ryan1000 01:18, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * To Ryan's post way above. ACE is a measure of activity and strength, not notability. You can't measure notability. You can't call 1992 "active", just because of Andrew. atomic7732 02:55, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

===Alive basin thingEdit=== The activity is much more alive again. I dont live in the East coast, so I not concerned for my sake. It reminds me of last year, except the EPAC and ATL are opposites! YE Tropical Cyclone 02:29, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Though the basins are alive, that isn't the point of the discussion. atomic7732 02:57, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ryan, why don't I just come out and say something like "Earl's gonna plow into NYC as a Cat 4!" That'll guarantee it comes nowhere near the coast. -- SkyFury 04:53, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Eric, we can't assume what it'll do. I personally do not think New York will get a direct hit from Earl as of now, but it is not out of the question that it could hit eastern long Island or Rhode Island, ect. I'm just waiting. And Atomic, notability cannot be measured, but I view 1992 as "bad" not "active". I think that we as people should view storms that threaten land as more dangerous than those that don't affect land. Not to offend anyone by a meteorological standpoint, but it's what I think, overall, is true. Andrew was that kind of case. It wouldn't have been remembered for a long time to come had it not affected land. I think Earl will be something big to watch over the next few days. Also, I think you have noticed recently, the WPac is exploding right now. It's a good thing if storms don't affect land, but we are mainly worried about the storms that do threaten us, rather than the ones that don't. Ryan1000 11:18, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I was kidding. All of New England needs to be paying very close attention to this thing, but in the long run, I don't think NYC will be directly impacted. I doubt they'll be enjoying their weekend much, but I don't see any major impacts coming into the Five Boroughs. Cape Cod, eastern Long Island and Rhode Island may be a different story though. -- SkyFury 22:45, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, then all we can do is wait. Ryan1000 22:59, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, seems like I was right. For August, ATL was above average and is 50% above average for the year. Any bustcasters around? :P Darren23Edits 16:33, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. A few WU users. YE Tropical Cyclone 16:56, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Atlantic will be below average, but we still need twice the number of named storms and major hurricanes from where we are now to hit NOAA's minimum predictions they made on August 5th. However, I still think the WPac will be well below-average, and the recent hot streak they had there won't last very long. The East Pacific will probrably hit the average mark in numbers, but I don't think we will have lots of hurricanes and major hurricanes there. Ryan1000 20:27, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * If I am reading the ACE numbers right, the season is already at average for the year and is already above 2009, and IMO, there is a nearly 100% chance for an above average season in terms of ACE and storm amounts now. So, I'm still thinking that 16-8-4 is still possible if you think about it. Darren23Edits 22:19, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I still hold the 12-6-3 prediction I made earlier, Darren. The peak of the season is 3 days away and after that we have just 3 more weeks until October comes. As of now, I am not very interested. The new waves off of the coast of Africa are very disorganized and won't develop in the near future, and the NHC says Gaston now only has a 20% chance of redeveloping in the next few days. I do not consider that number as "Gaston will redevelop". It could do that in the Eastern Pacific, but I don't think we will have a 2004 or 2008 from where we are right now, not in numbers anyways, but the ACE could be very different. Ryan1000 15:41, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Think about it very carefully. 12-8=4. 4 isn't a whole lotta storms. In fact, it can be done in September if this season sped up. Igor (91L) has been forecast to form for a few days now off Africa, I think there are still a few forecasting Gaston redevelopment in ATL, and some IIRC are forecasting Julia. We have a great chance at >14 storms (very good chance, and I'll bet we'll go over 14), and since this is La Nina, this season should last to... December maybe. And to the Gaston forecast: it has a 20% chance to form in the next 48 hours, that doesn't mean it will not form alltogether. I also think since most storms so far are weak and not-long lasting, we will probably not see a 2004 in ACE numbers, but a 2008 is not out of the question (80 ACE units I think to the 2008 number). Darren23Edits 23:22, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Gaston wont regnerate. Since when do storms regenerate of DR. I am not sure if 91L will develop if it does it will likely be a fishspinner. Not all La Nina are hyperactive such as as 1991, 2007. Darren, you are just an ATL lover, but my prediction is 15-7-4. YE Tropical Cyclone 00:36, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, YE, 1991 was the start of an El Nino, and even so, Bob made 1991 somewhat exeptional. 1973 is a better example. Also, I'm still not predicting the numbers, but again, the ACE might still counteract that. Overall, I haven't found anything interesting so far this year in the Atlantic, exept for Alex a little bit. However, our new Atlantic storm, Igor, could change that in a heartbeat. Ryan1000 20:54, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Did i say 1991? I meant 2001. YE Tropical Cyclone 22:43, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, YE? Did you look at 2001? 2001 had an ACE of almost 100, which definitely isn't below average. Also, 2001 had over 7 billion in damage, so it was both notable and slightly hyperactive. Just say 1973. That year was a La Nina, but was terribly inactive in terms of ACE and notability. 2007 was not at the average, but it did have 3 rather exeptional storms. This year is a whole new ball game. Ryan1000 23:27, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Major hurricane number 3 is here, Julia is coming, maybe even Karl, and there still many more where that came from. Ryan, are you sure you don't want to change your forecast? Darren23Edits 21:01, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah. 'Bout that, yes, I say 15-8-4 instead of 12-6-3. I highly doubt we'll end up with my earlier prediction as of now. We will probrably turn out to be as active as 2004 or 2008 as of now, but I highly doubt we will suffer the impacts from those two seasons. We won't have a 2005-like season from where we are now, but 50 billion in damage seems somewhat unlikely, too, if all of these storms wheel around the Bermuda High and out to sea. Stay tuned.Ryan1000 21:13, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * We are ahead of 2008 and 2004 now and I change my prediction to 18-9-6 with an ACE of about 210% above median, and this could go further up.
 * I say we will probrably get a 2004 or 2008 season from now, but a 2005 is out of the question-- not by means of ACE, but numbers. I'll have to wait another two months until this season is done, by then i'll know for sure. Ryan1000 20:55, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * This has been a simply amazing season so far. I don't know why anybody thought this would be a bust. The atmospheric conditions were there, the sea temperatures were there, the steering patterns were there, the low shear was there, the increased instability was there, and even a late start usually indicates a bad season, just look at 2004 for example. Once climatology picked upm the season picked up, and it eat our expectations in the blink of an eye. 2007Astro'sHurricane 15:18, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is what I and alot of other people here were saying :P. It wasn't gonna be a bust as everything was there for an explosion of activity which is what we saw. 3 back to back major hurricanes! 2 of them rapidly intensified where no major hurricanes have Template:Fact, and 1 was a very intense Cat 4 (I could argue that it was a Cat 5, but I'm not going to). Oh well, there is an outside chance we could go to R, S or tie 95 with a T storm. Darren23Edits 15:58, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * The only reason people were saying this season would be a bust back in July and August was because we didn't put up 2005-like numbers at that time. Truth is, we will not do that, but we will have an above-average season. I'm thinking we will get a large number of strong hurricanes during this season, like 1950 in terms of majors, but more category 4's than 1999 or 2005. We have yet to see a U.S. landfalling hurricane, and the only TS to hit us as of now was Bonnie back in late July. Not to say we won't see one, but if we do, it will be one of the latest first U.S. landfalling hurricanes on record. This season isn't done, and we have a long, long ways to go. Ryan1000 22:51, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I raise my prediction to 20-11-7. atomic7732 03:30, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the NHC's monthly report for September came out, and the ACE turned out to be 178% of where it otherwise should have been for September, but the long-term ACE is only about 153% above-average. Are there still any people out there bustcasting about this year's season? I didn't think so. A quiet settting does not imply a quiet plot or ending. This year has been truly remarkable thus far. We have had 8 storms form in September of this year, which ties 2002 and 2007 for the most active ever recorded, and 10 storms "existed" in the month, an all-time record for the ATL. Also, some of 2010's names thus far are some of the earliest storms of the letter, like Matthew and Nicole. We are only one storm behind where 2004 peaked at, and two behind where 2008 ended, yet half as active as 2005 was. This year was never going to be a bust based on the conditions that were present for the season back in July and August, but we didn't have(and likely won't have) 50+ billion in damage, either. Even so, at the rate we are going, this might just turn out to be the second hurricane season in a row when the U.S. saw no hurricanes, but we did have some very close calls, and it definitely isn't too late for us to see one. October/November will have some storms, but who knows what they will be like. This season has two months left, and there is still plenty of potential for us, or somewhere else in the Atlantic, to see a monster hurricane. Stay tuned on the rest of 2010. Ryan1000 04:04, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, forecasters are still predicting 2010 could be active in October and November. If anything, I would say we would have 3-4 more storms, tops. I am not saying we won't get any strong storms in the last two months of the 2010 season, but in general, I wouldn't expect to see a category 4 hurricane hitting Tampa and causing 50 billion in damages or so. The Carribean must watch out, but because there are a lot of cold fronts dipping down into the southeast at this time of year, a U.S. landfall anywhere would be confined to southwestern Florida and likely nowhere else. This season isn't over yet, but, IMO, it is a sad excuse for a repeat of 2004, 2005, or 2008. Still, stay tuned. Ryan1000 00:09, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is definitely more like 1995 (except with fewer US landfalls) than the 21st-century frenzy years. My prediction, BTW: 21-13-6. The chances aren't nearly as great as they were before, but I still think Tomas becoming a major storm isn't quite out of the question yet. After him, we should have one final 'cane in Virginie or Walter. --HurricaneMaker99 14:09, November 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * HM99, I would define this year as 1990 2.0. There were virtually no U.S. landfalls, but there was a lot of damage elsewhere, particularly in Mexico this year just like 1990. Alex caused severe flooding in the inland city of Monterrey, Karl was the worst hurricane to hit the city of Veracruz in recent history, and Matthew caused 2.4 billion in damage to the same area hit by Karl just a little more than a week later. 1990 had Diana in the Tampico area. This year was very notable in terms of impact, but it is also the second succesive AH season without any U.S. landfalling hurricanes. Who knows what 2011 could have in store for us... This year shouldn't be forgotten. The bustcasters in July just had the last laugh when Matthew came along. No way for more than twelve storms? Come on, this year could flush out the list at this rate and/or hit the first two or three letters in the GA. This year was incredible. Worldwide, this was a fail season because the Pacific held us down too much, but by means of notability, it will be hard to forget 2010 for a long time to come. I personally thought this year would be quiet, but when it was apparent the season was exploding, I admitted to myself that I was 100% wrong, and went with the forecasts from CSU and NOAA. I never said we wouldn't get any notable storms this year, however, and in 2010's case, Karl was the main one, with a couple of other multi-billionares as well (Alex and Matthew). Ryan1000 22:06, November 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Somebody on WU showed me cold water next year. IT will be a neutral most likely, La Nina at the beginning and El Nino at the very very end. I say 13 storms in ATL and 14 in the EPAC. YE Tropical Cyclone 14:19, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

I wonder why anyone was surprised that we had a season like this. I knew this was gonna happen all along. All the signals were pointing to an extremely active season and voila! A hyperactive season. As I look back, I will remember 2010 as a clash of knowledge and bustcasting, no offense to anyone. And after September, wishcasting and recordcasting occured. 2010 gave many people lessons, that even a late starter could be very active. So for next year, as this amazing year comes to an official end in 23 days, I hope history will not repeat itself, and bustcasting, wishcasting etc. is replaced by good knowledgable forecasting (I am not saying conservative forecasting, YE). Darren23Edits 02:11, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I also got my great adage from this season - "Don't judge June or July, judge the peak of the season, okaye?" I will keep that adage for as long as i'm here on the Wikia. Understand this - the bustcasters (here and not here) were right about one thing in 2010 - this is the second season in a row without a single U.S. landfalling hurricane. We are pretty much certain to get one U.S. hurricane in 2011, but if we don't, then that's just going to make things worse. The longer we go without a U.S. landfalling hurricane, the safer people will feel and not want to leave the coast before a hurricane. It's better we get one next year to alert people that we can get hit rather than not have one next year and get a monster in 2012, possibly being one of the worst hurricanes in U.S. history. That's what I'm fearing the most for the near future. As I mentioned to HM99 above, this year was 1990 2.0 IMO. Almost no U.S. landfalls, but lots of landfalls elsewhere, particularly in Mexico like 1990 had. This year was a very active part for the Atlantic season, but due to the incredible inactivity in the Pacific and southern hemisphere in 2010, the global inactivity in 2010 is really quite remarkable(not like 1977), but remarkable nontheless. The 2010 Pacific hurricane season was the quietest season on record for number of NS's and H's, but it also was the deadliest tropical cyclone season worldwide in 2010; a rather strange part on that basin; the East Pacific isn't normally supposed to be this bad - 1996 is another EPac example of a quiet but destructive year. 2010 shouldn't be forgotten by anyone, for numbers or notability, and as for me, my great adage came from 2010, and I will always use it in the future, starting next year. Ryan1000 20:29, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * The bustcasters were lucky that no US landfalling hurricanes happened in 2010. Some of those MDR storms (there were super many this year) could have easily went in the direction of the US if it wasn't for the troughs and the placement of the Bermuda High this year. This is better comparable to 1995 as it matched the activity type and the storm formation region (MDR), except for the fact that the GOM was more conducive for intensification and development. If conditions were better in 2010, it could have reached the Greeks and approach 2005, yes, 2005. But, thanks to dry air and other inhibitors in 2010, the US was spared. Darren23Edits 04:06, November 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Darren I agree that this year reminds me of 1995 a little, but technically, no, it shouldn't. 1995 was just as active as this year in numbers(as of now), but looking at the ACE(which you said was important about hurricane seasons), 1995 is 4th place in the top 10, with an ACE of 224. Only 1893(231), 1950(243), and 2005(248) had a higher ACE than 1995. 2010 isn't even close to being in 10th place, so no, it wasn't as bad as 1995, technically per your standards. Also, the U.S. didn't get spared completly in 1995. Many storms in 1995 turned away from the U.S. mainland, but when they do hit the U.S, in 1995's case, Opal, watch out(if you include U.S. territories, Marilyn counts as well). The only storm that impacted the U.S. to any moderate extent this year was Hermine, with some flooding in Texas, up to 115 millon in damage. Bonnie and TD 2 were the only U.S. landfalls in this year, but neither storm caused over what, a few thousand dollars in damage? We just went on a very good run of luck, I would have to guess. Even so, this year, as I mentioned above, was a much worse version of 1990 IMO. Many storms missed the U.S.(let alone "land") that year, and the only signifigant storm in that year was Diana, a Mexico landfalling hurricane. In the same case, Hurricanes Karl, Alex, and TS Matthew all hit Mexico his year, and most of the damage/deaths in the 2010 AHS was from those three(two excluding Matthew's damage IMO) storms. So if you look at my standard of "notability", yes, it is very much like 1995. The U.S. can't evade these hurricanes forever, though and I'm looking forward to at least one U.S. landfalling hurricane in 2011. This year won't be forgotten, but despite the immense activity in the Atlantic this year, and notability of it, due to the Pacific and SHem power outage this year, the entire year of 2010 will be one of the least active seasons on record, less active than 2009, even, but not close to the all time record low in 1977. Ryan1000 01:05, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, ACE in 2010 was terrible, comparable to the ACE per storm that we had in 2005. This was mainly because our Cape Verde storms were Majors only for a short time. 2010 sucked in ACE, too much rapid weakening and failures. I'm purposefully not really paying much attention to what the US got, as it was a comparatively terrible year for hurricanes (not as bad as 03,04,05 and 08, but $11 Billion is bad enough). For Saint Lucia, Jamaica, Canada and of course Mexico, it was a terrible year, something that hasn't been experienced in 5 or more years (other than Dean). The rest of the Atlantic wasn't spared, and the only lucky countries this year were Bermuda (it got a lot of close calls this year), the US, Cuba and countries in the western part of the Caribbean (Haiti, PR, DR, etc.). I remember reading the CSU summary and they said something about that 2010 could have been way more active (it was active enough!) if the environment was better. This was a close call for Haiti and the US. They could have experienced 2008-type hurricane disasters, and thank god Haiti dodged a bullet with Tomas, and the same with the US with the other storms. I'm not trying to be a bustcaster or anything, but I do feel that 2011 will be Weak La Nina to Moderate El Nino, so the ATL might experience 1 more lucky break, if everything goes fine like this year (although Neutral years are bad too...2005). Darren23Edits 02:30, November 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Mexico suffered just about as much in 2010 as Cuba did in 2008. Alex's 1.885 billion plus Karl's 5.6 billion plus Matthew's (disputed) 2.6 billion... That's over 10 billion! That's what, 90+% of all of 2010's deaths and damages? Jamacia, Haiti, St. Lucia and Newfoundland(and slightly Novia Scotia, the upper lessers, and Texas) also suffered a lot of damage in 2010, but nowhere close to what Mexico got this year. That's why this year reminds me of 1990, but a lot worse. Virtually all of the impact from the 1990 AHS was from Diana in the Tampico area, and to a lesser extent, Klaus on Martinique and Marco across Florida. I'm expecting 2011 to be somewhat neutral, but since we haven't seen a hurricane in three years, we should get at least one U.S. hurricane next year. I'm not saying it will be a major hurricane or a bad storm, but we haven't had a 4-year U.S. hurricane streak since when, the Civil war? We should get at least one U.S. hurricane next year, but I won't make assumptions on where or when it will make landfall; it's just that, we will, or should, get one. Ryan1000 20:27, November 15, 2010 (UTC)