Forum:Worldwide activity discussion

==Worldwide activity discussionEdit== Since there's been a lot of discussion about this I created a section where we can talk about worldwide activity, and not in the storm section. Note:that this applies to entire worldwide, not just the EPAC. If this discussion beocmes out of hand, it will stop. YE Tropical Cyclone
 * NOOOOOO!!!! The season has just begun! We did this last year in August, but in June? No way, Jose! The tropics ain't gonna be dead just yet. Why must we begin this in the first place? Were 6 days into the month of June and we're already talking about dead shit? Stop this right now! >:( Ryan1000 11:40, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's wait until September this time, just to be sure the world will be dead. The one thing that is rather dead, is these forums. Just me Ryan, YE and Fiona (occasionally)...looking through the archives this time of year last year, there was quite a bit more activity than this. Yqt1001 12:37, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I retitled the section, happy. YE Tropical Cyclone 13:38, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha, the occasionally made me laugh. I'm mid-exam season at the moment, so I don't have as much time as I would like. And yeah, the Pacific's a little later then normal but the Atlantic season only just started... it's too early to really speculate on the overall activity of either season! HurricaneFiona 15:55, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Humph. Better, but I hope we get some more activity this year. The only basin thus far in this year that really was dead was the SWIO, with only 2 storms, compared to an average of 10; AKA, their 1914. The Australian region had 7 storms, which is exactly what they should have, and the SPac saw six, comparing to an average of 9, but had 2 cat. 4's and a third which reached it in the Australian region, and became the costliest cyclone ever there. But do we have to already discuss about dead activity? For god's sake, complaining about this season being a bust as of now is like your teacher saying "you have 10 minutes to complete your entire 100-question exam". That's not fair! Please have patience, everyone! We didn't talk about the "Dead basin thing"(Which ME, MYSELF, And I Archived!) until August of last year, not so much June(other than Alex and EPac "retirements at a glance"). The most active years on the Hurricane Wikia were by far 2007 and 2008. In those years, every basin except the SHem and NIO got a lot of attention. The WPac got a lot of attention in those two years, the EPac a little, and the Atlantic a lot. 2009 was hurricane wiki's least active year ever. The WPac didn't get that much attention, and the Atlantic didn't either; the majority of the Atlantic activity was explaining on a worldwide standard as to how dead we really were. The EPac got a little bit of attention, but not so much, and the SHem and NIO forums weren't even made in 2009. There wasn't a single edit on the EPac forum in 2009 for the entire month of June. For god's sake, we missed Andres, TD one-E, and part of Blanca during that time. Rick, Jimena, and Neki were the only storms in the Eastern Pacific actually worth mentioning of to some extent. But we're just beginning here, and the lack of EPac and Atlantic activity doesn't really surprise me as of yet. Please have patience, or I shall delete this absolutely pointless section when I do not feel like it's boring!(end sarcasm) Ryan1000 17:02, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well the year certainly hasn't been that dead yet (I was just wondering how long it could keep the record low activity streak up), some basins are late to start. The SWIO activity shocked me this year and none of the northern hemisphere basins (though the WPAC did have a rare category 5 typhoon in May) have really started yet. Looks like both the EPac and ATL are starting up though. 91E is going to be TD1 if it stays as organized as it is now until 0000z (near 100%) and 94L has been upgraded to 50% chance. I`m still thinking that it will be an above-average year in the Atlantic with a very very high chance of a major hurricane hitting the US. Most of the season will be in neutral (last neutral year was 2005) so it will be relatively difficult to predict what the season will bring. I feel that other basins will easily recover the lack of activity in the SWIO. Yqt1001 18:09, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * It really depends on what comes onto us... The WPac and EPac basins have had inactive seasons several times since 1995, including 1998 and last year, the least active WPac seasons on record. The lack of SWIO activity and slight South Pacific inactivity will hinder us, but ever since Songda, we've fallen asleep here. And Yqt, our last neutral season was not 2005, but 2008. Many people believe that that season was La Nina, but the activity in the Pacific and Indian oceans didn't correspond to the changes in the north Atlantic. Despite what many may say, 2008 was neutral. Many thought it was La Nina due to the above-average activity and destructive storms, particularly Ike, but the activity in 2008's AHS wasn't that far above average and the EPac, WPac, and Indian ocean seasons didn't correspond to the rising SST's in the north Atlantic. The changes in the Atlantic didn't correspond to what happened out west. The Epac is warming up, but I personally don't see 94L becoming Arlene in the future. TD one isn't out of the question, but Arlene probrably is. 91E is future Adrian to me, and it may parallel Mexico or briefly make landfall in southern Mexico, possibly as a hurricane, before turning out to sea. Ryan1000 20:39, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh contraire! 2008 was La Nina by definition, which states that "La Niña is a coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon that is the counterpart of El Niño as part of the broader El Niño-Southern Oscillation climate pattern. During a period of La Niña, the sea surface temperature across the equatorial Eastern Central Pacific Ocean will be lower than normal by 3–5 °C." 2008 meets that criteria. Sure, the effects may not have been uniform with most La Nina's, but abnormal is normal (if you know what i mean...) The number of storms in a basin in a season does not always correspond with the climatic pattern (04 El Nino comes to mind). And you consider an ACE of 144% median "that far above normal"? I agree that 94L will not form, but I disagree about the Adrian landfall part (I think it'll remain a fish, albeit a hurricane one). Darren23Edits 20:16, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant that 2008 wasn't entirely La Nina, but if 2008 was La Nina, why was the Pacific not dead in 2008 like it was in 2010? La Nina years do not always follow the "rules" Darren, but 2008's ACE was not the most hyperactive season I've seen. The WPac last year had a mere 14 named storms, 8 typhoons, 4 majors and one Lone category 5. The EPac had 16-7-2 in 2008(including a retired TS!). The EPac activity was near normal in 2008, but 2010 had a mere 7 named storns, 3 'canes, 2 majors, and a cat. 5, least active season ever, in terms of 'canes and numbers. And 2008 also had nearly 50 billion in U.S. damage, yet not a single U.S. major hurricane inside that 50 billion, wheras 2010 didn't crack a single 'cane on U.S. soil, despite having more named storms, 'canes, and tying major canes. La Nina years do not always follow the rules, Darren, and in many rescent years, they haven't been at all. 2007 was a good example. Take out Dean and Felix in 2007, and what did we have? Downright Sh!t! Just 4 canes, none past category one intensity, and no storms that lived longer than, say 5 days. 2010 was the 3rd most active season ever in numbers, second most active in 'canes, and we had an ACE of just 165 in 2010, just 20 higher than 2008's, not a single U.S. hurricane, and not even close to 1995's ACE, with the same number of storms, yet 4th highest ACE in the top 10. I can't see a pattern with rescent La Nina years like those. Can you see a trend with all La Nina years? Absolutely not. 1973 was a La Nina as well, but by golly it didn't look like it! No U.S. hurricanes, the first time in 11 years, and hardly any landfalls at all, and a June cat. 5 in the EPac? La Nina year's don't gurantee bad seasons all the time, per 2007 or 1973, and in the same manner, El Nino year's aren't always quiet, per 2004. This year will likely be a near-neutral season, but I highly doubt some of these seasons were really like that based on the weather pattern i've seen. We have had 3 La Nina years since 2005, and during that time, we haven't had a single major hurricane cross U.S. soil, let alone the entire eastern seabord of the U.S.(!!), let alone were there any close calls at all(other than Earl of last year). I personally haven't found a constant trend between El Nino year's being very nice all the time or La Nina years always being bad for the Atlantic. I don't think you have either. So I suggest this topic stop right now. The experts were right when it came to the patterns of ENSO events, but the public are getting angry at them because they haven't nailed sh!t when it came to U.S. landfalls, other than 2008(which only goes to show 5 or 10 mph doesn't really make a difference when it comes to size and power of storms... Gustav and Ike). I personally don't see a pattern between these events. I suggest this discussion stop right now, because it's only June 7th. The season has just begun, and i'm not going to bustcast about sh!t in 2011, because this year has just begun. We didn't talk about this until last year in August, but f**k no we aren't doing this sh!t in June. No way, Jose! I personally highly doubt we will get a 2005-like season, but i'm leaning towards a neutral season, one that doesn't have 2005-like conditions. If anyone will bustcast about 2011 any further, or if this discussion gets any further out of hand, it will be discontinued. Period. Ryan1000 22:44, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2011 is not a bust, but it is not the best season ever either. YE Tropical Cyclone 22:54, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * Some places in 2010 haven't been as active as usual(SWIO, NIO), but the Atl and EPac will not be busts. As I have mentioned several times before, we have gone SIX years without a landfalling hurricane on the east coast and haven't had a major U.S. 'cane either. People have gotten too complacent. A streak that long hasn't happened in a very long time, if ever. I think this season will be a very bad one, but people will likely think the next east coast hurricane or major hurricane will turn away and miss, as they have done in the past 6 years. This season will not be a good one, I don't think, but people can't wrap their minds around the fact we could have entire cities destroyed by storm surge and winds in just a few hours. We have had one lucky year too many. The SWIO and NIO are the only two basins that are dead as of what i've seen, but worldwide, I'm not counting on a 2010-like season. That year was second to 1977 as the least active worldwide season on record; see the Farewell section of the 2010 forum for specific details on the numbers. Ryan1000 23:06, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the ATL will be somewhat bad. I think we will get two landfall hurricanes in the US and a total of 2,3 billion in damage from all US systems combined. The NIO looks interesting right now, and I think the EPA will be two storms less than the 2008 total (including CPAC), with like 2008, three landfalling systems (1-E is not one of them). The WPAC activity will probably be around 25 storms IMO. Most importantly, everyone should prepare for the worst. YE Tropical Cyclone 23:42, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure of just 2.3 billion in damage(unless you meant 23 billion), but we never may know. I think the WPac will be a little less active than 25 named storms, but a 2010 repeat will most likely not happen. There are so many places in the U.S. that are overdue for a major hurricane right now. Miami, NYC, Savannah, Houston(Ike doesn't count), Corpus Christi, just a few examples. The NIO and SWIO don't account for a large portion of storms worldwide, but they will hinder us with their inactivity nevertheless. The Epac is the only interesting basin as of yet. The Atlantic will likely begin in July, if not August, but 94L isn't future anything now. The EPac is the only fun basin to watch as of now. Ryan1000 01:18, June 8, 2011 (UTC

I think the ATL US damage will be better than 2008/2004 not more than 2010, somewhat more than 2007. YE Tropical Cyclone 01:31, June 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh god, are we forecasting damages now? Mark my words, you can never, and probably will never be able to accurately forecast damages. Period. You can forecast the climatic patterns, but you can never forecast how much damages a season will make. You can only say that there is an "increased" chance for destruction, but you cannot say we will get 32, 50 10 or whatever damage figure you put up in the air. The amount of damages in a season does not always correlate with the activity. Forecasting damages also leads to bustcasting in the long run, so don't forecast damages please? Darren23Edits 01:45, June 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * It's going to be an interesting season for US hits nonetheless. I'm rather happy that we did our Florida trip last summer (still got "hit" by Bonnie though) and our East Coast Canada trip this year. I really don't think that this year is bustcasting worthy at all, none of the predictions say that it will be quiet and the invest activity so far has been quite a bit. Anyways the only thing that I can say about damages is that it will be quite a bit if we get a landfall in America (I have a theory for this). Especially in one of the cities that are prone to a hurricane hit now (Savannah, NYC, Atlantic City, Tampa and Miami..interestingly when those cities were picked last year I was in Savannah..certainly not the feeling you want to know as a tourist!). Yqt1001 02:02, June 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Damned edit conflicts! >:( I would hope we get some U.S. landfalls in 2011, but not horrific U.S. storms. If we get a couple of big cat. 2 landfalls like what we got in 2008, that would be all we would need to wake us up in the U.S, so in the future, they aren't so bad. Ryan1000 02:22, June 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ideally, you want 0 US landfalling hurricanes, but I think the US is due fro another bad storm during the next few years, maybe one along the East Coast or south Texas. However, I hope this does not happen. YE Tropical Cyclone 02:47, June 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not that we want no U.S. storms, but we want people to know that hurricanes can hit us, and even if one hits for the first time in a long time, people must evacuate from that storm, even if they haven't experienced one before. Ryan1000 14:17, June 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * I also feel like the reason Americans don't evacuate is because of their property and stuff they own. They don't want to leave it there and hope it survives because if they are there they think they can save something expensive or meaningful, but in reality, you can't really stop the devastation of a hurricane. I have a feeling that's why the American deaths are usually greater than hits in other developed countries. I also feel that's why companies can make tons of money selling things that are "hurricane proof". I bet you can probably make tons of money selling "Hurricane tape" to put over windows that is really just re-branded duct tape. I could only imagine how bad the deaths would be if a hurricane didn't hit the US in ~20 years and the people were comfortable and didn't evacuate when a category 5 storm was barreling down. However 2005 seems to leave a pretty scary mark on everyone's minds who remember that year.Yqt1001 14:44, June 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Many of the hurricanes in 2004 and 2005 weren't as deadly as the could've been(other than Katrina), because people have evacuated most of the time from hurricanes in those years. But since 2005, the only two hurricanes to cause signifigant damage in the United States were Ike and Gustav of 2008. A six-year streak without major hurricanes hasn't happened in a long time if ever, so when one does come calling in 2011, I hope people haven't forgotten the bad storms of the past and leave the coastline when told to. Ryan1000 15:37, June 8, 2011 (UTC)

Wow, the basins are so alive right now. YE Tropical Cyclone 16:58, June 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Every basin in 2011 has had at least one storm thus far except the Atlantic, assuming 01A will become Keila. We're really kicking into gear! Ryan1000 19:41, June 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, perhaps not. Since the brief hot streak in the WPac and here, we have had nothing doing in the tropics. Ryan1000 14:59, June 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * But we are now! Andrew444 13:09, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * A little bit of activity won't hurt, but it's getting a little boring here... Anyhow, I'll be watching out for Beatriz in the next few days, and Haima in the WPac. Ryan1000 01:57, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have just counted the number of storms worldwide. We have 21 storms. A couple notes. First, Tropical Storm 6W is active, even though it's not named. Second, the SWIO actually saw three storms, because the final storm was TS equivlant, but Madagascar didn't name it. Andrew444 02:31, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * I am watching out for future-Haima. I think it will be an intereting storm to watch if if passes over Taiwan
 * or if it goes to the south. In the eastern pacific, I think in the coming days we might see a minimal
 * tropical storm Beatriz. In the atlantic i am on the lookout for activity. OWEN2011 02:54, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * I only want to count the named storms.... and the storm that Madagascar refused to name was unnamed because it only briefly became a TS before it died out, and it wasn't affecting land anyways. I count storms like Subtropical Storm 10 of the 2009-10 SWIO season, not so much subtropical depressions. Anyhow, i'm not so worried about the Atlantic by now, June is closing up and we have yet to see our first named storm, let alone depression, there. Andrew, at this time last year, we had 28 named storms, with 30 at the end of June(Darby and Alex hadn't yet developed by this date), but after June the EPac and WPac slowed down to record-low values for the rest of the season, and I HIGHLY doubt we will get a 2010-like season here or in the WPac. We had only 68 named storms worldwide last year, 35 hurricanes, 18 majors, and 4 cat. 5's. The info about it in last year's forum is Here.
 * As a side note, I'm not going to look after any threatening North Atlantic storms this year, storms like Katrina, Ike, Andrew, if one happens, ect. I will pay attention to the fishspinners as they are fun to watch, but I don't like watching storms that kill people or do lots of damages. Thank god we have this forum. Ryan1000 13:07, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * You tracked Yasi, and from the start it was forecast to make landfall in Queensland, you seemed to like watching it a lot..anyways its too early to call the 2010 AHS a bust, last year the season didn't really start until August, anyways conditions are looking favourable for another Alex like storm to form in about 7 days. Yqt1001 13:55, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't cheering for Yasi, I was explaining the backround behind the storm, but I was by no means rooting for her. I was explaining storms of the past like Mahina or Larry that had struck the area in the past, and what made Yasi different, and more dangerous. I generally just want to wait until the storm has passed, and then we can explain details behind it in the Retirements at a Glance section. In the link I mentioned on the SHem forum, Yasi was a massive storm, and it was so big it would engulf the entire Gulf of Mexico and across the entire state of Florida, almost as big as Tip in the WPac. Cyclone Yasi wasn't fun or really exiting, but it was scary to watch and track and a heartbreaking disaster to the people of Queensland. I was shivering in anticipation of what the storm would do, but I never thought it would become so destructive, not even since the day it formed. Since Australia has retired a seemingly countless number of storms in the past which have done signifigantly less damage than Yasi, there should be no question on her retirement status. I may explain some backround behind the storm, but I won't root on anything(see Dean's archive in 2007; JasonRees and Cyclone1(now retired) were "rooting" for him when he became a category 5, but Eric(SkyFury) came and said we should all shut up and wait, as he was very dangerous at his 175 mph peak intensity, I think you might know what i'm talking about, no rooting, but explaining details behind it, or waiting until it passes). Ryan1000 14:31, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't cheering for Yasi, I was explaining the backround behind the storm, but I was by no means rooting for her. I was explaining storms of the past like Mahina or Larry that had struck the area in the past, and what made Yasi different, and more dangerous. I generally just want to wait until the storm has passed, and then we can explain details behind it in the Retirements at a Glance section. In the link I mentioned on the SHem forum, Yasi was a massive storm, and it was so big it would engulf the entire Gulf of Mexico and across the entire state of Florida, almost as big as Tip in the WPac. Cyclone Yasi wasn't fun or really exiting, but it was scary to watch and track and a heartbreaking disaster to the people of Queensland. I was shivering in anticipation of what the storm would do, but I never thought it would become so destructive, not even since the day it formed. Since Australia has retired a seemingly countless number of storms in the past which have done signifigantly less damage than Yasi, there should be no question on her retirement status. I may explain some backround behind the storm, but I won't root on anything(see Dean's archive in 2007; JasonRees and Cyclone1(now retired) were "rooting" for him when he became a category 5, but Eric(SkyFury) came and said we should all shut up and wait, as he was very dangerous at his 175 mph peak intensity, I think you might know what i'm talking about, no rooting, but explaining details behind it, or waiting until it passes). Ryan1000 14:31, June 19, 2011 (UTC)

Well it's been a while since this section has been active so I might as well post this here. I was looking through the models today and I couldn't help but notice this ([2]) in 7 days. (Thats the GFS btw) Some of the other models show this, but those other models only show a weak TS rather than a moderate TS. Looks like the Atlantic season could start in a few days. Also shouldn't this section be it's own forum page rather than in the EPac page? Yqt1001 19:38, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, YE made this here for worldwide, not just the EPac, and the "Dead Basin Thing" last year went on quite a bit in the Atlantic forum page. Why can't the EPac have a lot of talking on it's page? Do people only have to care about the north Atlantic storms worldwide there as well? Ryan1000 21:32, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly fine with having it here, but it just didn't make much sense to have this here and not on its own forum. The Dead Basin Thing last year was originally meant for the NAtl only but eventually encompassed the whole world. I guess next year we should have this in the WPac then? :P Yqt1001 22:11, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Depends... Last year without the Atlantic, we would have had a 1977 repeat. Same in 2009 with the EPac, but, well, no one paid attention to that year, and we didn't get a single edit on the Epac forum during the entire month of June. We missed Andres, TD one, and part of Blanca. If we were as active as we are now back in 2009, the activity discussion would continue on for, probrably as long as the dead basin thing did last year in the Atlantic. I think this discussion should primarily go to the talk page of the basin encompassing the majority of the activity worldwide. Last year the Atlantic had this and the year before that the EPac should have had it, but it didn't because no one cared about 2009, really. Even so, it would be better IMO to have just one big discussion than a bunch of small ones. To be honest, it could actually go on any forum, but if the Atlantic has hardly any storms(or a small number compared to the EPac), then it's pointless to have this there. Thus far, the EPac and WPac are taking the majority of the activity, but that doesn't mean the Atlantic won't have anything as of yet. Many people care about the North Atlantic storms, but they wouldn't want to if we had very little activity there now would we? As a matter of fact, we could be onto the most active year on Hurricane Wiki history in 2011. The number of edits we've had on Hurricane Wiki is higher than it's been at any other year in the past as of this date. The WPac and the North Atlantic got a ton of activity in 2007, 2008, and 2010(well, not so much the WPac that year). Thus far in this year, we have had a ton of SHem activity, some activity in the NIO, a descent ammount of activity in the EPac and WPac, not to mention it's far from over, and a fine head start in the Atlantic. Ryan1000 23:12, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * As a side note, I made a New forum for this year, if you want to say your most favorite storms of 2011 there. I'll pick Adrian as 1st. =) Ryan1000 00:09, June 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * If we're talking about activity, I do want to point out that the Madden-Julian Oscillation is moving nicely into the Eastern Pacific/Atlantic. This is why Beatriz formed and this should help the Atlantic disturbance develop over the next few days. Also, in the long run, I would like to point out the SST anomaly for the Gulf of Guinea. It is cooler than usual. This means that the ITCZ will be farther north than usual, which will mean that there will be a higher-than-average Cape Verde season in the Atlantic. This is the reason why I increased the number of storms in my forecast and also why I increased the number of names I think will be retired in the Atlantic. Darren23Edits 18:14, June 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * The MJO is influencing the activity, but I would think we are on to a neutral-like year. Also, when it comes to retired names, even though I personally think we will only get none to a few names, getting 4 or more names at the least isn't easy. Only 1955, 1995, 2004 and 2005 have had 4 or more names. Also, when I was doing some research behind retired names, I found out that the storms with the highest chances of retirement are storms that rip apart the Carribean, countries in central America, or not once-in a lifetime events for other places like Bermuda(Fabian 2003) and Canada(Juan and Igor) Just because we have a higher chance of U.S. landfalls doesn't mean we have a higher chance of retired names. The U.S. and Mexico get hit with hurricanes all the time, so the stakes for retirement in those two countries have gotten higher. Much higher. Last year, Hurricanes Alex and Karl combined caused about 7.5 billion dollars in damage to Mexico. Karl caused that 5.6 billion in Mexico's largest and oldest port city and Alex was described as the worst hurricane to hit Monterrey in a "long time". The reason why Mexico decided not to retire either is because they didn't cause a wide scope of problems and destruction across the entire country as a whole. Hurricanes like Kenna of 2002, Ismael of 1995, and Pauline of 1997 on the other hand, did. If the hurricanes this year miss the Caribbean and hit the U.S. instead, then we actually are less likely to see retired names. We can't make assumptions on just damages alone. You must look at the country affected and how many problems it did in the entire country as a whole. The U.S. may have gotten lucky, but that doesn't mean our retirement standards have gotten lower because of that.

Let me explain Hurricane Dean of 2007, for example. Hurricane Dean did hit Mexico as a category 5 hurricane and brushed Jamacia as a 4, but it caused more damage in the lesser antillies than it did to Mexico and Jamacia combined. Hurricane Dean did only about 300 million dollars in damage to Jamacia and about 184 million to Mexico. Hurricane Gilbert, by Contrast, did 4 billion dollars in damage to Jamacia and 1 billion to Mexico(and 1 billion more to St. Lucia, the costliest storm in the island's history). Therefore Jamacia and St. Lucia were Gilbert's culprits. Mexico could have been as well, but Hurricane Liza of 1976 killed 600-950 people in Mexico, about 2 or 3 times as many deaths as Gibert, and wasn't retired. Martinique and Guadeloupe, 2 French territories in the Carribean, suffered a combined 836 or so million dollars in damage from Dean. For a pair of islands with only a combined 800,000 or so people, that same storm would do about 19.75 billion dollars in damage in the U.S. state of Florida. And Dominica was hit with about 162 million dollars in damage from Dean. For an island nation with only 73,000 people, that same storm proportionally would do a whopping 683 billion dollars in damage in the United States. 'YOWCH!! 'If a storm did that much damage in the U.S, it would certainly become retired, being more than 8 times as destructive as Katrina was. You have to think about that before immediately looking at damages and saying what you think from that. It's not public outcry or emotional losses that matters, it's where it hits and how many nations it affects on it's path of destruction. If a category 2 hurricane does 4 billion in damage in the U.S. and a similar category 2 hurricane causes that same ammount of damage across the lesser antillies, the category 2 wrecking the lessers would have the better chance of retirement. Sorry if this went on too long, but I was just pointing out some facts... Ryan1000 19:07, June 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I disagree with you there. I think a Cat 2 hitting the US with $4 Billion in damages has a better chance of retirement than the same storm hitting the Carib. with the same amount of damage. The reason: Media impact. The more media impact a storm has, the more people wanting it gone, the better chance of it being retired. That's why I don't believe retirement can be quantified. You have to examine its psychological impact. For example: Igor versus Karl. For a 5.6 billion dollar storm (a number I think is an overestimate), Karl didn't have the same psychological impact as Igor, which was being labeled by the media as a 75-year storm, etc. And damage is not proportional by country. Remember, countries have different levels of infrastructure. A storm causing 1 billion dollars in damages and kills 100 in... let's say central Mexico might only cause 100-800 million in damages and kill 10 in the US. Same goes with those Caribbean islands. Now, with the climate stuff. Yes, I believe this will be a neutral season, but Nina effects will last much, much longer. This season will be an active season. SST's are still relatively warm, shear should be down, and other factors which help tropical cyclone development will be there. No, not as much as last year, but will still be above average. Now, I said the Gulf of Guinea is undergoing the cold anomaly, which enhances the possibility of a very active Cape Verde season. A very active Cape Verde season, and other climatic features, such as that cold SST anomaly tongue east of Florida (which has usually been around when there's an active US landfall season), I believe that there is an increased chance for retirement from the Caribbean and the US coastline. Darren23Edits 04:37, June 25, 2011 (UTC)

No, retirement is all based on whether or not a country requests the name to be removed. I'm saying that if a hurricane tears apart the Caribbean, there are tons of small countries that can request the name to be removed, vs a 4 billion dollar U.S. storm, if the U.S. doesn't request it, see it again 6 years later. If a hurricane damages more countries, then there are tons of countries that can request it. That explains why Dean was retired despite causing less damage, than, say Alex of last year. If a hurricane heavily damages just one country(like Karl of last year), then it's all up to them as to whether or not they'll retire it. Second off, the United states has tons of things going on at the same time. A 4 billion dollar storm probrably won't be as well-known in the entire U.S. as a whole, wheras a storm like Katrina would be. Who cares about what the media says? If the government doesn't request it, then the name will be reused, no matter what anyone says after that. Hurricanes Ike and Gustav of 2008 were overshadowed by the election news in the U.S, and in the case of them, CUBA was the first country to request both Ike and Gustav. I don't know whether or not the United States made a retirement case on either hurricane, but I'm pretty sure we had one on Ike. Gustav was feared by the media to be a repeat of Katrina when it was a category 4 in the Caribbean, but in the end, when they did go down to New Orleans, they said "oh, it wasn't that bad after all". Gustav did not cause a wide scope of problems in the entire United States as a whole, and the damage wasn't that bad in the U.S. nor the death toll too terribbly high. It may have been worse than Juan of 1985 but not by much. The Election news made Gustav seem like an afterthought in the U.S. However, Gustav was described as the worst hurricane to hit Cuba in 50 years. It was also the 3rd costliest hurricane in that nation's history, behind Michelle of 2001 and Ike later in 2008. Even though he might have been overshadowed, I don't truly know if we had a case on him. If Gustav did not hit Cuba or Haiti, I HIGHLY doubt we would have requested him for retirement. You have to look at how many countries are affected and the impact it caused in those countries as a whole before you immediately consider media as everything. One more thing - if media plays an important role in retirement, why were Noel of 2007 and Alma of 2008 retired? I hardly remember either storm getting a peep in the news, even in the places they hit, but both of them were retired. Explain that if you think Media is everything. Media doesn't play the role, the retirement case from a country does. All the time. Media doesn't exactly reflect that. I'm saying that smaller countries in the Caribbean and Central America have a better chance of requesting hurricane names because they often need help from other countries when hurricanes hit. The United States and Mexico usually do not. We sent a trainload of aid to Central America after Hurricane Mitch of 1998 tore apart the area, mostly Honduras and Nicaragua. Every country in Central America suffered some extent of damage from Mitch, but a few places like Costa Rica and Panama weren't hit very hard at all(and didn't request him for that reason), wheras other countries like Honduras, were just devastated from Mitch. The President of Honduras claimed Mitch destroyed 50 years of progress in their country. Just because the media pays attention to a hurricane doesn't mean the country affected will request it be removed. It depends on how much destruction and impact it did to the entire country as a whole. If no country sent aid to St. Lucia or Jamacia after Hurricane Gilbert kicked the shit out of both countries in 1988, then they would be very upset, and very sad because it would take forever to clean up. The United States is one of the biggest political and economical engines in the world, and a 4 billion dollar hurricane would not warrant retirement as easily as the Caribbean or Central America because, despite the media attention it may recieve, it won't distrupt the entire U.S. as a whole. Smaller Caribbean nations or countries in Central America have a better chance of retiring names because they can't handle catastrophic hurricanes as easily as the U.S. or Mexico can, like they retired Tomas of last year or Dean/Felix of 2007.

As of now, on a worldwide standard, I think the storm with the highest chance of retirement(and will likely have the highest chance of retirement in the entire worldwide season) is Yasi of the South Pacific. It was the costliest storm in Australia's history, and even though it hit more than 4 months ago, I bet that the people in Queensland still think of Yasi's damages every now and then. Not exactly the media, but just the people of Queensland as a whole. Australia can't handle storms like Yasi so easily. Yasi also distrupted the entire country of Australia as a whole, not just the area hit. Ryan1000 17:03, June 25, 2011 (UTC)

As a side note, to be honest, we should really just wait until the season goes into progress and see what happens. We can never gurantee we will have a bad season for the United States even in La Nina events; last year and 2007 are examples. It's just that the main point I was making might have been missed... I was just saying, when it comes to retired names, there ARE exeptions to the "Particularly damaging or particularly deadly" rule, and there ARE exeptions to the "Media attention and public reaction" rule. There NEVER has been(and never will be) an exeption to the "country requests it" rule. We will have to wait and see what mother nature throws at us this season. Ryan1000 21:41, June 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1 Um, there is an exception to that rule: Hurricane Daniel 06 was requested by Hawaii but "the WMO did not approve the request". #2: Many people talk of Gustav and Katrina in the same sentence. I swear we would have retired Gustav if it did not hit Cuba or whatever else is there. #3. Yes, you can never guarantee bad US seasons, but there are seasons (like this year) which have increased chances of one, and for this year, it seems like there is a highly increased chance of one. #4: Are you kidding me? Gustav wasn't that bad??? It may have been overshadowed by Ike, and it may not have been as others, but heck it caused more damage than Isabel. #5: Mitch was a no-brainier. It had to be retired. #6 Alma was different. It had low death toll and damage, yet by some weird reason it was retired. #7 Where the heck do you get these "requests for retirement stuff." I would love to see them. Darren23Edits 00:35, June 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * You didn't read what I said. The WMO can't retire a name unless a country requests the removal of the name. The Hawaian islands aren't a country, the United States is. The WMO has never turned down the request of a country, but they have for "groups of people". There's quite a difference, I'm afraid. Also, why was Karl not retired last year, if it caused more damage to Mexico than Gustav did to the U.S? If that storm caused 5.6 billion dollars in damage to Mexico, why wasn't it retired? Is Karl defined as "not bad" in your book, just because it wasnt retired despite the damage? I said a country must request the name be removed to retire it. In the case of Alma(I should have explained this earlier), the government of Costa Rica described Alma as one of the worst storms in their history and they requested her to be retired for that reason even though it might have not been that destructive by your POV. I personally think the reasoning behind Alma's retirement was because the name means soul in Spanish. Noel of 2007 was much less destructive than, say Gordon of 1994, but France requested Noel to be retired because the name means "Christmas" in French. Therefore the name was inappropriate by their language and he really can't be taken as an excuse to any other non-retiree. Adolph of 2001 did nothing and Israel was never used, due to political connections with Adolf Hitler and the country of Israel. In the case of Alma and Noel, they didn't get "public reaction", they were retired due to requests from nations, so media attention doesn't play everything per that. A couple of other EPac retirements like Adele of 1970, Fico of 1978, Knut of 1987, and Fefa of 1991 were requested to be retired by other countries due to the inappropriate use of the name in another language, or if those storms followed the naming of specific places, ect, rather than specific impact. The United States did not make a retirement case on Fico or Fefa due to their impact on Hawaii; I think the name means something inappropriate in French or Spanish, but I can't really tell to be honest. However, if a country requests the name be retired, then the WMO will approve of it, no matter what. The United States government did not request Daniel to be retired. That's why it was not retired. Not exactly from "groups of people", but from entire countries as a whole. Media does not play the role; a country's retirement case does. Klaus of 1990 was retired at the request from the government of France, and it didn't get sh!t's worth of media attention, nor may you think the impact was that bad. Ioke of 2006's PHS wasn't retired due to it's impact on Wake Island or Johnston Atoll, but because the name had no true Hawaian Meaning, and shouldn't have been on the list in the first place. The Central Pacific Hurricane Center had changed a lot of names in 2006, many of which should have been a different storm name or something. Paka was "retired" at the request of our government, due to the damage on Guam. Also, for example, the name Dalila was used as "Dalilia" in 1983 and 1989, and then reverted to Dalila again in 1995, 2001, and 2007. There can be changes made to the name list if a name was improper(but not "retired"), or if like Adolph and Israel, for political reasons. These things aren't mentioned in Wikipedia, but we don't incriminate specific things like that on Wikipedia or on other sources stating retirement. For example, the Wikipedia article on Noel says it was retired due to the damage and deaths, not because the name means Christmas in French, because that would be offensive to readers there. Yes U.S. hurricanes often do become retired, but I do think our retirement standards should become stricter because we get hit with hurricanes all the time. look how many names Australia had retired, for example. The NHC's definition of retired names is here:
 * "The only time that there is a change in the naming lists is if one or more hurricanes throughout the course of a season is so deadly or so costly that future use of the name on another storm would be inappropriate due to reasons of sensitivity. If that happens, then at an annual meeting held by the WMO known as the Regional Association Hurricane Committee(called primarily to discuss many other issues), the offending name is stricken from the list and a new name is then selected to replace it" Where in that definition of retired names is media attention or public reaction mentioned? No part. Period. It's all up to a country as to whether or not the future use of the name would be inappropriate. Yes there may be some retirements or non-retirements that may be a mystery, but if a country does or does not request it be retired, there is nothing the media or anyone can do about it. Ryan1000 01:45, June 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Then what the heck is your point? The main purpose of retirement is to get rid of a name to provide closure to the victims and not to offend them. And why would they want to do that? Because they were severely harmed by the storm. A good way to judge that? By what the media says or does. A lot of the stuff you listed were the technical retirements or "non-impact retirements". In my book, those don't really count. Yes, they're retired, but not "retired". And after Karl, I looked long and hard for some reaction from the people in Mexico. I didn't get anything substantial from the people that would make it qualified for retirement. It didn't feel like it deserved to be retired. Gustav in the other hand was portrayed as destructive, but not as destructive as Katrina. And I have said that Karl's damage figure seems to be way too much. If I were to make a guess, I'd only put it at 1-2 Billion, at most. Darren23Edits 02:56, June 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * The NHC bill on Karl says it did only 206 million dollars, but I've never trusted the NHC when it comes to damages or deaths from hurricanes. I leave that up to the media, but initial reports published by them are often too high... Do you think Agatha of last year didn't deserve to be retired? Or any other storms in the past like Liza of 1976 in Mexico? The media does not retire names; the government does, and the media attention of a storm does not directly correlate with the government's retirement decision. Sometimes they do, but not always, as I've mentioned above. Yes storm names are retired by the requests of countries, not depending on what the media says to the WMO. I think the media was kind of stupid to look so much in New Orleans after Gustav when the majority of the destruction and deaths from Gustav were further down the coast in New Iberia and Cocodrie where it made landfall, or from inland flooding in Baton Rouge. Same thing with Dean in 2007; the media said "it missed Cancun, so we dodged the bullet", but the majority of Dean's destruction in Mexico was further down the coast in Chentumal and Costa Maya, not Cancun. That's why Gustav's retirement could be doubted, because the media wasn't really giving everyone the full picture on his destruction in the U.S. What i'm saying is the chances of a storm to be retired depend on how much destruction it causes to the entire country's economy as a whole, ect. The damage on Karl was likely overestimated, but the reason why Mexico decided not to retire him is because he didn't cause a large ammount of problems in the entire country of Mexico as a whole. Another storm, Kenna of 2002, did. Hurricane Juan of 1985 caused 2.8 billion in damage in the U.S. and wasn't retired because that damage was largely in the area it hit in Louisiana and not widespread across the entire U.S. as a whole. Same thing goes with Alberto of 1994. Over half a billion in damage, but wasn't retired, because it was too localized and not widespread. The media can pay attention to hurricanes a lot, but if the damage caused by that storm isn't widespread enough then it likely won't be retired. A 4 billion dollar U.S. storm may get lots of media attention and still not be retired. It's not like the U.S. will retire every 2.5+ billion dollar name from now on. It's not that i'm saying our country all of a sudden doesn't want to retire names, but because hurricanes hit the U.S. and Mexico all the time(we just got really lucky in the past 6 years, aside from Gustav and Ike), our stakes for retirement have gotten higher. I'm not really living in the past so much. Unless a hurricane causes a wide scope of problems in an entire country as a whole, it won't be retired. Karl and Alex are examples of such. They were very destructive for Mexico, there is no doubt, but neither of them were well-known in areas outside of Veracruz and Monterrey, or in all of Mexico as a whole. Same thing in the U.S. A 4 billion dollar hurricane in Florida nowadays may become well-known there, but will it in the entire country? No. Florida, let alone the United States, have gotten hit with so many other hurricanes worse than 4 billion in damage in the past that it likely will just become an afterthought. It doesn't matter if the media pays a lot of attention to the storm, what matters is if people will consider it bad enough in the entire country. I personally wouldn't think of it as that bad for the ENTIRE United States. Same with Mexico. We aren't going to request every single multi-billion dollar storm from now on. You have to stop living in the past. As I said earlier, the United States is one of the biggest political and economical engines in the world. A 4 billion dollar U.S. storm won't knock down every single domino in our entire country. We have tons of other things to worry about in the U.S. than some hurricane causing some billion dollars in damage. We have tornadoes, earthquakes, floods, wildfires, and other things as a whole to worry about than just hurricanes. If we get a storm like Ike or Andrew, that's a completly different story, but as of now, this discussion is already gotten way out of hand. We can never, and I repeat never, be able to accurately forecast how many retired names or bad hurricanes we will have in a season. Period. Last year is a great, if not the best, example. We were in a La Nina event last year, and out of the 12 hurricanes that formed in 2010, NONE of them crossed U.S. soil at hurricane force. For all we know, the Bermuda High may place itself over the same position it did last year in the heart of this season and we may get yet another season without U.S. landfalls. You have absolutely no idea how bad a season we will get. So I suggest we wait until September, and see what happens to the tropics. Until then, I'm leaving here. Ryan1000 05:06, June 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * We had this same debate on IRC whether Javiers death/damage was reliable or not. We do not now for a 100% sure that this season will be active, what if the SST's in the EPAC suddenly warming and cause a weak El Nino? What of the ITCZ remains more north then normal and all the waves die? What if a trough sit off the US East Coast, and re-curves the storms out to sea? There are a lot of possibilities. I don't think we'll have too much damage this year, but IMO we will have a landfalling hurricane or two that causes a couple billion in damage too the US. Not as bad as 2008 though. YE Tropical Cyclone 15:42, June 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * We may never know. I was just arguing with Darren as to how storm names become retired. Darren's thinks the media retires storm names. He thinks the media is everything, and I think that it's all up to a country based on retirement. As I mentioned above, Emily of 2005 got tons of media coverage and lots of people know of her, but she wasn't retired. Noel of 2007 and Alma of 2008 were both retired and I don't think anyone would likely know of either storm. Those two storms fell off of the media's radar, didn't get a peep in the news, and both still became retired. The WMO will not(and cannot) retire a storm name unless one or more countries request the name be retired. Who cares if the storm was well-known? If a storm doesn't cause a wide scope of problems for the entire countrie(s) affected as a whole, then the country affected will not retire it, regardless of how much attention the media gave it, or how much damage it caused/how many people it killed. Ryan1000 18:36, June 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think Noel was going to be retired no matter what. Even if the storm was like Bonnie (2010). Even if it only caused $100 in damage, the WMO could not disagree that the storm didn't do anything, so they would have to retire it. There is no way I would ever want to hear "Hurricane Noël is coming!", itès just horrifying. It's just so..wrong. I could imagine just how bad it would be if it was a category 5 storm heading for a French island. Also shouldn't we make a "World activity section -continued"? This section is getting rather long. Yqt1001 18:51, June 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Can everyone her please indent their posts? It would be much easier to read. Anyway, Retirements are NOT Done by media attention. If it did, why didn't John 06, Flossie 07, and Bill 09 get retired? They did not do much (except for John, but that still did not get retired). Atletta 82 did not get retired because it did not impact an entire countries, same with Javier 98. Despite its devastation to Baja California, Jimena 09 did not affect its enitre country. Nor did Karl and Alex. I can go on and on. YE Tropical Cyclone 19:17, June 26, 2011 (UTC)

===Worldwide activity discussion (continued)Edit=== Just so we can hit the edit button easier... @Yqt, I think France might have also requested Noel due to it's(precursor) impact on Martinique. They are pretty generous with retirements as they did with Klaus of 1990, and Dean of 2007, which also hit Guadeloupe. It was likely retired by them due to the meaning of the name in French, Christmas. The impacts in Martinique also may have led to retirement, but Paul of 1982 devastated Guatemala and El Salvador as a precursor wave, but it's impacts on land as a tropical cyclone were much less severe. Alma of 2008 was requested to be retired by Costa Rica, with them describing it as a disaster without parallel in their nation's history. However, I still think the reasoning behind it's retirement may have been because it was inappropriate like Noel. If the media said "Tropical Storm Soul hits Florida", we would be kind of offended(Alma means Soul in spanish; see this link), and we would want the name to be removed due to it's offensive use. Same thing with Adolph of 2001 and Israel(which wasn't used) due to political connections with the country of Israel and Adolf Hitler and Germany. Media attention doesn't play the role, the retirement case of a country does. If a country(ies) requests the removal of a name(s), the WMO will accordingly retire them, regardless of how much impact they cause, if any. Ryan1000 19:36, June 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * I never said media retires names! But, it's a damn good barometer if a storm is gonna get retired. The media has a great impact on everything. It influences elections, the economy, and yes, retirements. The more reports there are that there was great suffering, the higher the chance a country will request it to be retired. Darren23Edits 19:56, June 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1 more thing. Yes, we cannot predict retirements accurately, we can never predict damages, but we can predict when there is a higher chance of having retirements and higher damages. And btw, we're already in June. If we somehow do rapidly transition to El Nino, it won't have much effect, as overall climatic conditions take a while to change. Now, SST's are very conductive for the Atlantic. Shear is lower than average even though it's ENSO-neutral. You can't ignore facts! This season has a high chance of above-average activity. And I hate to say it, even though we got a reprieve last year, that there is also a high chance for highly destructive storms. Darren23Edits 20:02, June 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Darren, chill out. We all have different opinions on retirement. Some people think it's all about damage, others think it's all about deaths. You think it's the media, and I look at the ammount of problems the storm causes in the entire country as a whole. That's probrably the best way to determine a storm's chances of retirement. Again, let me pull up the example of a 4 billion dollar storm that tears up the Caribbean vs a 4 billion dollar storm that hits the U.S. 4 billion dollars in damage would be a giant number for any caribbean island and would be a record for any nation except Jamacia and Cuba, and would still be 2nd highest up on the list for those countries, let alone, a 4 billion dollar Caribbean storm would severely distrupt the economies of those small island nations. Would a 4 billion dollar U.S. storm get lots of media attention? Probrably, but will it distrupt the entire U.S. economy as a whole? Probrably not. I think we can handle a storm of that magnitude. Then again, it may depend on how widespread that is. Hurricane Bonnie of 1998 vs Hurricane Lili of 2002. Both caused a billion in damage and got tons of media attention, but guess who got retired? Hurricane Lili caused a large ammount of problems in the entire U.S. as a whole, wheras Bonnie was a storm with localized destruction in North Carolina. It takes quite a storm to distrupt our entire economy as a whole(ex. Ike of 2008, nearly 30 billion U.S. damage), but a 4 billion dollar storm probrably won't distrupt our entire country as a whole, but rather more localized areas. It depends, and we'll have to wait and see. If you would like to talk about anything else, go ahead. Ryan1000 20:29, June 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Darren, I never said that there is a high chance of my what if's occurring, but they are possible. I do think the ATL will see a fairly active season, just not as bad as 2008, that's all. Anyway, the EPAC looks like it will have an decent season between 12-17 storms most likely.YE Tropical Cyclone 20:53, June 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Darren here, the signs are pointing for an active US landfall year, and you can't go against the odds for too long. Isn't the odds of 1 major hurricane landfall in the US at like 76%? That's pretty high if you ask me. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we see 4-5 major hurricane landfalls this year (all over the basin). Yqt1001 21:04, June 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if it affects the whole economy. If it affects a place destructively enough with enough people suffering, it will be retired. And Bonnie was much less destructive! You have to have some common sense here. The reports for Bonnie indicated that damage was not severe. It wasn't that bad! And I think you are seriously misinterpreting what I mean by media attention. I mean what happens after something hits. If the media on to it like "it was the worst hurricane ever" or "this is catastrophic", of course they're gonna retire it. Now, a 4 Billion dollar storm (like Gustav), while it's not as the likes of Ike, Katrina, Wilma, or Andrew, it certainly is catastrophic (Certainly, it was catastrophic to the places which suffered extensive wind damage, including Baton Rouge, which enountered its "worst wind damage from any storm in history"). Darren23Edits 23:03, June 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Darren, Boniie was pretty damging, but it did not destory the US economy. Gustav postponed the crappy Rebulcian covention, and Ike worsened the econmy problem. Again, the media DOES NOT retire names. The media went nuts about Bill 09 and earl 10, but it was not retried. I hate to dissgree with you, but Bonnie 98 cuased 1 billion in damage. That is not minimal, I think there is a chance of a Bonnie or Dolly-type storm this year. YE 23:38, June 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have had enough. I've just had all I can take. I suggest this topic stop, and we wait until the season progresses. We have absolutely no idea what season we will have in this year. For all we know, we may have a trainload of storms in this year like we did last year but at the same time no U.S. landfalls. So I suggest we all shut the f**k up, and wait until the season progresses. Darren, you have absolutely no idea we will have a bad season. Yes I am aware of the long period of time we have gone without hurricanes, but per what happened last year, you can never know what will happen. 76% was exactly the same pecentage CSU put on us last year, and we had no hurricanes hit us even. So I suggeset you, Yqt, YE, and everyone else just withdraw from this discussion and wait until the season progresses. You have no idea what season we will have, and neither do I, YE, Yqt, or anyone. We may have gone a long time without U.S. hurricanes, but you can not say the streak will end this year, or next year, and know about it before it happens. Period. I suggest this topic stop, and we wait until September, because as of now, I can't take this anymore, nor will I tolerate it. Ryan1000 23:52, June 26, 2011 (UTC)

Alirght, let's switch the topic. How does the EPAC look so far? The month of June has been epic, not as good as 2010 though. YE Tropical Cyclone 00:00, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Pretty good if you ask me. Yes, we had Darby at this time last year, but I don't think we will have a no storm July, October and November, and just two storms in August and one in September. I think we're doing pretty good so far. We weren't as active as 2010 was this time last year, but I do think we will catch up to them or go ahead of them at some point in 2011, and the WPac has more storms right now than they had at the end of August last year. The Atlantic will kick into gear later. Ryan1000 00:09, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the baisns are definatley allive. How many storms will we have during the enxt two weeks? I think we will have Calvin. YE Tropical Cyclone 00:14, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd think him and Dora, Arlene in the Atlantic, 2 more WPac storms. Ryan1000 00:27, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ill go with Calvin, Arlene, and another wPAC storm. YE Tropical Cyclone 00:30, June 27, 2011 (UTC)

I would think this will be the most active year in hurricane Wiki history, if not certainly one of the most active at the rate we are going. I am expecting a lot of activity in all of the basins, but not like 2005 everywhere. My thoughts on worldwide activity are as follows: In addition to that prediction, I am also expecting 3-6 retired storm names worldwide. Ryan1000 20:56, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Atlantic:12-16 named storms, 6-9 hurricanes, 3-5 major hurricanes and one category 5.
 * Eastern Pacific: 9-16 named storms, 5-8 hurricanes, 2-4 majors and no category 5's.
 * Western Pacific: 17-24 storms, 10-15 typhoons, 5-8 major typhoons and 2 category 5's.
 * North Indian: 1-3 named storms and 0 or 1 hurricane-strength storms, no majors and no cat 5's.
 * Southern Hemisphere: 16-24 storms, 11-17 hurricane-strength storms, 5-9 majors and 1 category 5.
 * Worldwide Number: 79-89 storms, 41-51 hurricanes, 16-26 major hurricanes and 3-6 category 5's.

We don't have much time, but I predict another tropical wave by July 1 (a.k.a. Canada Day). Andrew444 02:18, June 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Quick scan at the models reveal no EPAC activity and an area of interest near the Carolinas (a trough split) by the end of next week probably. Darren23Edits 04:30, June 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt the EPac quiet will last through the entire month of July like it did last year... And I personally can't see Bret coming out of the North Carolina trough. We'll see about that though. Ryan1000 14:58, June 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * The models seem to like developing the split, and the conditions aren't bad for a storm to form there..but I'm doubting it too. Yqt1001 16:41, June 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * When it comes to activity, we may never truly see a trend... The last active cycle began in the 1930's or so. We had a very active period of hurricanes from the '30's going into the 1940's, 1950's, and through the early to mid 60's, and then in the 1970's we had a slowdown in activity, then came a few years where everywhere was dead, like 1977 or 1979, and in the 1980's and the 1st half of the 1990's, the Atlantic was dead but the Pacific was rocketing in activity, and then in 1995 we went onto another active period in the Atlantic again. I think the majority of the activity came from the activity in the Saharan Air Layer. In the late 1970's, 1980's and early 1990's, we had a drought in the Saharan Desert, but it wasn't any ordinary drought. It was a drought with tons of long periods of dry weather and the monsoon rains didn't arrive. That's what killed nearly 2 million people from starvation in Africa, and during that time, the monsoon trough in the Eastern Pacific exploded. We just had storm after storm, and a few seasons almost ran the table. 1992, the most active season on record there, was the only one that truly did. 1983 also did that, but only to the W name at that time. In the period from 1995 to 2010, we had Opal, Fran, Bret, Charley, Ivan, Jeanne, Dennis, Katrina, Rita, and Wilma - 10 major hurricanes hit the united states. That averages to about 2 every 3 years, and although not making landfall as major hurricanes, Bertha of 1996, Georges of 1998, Floyd of 1999, Isabel of 2003, Frances of 2004, and Ike and Gustav of 2008, were very strong category 2 storms that certainly had the impacts of major hurricanes(Particularly Ike), wheras from 1979 to 1994, only 6 major hurricanes hit the U.S: Frederic of 1979, Allen of 1980, Alicia of 1983, Elena of 1985, Hugo of 1989, and Andrew of 1992. That is a little more than once every three years. Also, Hurricanes David, Gloria, and Bob, while not actually being major hurricanes at their U.S. landfalls, certainly had the impacts of them. It goes to show the active cycle isn't any better, but we are actually getting much less storms worldwide in the AMO then we were in the PMO because the Pacific accounts for more activity than the Atlantic does, and the Atlantic can't make up for that, no matter how active it is. Last year is a really good example of that. Ryan1000 17:57, June 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * You really think we will see NO July activity in 2011, Darren. 2011 PHPs is not like the 2010 PHS, environmental conditions are much more favorable for development, waters are very warm, slightly above average. Shear is no too bad either. BTw, Ryan, it is called the PDO not the PMO. YE Tropical Cyclone 19:34, June 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought it was Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation, just like MJO, the Madden-Julian Oscillation. July hasn't even begun yet, but a repeat of a 2010 July here in the EPac is next to impossible. Saying there will be no storms this July in the EPac is like saying there will be no storms this August in the Atlantic basin. Ain't gonna happen, Charlie. Just ain't. I think we will have 3-4 storms this July in the EPac with one hurricane(possibly a major), and possibly one or two July storms in the Atlantic. Keep in mind July usually isn't the most active month, and it's still barely the beginning here, yet alone in the Atlantic, I hope we don't get a bad season upon us here, but it all depends on what happens. Just because we can forecast a higher chance of retirement or damages doesn't mean it will happen. Last year was probably the best example. We had a 76% chance of a Major hurricane hitting the U.S, but we didn't even get a hurricane to hit the U.S. last year. The 76% chance is put on us again this year, but I personally have no idea if we will even get anything in the U.S. this year. Last year taught me two things: 1) you can never judge the activity of the entire season based on an early or slow start, but rather wait until it actually progresses, and 2) you can never, and I repeat never, be able to accurately forecast how many U.S. landfalls, or landfalls period, we will have in the season. We may have a "higher chance" of landfalls, but even very active seasons can have no U.S. landfalls, or very little impact from the storms that do affect the U.S, or any land for that matter. Last year was bad for other places, but the U.S. got lucky again. In the same way, quiet years can still be very devastating via 1992. Ryan1000 20:11, June 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we will see a storm in the EPAC next week, if not the week after. By late July, I will be surprised if we are not on the "D" name. By the middle of July, we are getting towards the peak of hurricane season, and you can probably tell how active a season will be in in early August.YE Tropical Cyclone 20:34, June 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * By the end of July, I personally would look forward to Eugene in the EPac, possibly Fernanda, and in the Atlantic I have a feeling we will be at Bret, possibly Cindy, or if we really want to take our time, no July storms. Not completly impossible, but it's not very likely either. Also, I expect about 3 or 4 WPac storms in the month. Ryan1000 20:49, June 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * By August 1, I think the EPac will get somewhere between Dora and Greg, the Atlantic will get somewhere between Cindy and Franklin, Pewa in the CPac, and at least 3 WPac storms. Andrew444 01:56, July 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I certainly think a major hurricane will hit the U.S. We have gone FIVE years now (not counting 2011, since we haven't really begun) without a MH landfall. It's time. I hope those people still know what to do. And the US MH landfalls seem to be declining! For example, since 1990, Florida has been really lucky. Only FOUR majors have hit them in the past twenty years (Andrew, Charley, Jeanne, and Wilma), versus before 1969, a major hit like, almost every year!! It's so weird! If we go another year without a major, I will freak out!! Andrew444 02:37, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't been paying attention to this but I need to say 1 thing. I never said that there would be no storms in July!!. For god's sake, I just said a quick scan of the hurricane models revealed that they weren't developing anything in EPAC. That being said, I expect 2-3 storms in EPAC and the same in ATL. Remember, just because we're in a neutral year, doesn't mean that EPAC activity is going to be that great, or that ATL conditions aren't favorable. Remember that we only transitioned to Neutral a few weeks ago, and it takes months for conditions to change. That's just my warning. Also, conditions in WPAC are going to be unfavorable due to the unfavorable (I forgot if it was upward or downward) MJO conditions that will occur through at least July 15. And btw, ECMWF develops a storm in EPAC about 96hrs. Darren23Edits 03:27, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Darren, settle down. I know that the ATL we have a busy season, probably around 15-16 NS. Neutral years tend to bring average to below average years (i.e. 2008, 2005, 2000, and 2001) Not El Nino quality, but ok. Darren, can we stop this argument as it do not want us to become enemies again. You are a good person, yet we still have arguments all the time. Thank you. YE Tropical Cyclone 03:47, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't want to make any arguments about anything, but we really can't know anything there. The MJO may not be in favor of the WPac right now, but keep in mind the WPac is still usually the most active basin worldwide, and the MJO will likely return there for an explosion of activity later. The Atlantic may get a storm or two in July(or a no-storm July), because July is still not the most active month on average. Usually during the month in the Atlantic, July sees a storm about twice every 3 years or so, so I wouldn't be surprised if we get no storms, if not one, but it's not something you can expect. 2005 has the all-time record, but we aren't going to take this year for any comparisons to 2005. I think the EPac will be near normal to slightly below normal, like say 2008. The Atlantic will likely have a near-normal season, but as I mentioned above, we can't know how many bad U.S. storms we will have or anything. I really lost a lot of trust with U.S. landfall accuracy last year from CSU or NOAA, because we had a 76% chance of a U.S. major hurricane last year, but no hurricanes hit us even, despite having 12 hurricanes in the entire season and 19 named storms total. I personally think that last year was just a really active version of 2006. The Bermuda High was far enough out so sea to redirect all of the hurricanes out to sea, and other storms hit further south in Mexico or the Caribbean(or Canada like Igor), but not the U.S. I do not know anything of what this season will bring, and no one else does either. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens throughout 2011 and in the end, find out who was right, and who was wrong, in everything. Ryan1000 04:01, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with year in everything except the ATL will be slightly above average, not near normal and that you COULD make seaosn landfall predictions, but its not very accurate. I don' have any idea what will occur this seaosn we just hope it causes little damage. Neither do the experts, neither does my mother, neither does you Darren. YE Tropical Cyclone 04:41, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I think a near-normal season may come upon us, or slightly above normal, but a 2010-type season isn't going to happen. The Atmospheric conditions just aren't in the cards for that. I think we may have a 2002-like season more than anything(I hope). Near-normal to slightly above normal. Anywhere from 11-14 storms, not that far above normal, about 5-8 hurricanes, 2-4 majors and at least one category 5, since we haven't had one in 4 years. Ryan1000 05:26, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * You're being awfully conservative Ryan. Aren't the average predictions at ~16 storms, ~9 hurricanes and ~5 majors? Anyways, I still stick at my predictions (which is similar to the average). We learned last year that June and July mean nothing for the year as a whole. Let's not forget that this year. Yqt1001 07:14, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * A 2008-type season is probrably what most forecasts are leading to, but I don't think we will be as bad as that year. We never know, but an a-1995-2005 normal season(15-8-4) is what many people would believe. I think we will lean towards there as well, but the impacts might not be as bad. For example, the 1887 Atlantic hurricane season was one of the most active ever, but relativley few storms that year were notable outside of time of formation or location of landfall. The impact that year was rather light despite the number of named storms and hurricanes. In the same way, 1992 had tons of impact(Andrew), but very few storms overall. 2010 was a very active season, but although the U.S. got lucky, the entire season had ~11 billion in damage(or less), despite no U.S. landfalls. This year is one to watch out for, especially for the U.S, but per what happened last year, you never know. Ryan1000 14:42, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * The S2k average was 15-8-4, and I'm gonna wit that. YE Tropical Cyclone 15:06, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ryan: You know last year doesn't really look like 2006. I've always compared 2010 to 1995 and 1996. Both had significant MDR activity. Darren23Edits 15:34, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Darren, I said 2010 was a very active version of 2006. 2010 and 2006 had similar backrounds in terms of the troughs and placement of the Bermuda High, but the main difference is 2006 was a strong El Nino, and 2010 was a strong La Nina, and the main development region was much more active in 2010. 1995 and 2010 had similar backrounds as well, but another thing I mentioned last year is 1995 is 4th place in the top 10 highest ACE Atlantic hurricane seasons, and 2010's ACE was nowhere close to the top 10; it's more similar to 2008's. 2008 had an ACE about 20 lower than 2010, but because 2010 had 3 more storms and 4 more hurricanes than 2008, it makes a bit more sense to compare it to 2008 ACEwise than 1995. Also, 1995 had 3 U.S. landfalling hurricanes(counting Marilyn in the U.S. Virgin Islands), in addition to Erin and Opal in Florida. 2008 was the third most destructive hurricane season in history, with roughly 47.5 billion, barely ahead of 1992's 45 billion(inflated at the time in 2008) and very close to 2004's 50 billion, but far behind 2005's 128 billion. 1995 did have about the same extent of damage and impacts that 2010 had, so if you are looking at damage and deaths, 1995 is a good comparison, but comparing by ACE(which you said was important last year), you're mistaken big time. If 2006 or 2009 had, by some miracle like 2004, reached the same number of named storms and hurricanes that 2010 had, they would be better comparisons to 2010 than 1995 would've. Ryan1000 15:49, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW: 2010 was 12th (11th by the NHC). The thing about 2010 is the ACE/storm was only like 8.6. This is much less than the 18.7 of 1950, and less than the 11.9 by 1995 and 12.7 by 2006. But 2010 had the same ACE/storm as 2005. Heck, even 08 had a higher ACE/storm than 2010. The big difference between 2010 and 95 was we didn't have a major after September, our October hurricanes were short lived and the non-MDR storms were... failures. Darren23Edits 16:20, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I was trying to point out something like, 2010 had an ACE of 165. 2006 had an ACE of 78.5. If you take 10/19 of the ACE of 2010(proportionally by named storms), you get 86.8, which is rather similar to 2006's ACE, just a little higher. If you take 1950's ACE in proportion to the number of named storms that year, you would get an ACE of 523.3 in a 2005-level season. The most hyperactive tropical cyclone season ever was the 1997 Pacific typhoon season. We had 10 category 5 storms that year, an all-time record for the West Pacific, and Bing came up just short at 155 mph. We had back to back to back storms in the WPac(Ivan, Joan, and Keith) with a 3-way tie for the second strongest storm ever recorded, all of them had 872 mbars. Ivan and Joan were both Category 5's at the same time, essentially being twins. Ivan and Joan were the first of only two known occurences of simultaneous category 5's in the same basin on record. Only Ron and Susan of the following South Pacific cyclone season did so again on January 2 1998. The ACE of the 1997 PTS was 594.11. That ACE is higher than the ACE of many entire worldwide tropical cyclone seasons in the past. The ACE per storm in 1997's PTS was 18, which isn't quite as high as 1950's AHS ACE per storm, but in terms of overall numbers, that is quite remarkable. The ACE for Atlantic hurricane seasons doesn't always correspond with activity. The 1893 season is another example. 231 was the ACE that year. For a season with only 13 storms like 1950, that would proportionally be an ACE of 497.5 in a similar season with the same number of storms that the 2005 season had. 2010 had a downright horrible ACE, but it is more comparable to 1995 in terms of the damages and deaths reported throughout the season. I'm basically taking the ACE of other Atlantic seasons and using them as boxes(ACE by named storms) in comparison to other active seasons by named storms that otherwise weren't very active ACEwise. Ryan1000 16:38, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * In the ATL, the patterns of 2006 and 2010 were similar. Btw, worldwide, no things were much more active in 2006 than 2010. But 2010 and 2006 PHS were anything, but similar. YE Tropical Cyclone 16:51, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, worldwide there were 80 storms in 2006. There were only 68 storms worldwide in 2010. 2010 is only second to 1977(which had 60 storms worldwide), as the least active worldwide season on record. There were 19 storms in the 2006 PHS and only 8 in 2010, a record-low number. There were 26 storms in the 2006 PTS and only 14 in 2010, again a record low number. There were 20 storms in the Atlantic in 2010(if you count Anita, the SAtl storm in March), which is double the number in 2006's AHS. There were 3 NIO storms, which were Mala, Mukda, and Ogni. There were also 22 SHem storms in 2006, vs the 21 in 2010. 2010 was so much less active because the Pacific was knocked out. The Pacific accounts for the majority of the activity worldwide and per what happened last year, the Atlantic just can't make up for the Pacific, no matter how active they are. If the Atlantic had the same number of storms that 2006 had in 2010, we would have smashed 1977's record low. ACEwise, I have no idea what 2011 will bring based on what i've seen now; 1950 didn't begin until the end of the first week of August and we still got 8 major hurricanes, an all-time atlantic record and the second highest ACE ever known in the Atlantic. The 2011 AHS had a promising start with Arlene, which formed in June, but last year at this time we were a little ahead of that with Alex and 4 EPac storms, not to mention we only had two typhoons in this month last year in the WPac, and had record-low activity there overall. Ryan1000 17:08, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, idk where this thing is gonna come from, but models are developing an EPAC storm in 72 hours. CMC (obviously) has it, GFS has something, um, Euro has it forming, NGP has it, and UKMET has it. Darren23Edits 21:33, July 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Link please? YE Tropical Cyclone 22:34, July 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * here and here. Darren23Edits 23:20, July 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * here and here. Darren23Edits 23:20, July 3, 2011 (UTC)

===Worldwide activity discussion (continued pt. 2)Edit=== The AoI is officially on TWO. HurricaneSpin Talk to me 23:42, July 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * We're doing fine in the tropics. Compared to last year, we have had 30 storms at this time in 2010, and we have had 24 thus far this year. However, August and September are yet to come, and we may still get to an active year worldwide if those two months get up and running. Until then, the tropics will sleep in July and early August, like they did last year at this time, and two years ago at this time as well. We may get fewer edits here during that time as well. =( Ryan1000 03:10, July 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * There is an tropical wave just east of Venezuela, the TAFB is projecting it to move off of South America in the 72-120 hours range. As soon as it does, a surface low could develop. This could become Calvin if the one we have right now doesn't (which looked even more disorganized than yesterday). BTW, does Hurricane Wiki has an official IRC chatroom? If not we should get one. Just a suggestion. HurricaneSpin Talk to me 22:24, July 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * The section is too long, I made this so we can hit that edit tool quicker. Anywho... if Calvin devolpes and this wave becomes Dora, we're really starting. Andrew444 22:58, July 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure is easier just to click on the edit button. Anyways, going with the IRC idea, should we have an IRC channel of this wiki? It's a lot faster to type stuff and you can see who is online. The is no edit conflicts either. I mean, this is a wiki, right?. Any comments would be welcome. HurricaneSpin Talk to me 23:17, July 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * "DIVERGING FLOW ALONG W COAST OF CENTRAL MEXICO ENHANCING SCATTERED CONVECTION FROM 19N TO 24N. ABUNDANT TROPICAL MOISTURE IS ALONG MONSOON TROUGH E OF 110W AND SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE CONDITIONS ALOFT MAY INDUCE WEAK TROPICAL LOWS TO FORM WITHIN THE TROUGH. GFS AND EUROPEAN MODELS ONLY HINT AT ONE OR TWO WEAK CIRCULATION DEVELOPING OVER THE NEXT 2-3 DAYS... BUT AN APPROACHING TROPICAL WAVE FROM WRN CARIBBEAN MIGHT BE THE ONLY POTENTIAL FOR CYCLOGENESIS AT THIS POINT." Sounds to me like they're giving up on that AOI. 1 more thing: Look how crazy high the African monsoon trough is. I have not seen the Monsoon trough that high up in the Sahel. What this will do is add more rainfall to the Sahel, limiting the SAL (which killed many potential storms last year) and allow tropical waves to leave Africa in a much higher latitude. That, with a Bermuda high further west than last year, increases a risk of an active and dangerous Cape Verde season. Just a fair bit of warning...Darren23Edits 23:42, July 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * We may never truly know what we will have in store for us this season... And although we got lucky in last year's season, that does not mean we will have a bad year this year as well. This year we have only had a light start with Arlene, but the U.S. landfall part is never a certainty, and keep in mind, it's only July, still not the peak of 2011 yet. August, September and October are the all-time record months for activity, followed by July, November, and June. The Caribbean may not get so lucky, like they didn't last November with Tomas, but the U.S. has gotten a little too lucky for their own good. We will likely have a 2008 or 2004 like season in terms of numbers, but in terms of damages, you never know, and I would hope we get a big storm to hit us, just to make sure hurricanes can still be dangerous to U.S. citizens even after a long time of luck. Ever since Wilma, the only big storms for the U.S. were Ike and Gustav. And since them, nothing. About the IRC thing, I personally don't think it's the best idea because there never is enough on Hurricane Wiki, regardless of the number of edits. Even so, comments and opinions are already welcome here, and have been for 5 years(counting this one). I don't see the point of having two different pages for hurricane Wiki. It makes sense on Wikipedia, but not so much here. Ryan1000 03:00, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the EPac is starting up again with (Calvin), and then we may have further activity from there. Ryan1000 01:34, July 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, in that case, there is a chatroom on freenode I know. People on there, chat about hurricanes in general all the time. It's at ##hurricanes. - HurricaneSpin (Talk) 19:01, July 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well... Tropical Depression Three-E is here, so the N. Hemisphere is taking a breath at TC's. Andrew444 19:52, July 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * TD 3-E won't likely get past a minor TS, and after that we're falling into a slumber for some time. By the time August comes around, it's wake-up time for the tropics, but July is a rather silent month for worldwide activity. Ryan1000 20:12, July 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * While hurricane Calvin weakens, a monsoon though follows behind (now south of Guatemala). Whether it forms or not, the eastern Pacific is going to die down after that. I agree with Ryan, by the time August comes around, it's time for the wave train. As of now, there is Calvin, a 1010 surface low in the Gulf, tropical wave over Hispaniola, one just off of Trinidad and Tobago, another south of the Cape Verdes that we might have to watch out in the near future. - HurricaneSpin (Talk) 20:27, July 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * While hurricane Calvin weakens, a monsoon though follows behind (now south of Guatemala). Whether it forms or not, the eastern Pacific is going to die down after that. I agree with Ryan, by the time August comes around, it's time for the wave train. As of now, there is Calvin, a 1010 surface low in the Gulf, tropical wave over Hispaniola, one just off of Trinidad and Tobago, another south of the Cape Verdes that we might have to watch out in the near future. - HurricaneSpin (Talk) 20:27, July 8, 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. This might change people's minds about activity this year and next year: "However, over the last couple of weeks, forecasts created by the NCEP Climate Forecast System (CFS) have begun to indicate the re-emergence of La Niña during Northern Hemisphere fall 2011 (Fig. 7). Combined with the recent weakening of the positive subsurface ocean anomalies and the lingering La Niña state of the atmosphere, the possibility of a return to La Niña during the Northern Hemisphere fall 2011 has increased over the past month." That's from the CPC ENSO discussion issued 7/7. That's sort of worrisome for this year and next year. Darren23Edits 02:30, July 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Models have it leveling off after December, and going back to be Neutral (as if last check) here. In a sense 2012 reminds me of 2009. YE Tropical Cyclone 03:41, July 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * No, most models actually just leave it at Neutral. The point I'm trying to make is we are not going to El Nino anytime soon. I really doubt that we'll stay in neutral for long. I have a feeling we will transition back to La Nina by Spring 2012. Darren23Edits 04:22, July 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Historically, it is rare for ENSO to go back to La Nina after being La Nina after being Neutral and La Nina. In fact, I have a felling that we will have an EL Nino in 2012, and a MONSTER EPac season. However. my epic predictions in the betting poll won't happen, it was intended as a joke. :P YE Tropical Cyclone 04:31, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

It's rare, but breaking rarities are commonplace in meteorology. It happened in 2000. It turned neutral from Nina in MJJ 2000 then went back to Nina SON 2000. Usually, they stay at neutral or transition to the other side. But now there seems to be something that will make this one different. I do believe that if we do transition to Nino, it won't do much for EPAC except add 3 or 4 storms (like what 09 did). Nothing above and beyond, just slightly above average. Darren23Edits 04:53, July 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * You are correct, EL Nino adds only 3 to 4 storms (2009 added 3 storms from 2008 and 2006 added 4 storms from 2005) to the season. the major difference between a EL Nino and neutral season is the intensity. 2002 had less activity than 2003, but 2002 had 3 Cat 5's. 2003 did not have a single MH. The most damaging storm also tends to occur during El Nino (i.e. Kenna 02, Pauline 97, Nora 97, Jimena 09, Lane 06). YE Tropical Cyclone 13:16, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious that El Nino increases the chance of strong hurricanes. But how many Cat 5's have we had in EPAC? How many (real) retired names have we had in EPAC? And also think about it this way. And you've got to be kidding me when you said the max sustained winds are gonna be 120 mph. I think you're forgetting we're in the active Atlantic period, and that ain't changing anytime soon. Even 1997 had Erica and it was a strong El Nino! Darren23Edits 15:00, July 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Since 1990, we have a had crap load of Cat 5's three in 1994, two in 1997, three in 2002, one in 2006 and 2009. That's a total of 10. They were probably Cat 5's during the 1980's. The EPHC just never upgraded them. Look at 1987 PHS's Max or the 1983 PHS's Tico. YE Tropical Cyclone 15:20, July 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Or you can make the shocking argument that they weren't Cat 5's at all... Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is El Nino or not, EPAC is still not going to be impressive. Darren23Edits 16:31, July 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, not always... Last year and the year before have had category 5 hurricanes and we were lucky Rick headed out to sea. If Rick had picked up the trough earlier when it was a cat. 5, we could have seen a Kenna or Pauline repeat in western Mexico. Agatha last year was responsible for hundreds of deaths and over 1 billion in damage(but somehow it wasn't retired), and 2002 had only 12 storms in an El Nino, but 6 major hurricanes and 3 category 5 storms. The only official retired names due to impact from the EPac proper have occured since, surprise surprise, 1995. Ismael, Pauline and Kenna were all retired due to their effects on Mexico. Alma was retired by Costa Rica, but likely because it was an inappropriate name(Soul), and not realy due to it's damage or deaths. Before 1995 we had no retired names due to impact in the EPac proper, except for the mystery ones(Hazel 1965, Adele 1970, Fico 1978, Knut 1987, Iva 1988, and Fefa 1991(and Adolph 2001)... I don't count them as retired because they were removed for other reasons than impact). It would have been better to retire other storms like Tara 1961, Liza 1976, or Tico 1983, all killed over 100 people in Mexico and none of them were retired. In the Central Pacific, Iwa and Iniki were retired due to their destruction in Hawaii, Paka was retired due to the damage it did on Guam, and Ioke was retired as well, but the CPHC requested Ioke to be retired because the name had no true Hawaian meaning; Ioke would have been retired even if it didn't affect land like Hali of 1992 became replaced with Hene. You can consider Ioke as "retired" due to the damage it caused on Wake Island and Johnston Atoll, but it was retired due to the fact it didn't mean anything. The first retired name in the EPac/CPac basin was Iwa of 1982, due to it's damage on Hawaii, then 10 years later in 1992, Iniki joined Iwa, but the EPac didn't recieve any retired names due to impact until they were knocked into an inactive period in 1995, surprisingly. In terms of cat. 5's, we have had only 14 category 5 hurricanes recorded in the EPac since 1959. However, it is very possible we had additional category 5's before 1959, but because most pacific hurricanes never affect land, they were never recognized. However, 8 of those 14 category 5's have occured since 1995. We had Guillermo and Linda in 1997, Elida, Hernan, and Kenna in 2002, Ioke in 2006, Rick in 2009, and Celia in 2010. Before 1995, we had Patsy and the Mexico hurricane in 1959, Ava of 1973, and Emilia, Gilma and John of 1994. We can't really see a trend with this, since we have had more category 5 Pacific hurricanes since 1995 than before that, and we had all of our EPac retired names due to impact since 1995 as well. We had 4 retired EPac names in a time period of 16 years - that averages to one name being retired every 4 years. And before 1995, when the Pacific went nuts, there were no category 5's in the late 1970's, 1980's, and early 1990's, and no retired names due to impact. Ryan1000 17:35, July 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * The lack of Cat 5's in the EAPC during the 1980's is a human error IMO. I am 85% sure that Max 87 was a cat 5, and it is possible that Rick 85 was a Cat 5 as well as a few other systems. Even since 1995, their were a few storms that should have been retired like Norbert 08, Jimena 09, Lane 06, and Nora 97. YE Tropical Cyclone 18:27, July 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * It wasn't an error in intensity; it was just sheer dumb unluck in the EPac. 1992 was the most active EPac season in history, but there wasn't a single category 5 storm in that year, despite having 27 named storms, 16 hurricanes, 10 majors, and 7 category 4's, counting Iniki. In the case of Nora, Kathleen of 1976 caused more damage due to flooding in California than Nora at the time, 150 million 1976 U.S. dollars vs 100 million 1997 dollars. Norbert and Lane both caused more damage than Kenna, but as I said earlier, the retirement chances of a storm really depend on how many problems the storm causes as a whole in the country affected. Lane and Norbert were localized storms in the places they hit and the damage associated with them was from inland agricultural damage more than coastal structural damage. Kenna knocked out communications, destroyed popular beach resorts, and caused a large ammount of problems in the entire country of Mexico as a whole, which is why Mexico decided to retire her. Most of Kenna's damage was non-agricultural. As I said earlier, Bonnie of 1998 was largely a localized storm in North Carolina. Despite causing a billion dollars in damage(mostly structural and not agricultural), it wasn't a big problem for the entire U.S, but just for North Carolina. Lili of 2002 also did that much damage, but it caused many more problems for the U.S. than Bonnie did. That's why it became retired and not Bonnie. Not to say the media didn't pay attention to Kenna more than Lane and Norbert; all of them got lots of coverage, but in the end, Kenna caused many more problems for Mexico than Lane and Norbert did. Ryan1000 19:22, July 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Can't we move this section to its own page? The discussion's not really a PHS centered thing and moving it might attract more people to the discussion (I mean really, I'm positive this isn't the most read forum). Darren23Edits 20:21, July 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Dareen, I hate to tell you this but you are wrong. This page has had 590 changes made while the ATL forum had 389 changes. I highly doubt if we moved this to the ATL forum it won't attract any more people. Nobody edits this wikia anymore. YE Tropical Cyclone 20:41, July 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think he meant its own page, like Forum:Worldwide activity discussion. - HurricaneSpin (Talk) 20:44, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

Changes doesn't mean a thing. Notice when I said reading. Darren23Edits 20:46, July 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Moving it to the ALT forum is pointelss since this forum is the most active on Hurricane Wiki. And as such, it deserves the WAD. It is unlikely that it will attrack more people. YE Tropical Cyclone 20:54, July 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the most active, but it's not the most read. Trust me, if the Atlantic develops more, it will be much, much more active than this ever will be, like it always does here. Anyway, we should move it to it's own discussion as here, it's unlikely to attract new people into the discussion. Darren23Edits 21:00, July 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * How about this, when the ALT forum becomes the most active on hurricane wiki, we will move the discussion there. That's a compromise. Well, anyway, do you guys see anything develop in the ATL/EPAC over the next two weeks. YE Tropical Cyclone 21:05, July 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Darren that this should be its own page, but back when I suggested it get its own forum page everyone disagreed with me. I think that if this stays here, next year it should be on the WPac page. Also I don't see much happening in the next 2 weeks, though that might be me hoping nothing does so I don't miss it. Yqt1001 21:07, July 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * I could see it on it's own page, but I'd rather have it here. Just don't move it to ATL forum. YE Tropical Cyclone 21:15, July 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * As a side not, come on IRC at ##hurricanes. The link is here. YE Tropical Cyclone 21:23, July 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be bad with moving it to the Atlantic forum, but no one cares about the Atlantic forum so much, not now at least. For god's sake, we had only Arlene thus far there and we have had 3 hurricanes and one major here. I agree with YE in this case, if we make the "worldwide activity discussion" on the Atlantic basin forum, I highly doubt it will get lots of attention. Everyone is bored here. Everyone looking at the Atlantic forum is just waiting until something big happens in the AHS this year, like a giant U.S. major hurricane. We had just one TS thus far this year in the North Atlantic, and although it got much attention, no one exept I, YE, Darren, Andrew, and Yqt were there to talk about Arlene, pretty much. Back in 2007 and 2008, we had so many more people here; let's see... We had 2007Astro'sHurricane, Squarethecircle, Jake52, SkyFury, Cyclone1(retired now), IP(also retired), Ailbero, and Guillame-Herbert Jodin(both retired now as well, I think), in addition to a ton of other IP users. If we moved this to the Atlantic forum, we wouldn't get a lot of activity in that discussion because there is nothing to talk about, and we don't want to have any bustcasting like what happened last year. What's the point of it, I'm saying? I highly doubt this discussion will go on as long as it has here if it's put on the north Atlantic forum, unless we get a big storm this season. If we get very few U.S. landfalls this year, or very little impacts as a whole, we will not have many visitors to this wiki. I'll be willing to move this there if we agree on it, but we need to discuss this issue on the IRC first. Ryan1000 21:39, July 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay everyone, I have a solution. I think we should have a table made like this for the worldwide forums. How do you like it? Ryan1000 22:37, July 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * {| border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" style="width: 500px"

WAD
 * Monthly Archives:
 * Pre-season-June
 * July-August
 * September
 * October
 * November-December
 * Storm event archives:
 * N. Atlantic
 * E. Pacific
 * W. Pacific
 * N. Indian
 * S. Hemisphere
 * N. Atlantic
 * E. Pacific
 * W. Pacific
 * N. Indian
 * S. Hemisphere
 * N. Indian
 * S. Hemisphere
 * }