Forum:2010 Atlantic hurricane season

AoI: North of Maracaibo
Associated with the outflow east of Matthew, but the GFS develops it into a full-fledged hurricane that hits Cuba, goes into Florida, re-enters the Caribbean, brings about another storm, and heads out into the Atlantic again! There are still more than two months left of the season, and that's plenty of time for some devastating storms to strike the Caribbean. 2007Astro&#39;sHurricane 18:07, September 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * There are currently two waves behind Matthew, but the closer wave will probrably just follow him into CA. This one, however, the third one in line, definitely bears watching. Stay tuned... Ryan1000 21:31, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

96L.INVEST
Nobody's posted this yet? Big system, predicted by models for the last week... up to 40% risk. I'll be surprised if Nicole doesn't come from this. --Patteroast 00:15, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, yea Pat, this thing is gonna run into that trough that's currently crossing Florida and run right into southern Cuba. I highly doubt this thing will turn out to be a horrible system, unless it explodes. NOW. That's not gonna happen in my book. This thing is gonna make a hit somewhere, but most likely not southern Florida. Ryan1000 03:03, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant big as in 'of a large size', nothing about strength. Unless you're saying that a possible tropical storm isn't worth posting about. :P And actually, most of the models do predict that it'll affect southern Florida. They also don't make it much more than a tropical storm (although GFDL makes it a ragged low-end hurricane into the Carolinas.) Either way, it's making a lot of rain right now, although that probably won't have much to do with the storm that comes out of it. Anyway... NHC's bumped it up to 60% risk. --Patteroast 06:06, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * At 80 percent this morning. A TD or a TS could form any time, the NHC says. --88.102.101.245 10:20, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we haven't seen a U.S. landfalling hurricane since Ike, we might as well have one now, first in 2 years and 2 weeks. We are a bit overdue for a U.S. hurricane, but even if it does affect south Florida directly, I'm not expecting it to get past category one or so. Might as well watch it... Ryan1000 11:34, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Tropical Depression Sixteen
up on RBT atomic 77 32 14:23, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * NRL too. (Which site is RBT? That's the one acronym that gets thrown around that isn't in my hurricane bookmark list...) This thing's track and intensity forecast remind me of Tammy of '05, although starting further south and probably going further north. The quick, wet tropical storm up the east coast of Florida is pretty similar to me. Jeff Masters over on Wunderground keeps comparing it to a monsoon low. --Patteroast 14:35, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * And on NHC. Tropical storm warnings for parts of Cuba, Florida, Bahamas, and Cayman Islands. Forecast to die before making it to the Carolinas.--Patteroast 15:39, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt I will see an explosion out of this poorly-organized depression. It will most likely nick up Florida's east coast and die out to sea. Nicole will not be very signifigant unless it organizes ASAP. Ryan1000 19:51, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, 'organized' is not a word I'd use to describe it right now. This is going to be one ragged system. --Patteroast 20:57, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Development will be slow. However over 6 inches of rain already fallen in some parts of Florida and Miami is under a tropical storm warning. The GFS spews out a chain of storms in the Caribbean to Gulf to open Atlantic and we could even have our W-storm before October ends. 2007Astro&#39;sHurricane 23:57, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * The GFS definitely spews out a ton of storms, but Sixteen looks like a monsoon depression that forms in the NIO. And the cold front over the east could develop something subtropical. HurricaneSpin 02:24, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, sixteen might not even become Nicole. There is virtually no convection around this storm's center, and it might not even become named. It will cause some minor flooding in south Florida and the Carolias, but I'm not expecting a major system out of this; it just crossed Cuba, but impacts were light there, and they probrably will be light for the U.S. too. Ryan1000 11:09, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Nicole
Been a tropical storm for a few. I can't believe this level of activity. Jake52 19:00, September 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, Jake, Nicole probrably isn't going to hit the U.S. as of now, but Nicole is the 8th storm to form in September in 2010's AHS, marking a 3-way tie for the most active ever recorded. In addition, 10 storms existed in September of this year, an all-time Atlantic record that not even 2004, 2005, or 2008 set. Oh, and, for the record, Nicole is a worthless piece of sh!t! Matter of fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the last advisory is issued later today. Ryan1000 20:40, September 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * NHC straight up lied about the center location of Nicole. The LLCC actually crossed the Florida Keys. It was not over Andros Island. Look at this picture. See that low-level swirl south of the Keys? That's the center. It's not over Andros Island. Now if I could pick this out, NHC sure as hell could. They didn't want people to freak out thinking the storm was going to hit them because NHC knew that due to the structure of the storm, Florida wasn't going to get much of anything despite the fact that the center was going to move right over them. There was no need for warnings or any of that, so they just moved the center. In fact, I recall a forecast discussion while Nicole was over Cuba where they said the center appeared to have relocated to the east. That was a lie. They just did it so they could drop the warnings for the Florida coast. A clever, if unprofessional, deception. You mark my words, in post-analysis, they'll move the center back. -- SkyFury 18:33, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

Post-tropical Nicole
Am I good, or am I just that good? Moments after I posted my above comment, the last advisory was issued. What an epic fail! Bye, Nicole! Ryan1000 20:59, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * I kind of half-expect Nicole to be reclassified as subtropical in post-analysis. It was a sorry excuse for a tropical system. --Patteroast 21:48, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nicole, after all, is just be a monsoon trough, I can't even tell exact center from satellite images anymore, but GFS shows it regenerating on October 2. HurricaneSpin 23:51, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nicole's remnants and precursor will produce a chain of moisture impacting the Carolinas to Pennsylvania. 2007Astro&#39;sHurricane 23:51, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Remnants are currently at 10% risk from NHC... risk of development as a subtropical system. More than likely there won't be development at all, though. --Patteroast 08:44, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

AoI: North of French Guiana
New wave that NHC's paying attention to. Only at 10% as of right now. --Patteroast 20:57, September 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * I DO NOT HAVE A GOOD FEELING ABOUT THIS VERY WAVE... It isn't much now, but when it gets into the Carribean, this thing could bomb out as one of the strongest October storms on record. There is no cold front directly behind the one currently crossing Florida, so the U.S. may definitely have to watch out for this wave. I have a terrible feeling about what this storm system will do... Stay tuned. Ryan1000 21:03, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems to be developing rather nicely. 2007Astro&#39;sHurricane 23:57, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * This system has become wider than the Caribbean! 2007Astro&#39;sHurricane 23:52, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * NHC is saying that this is going to hit unfavorable conditions soon, though. --Patteroast 08:45, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's gonna be able to get past the shear in the Carribean. By the time it reaches the southwestern Carribean, this thing will be out of the wind shear zone and by then, will likely begin developing, and then we will have to keep a close eye out for this thing. Now, it isn't gonna be worth much watching. Ryan1000 11:24, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * NHC has started giving this wave and the one behind it one risk percentage. --Patteroast 13:21, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

AoI: WSW of Cape Verde
NHC has another wave behind the other one. Also at 10% risk. --Patteroast 21:41, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Now at 20%. 2007Astro&#39;sHurricane 23:53, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

97L.INVEST
Hey, this has been invested.--Patteroast 08:49, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Up to 30% now. --Patteroast 13:22, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

...And Otto could be coming onto us now... Even so, if it develops this early, I would see it turning out to sea, like Julia and Danielle did. I guess it's worth watching anyways... Ryan1000 20:18, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like the two systems have merged. This is an absolutely huge system, hasn't even left the Main Development Region and could be only the first in a chain of Caribbean storms! Models bring this north of the Caribbean, on a track not unlike the one predicted for Gaston before it dissipated, and I think Haiti needs to watch out big-time. 2007Astro&#39;sHurricane 20:26, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * If this thing isn't named by the time it hits Haiti, then it won't be retired even if it does kill hundreds of people there. However, further down the highway to hell, this thing could hit the U.S; that fact would bear mentioning -- and watching. Stay tuned. Ryan1000 20:43, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems this wave has split up into an open trough as of now. This thing ran into that shear in the WCarribean, but I still could see this thing storming west and hitting the Carribean region by next week or so. It appears to have failed as of now, but this thing is not through with us yet. Stay tuned. Ryan1000 22:33, October 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this things till sitting over the Leeward Islands? 131.111.248.166 20:26, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup. Currently at 20% risk from NHC. --Patteroast 22:32, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, up to 40%. --Patteroast 00:24, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * And now up to 50%, now I have found the NHC website. 131.111.248.166 10:20, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, now it's 60%. --124.51.199.64 12:41, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * And up to 80%. I guess this thing took its time but... 131.111.248.166 20:43, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

...And it looks like Otto is here, everyone. However, the cold front that has stalled off of the east coast will hinder it's chances of hitting the U.S. mainland. Puerto Rico, Hispaniola, and the Virgin Islands had better watch out, though, as this thing isn't showing many sings of missing those areas... Stay tuned. Ryan1000 22:27, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * When it forms, it should be subtropical rather than tropical. But SS Otto is not bad, it bumps us to 15 with a few more weeks left, 19+ is still not out of the question. Darren 23 Edits 01:05, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Subtropical Depression Seventeen
Here we go! Forecast to become Otto, and then only one more to get to the never-used names this season. :) --Patteroast 10:35, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

EARLIER AMSU TEMPERATURE DATA ALSO INDICATED THAT A WEAK WARM CORE WAS LOCATED BETWEEN 600-400 MB...SUGGESTING THAT THE SYSTEM WAS NOT FULLY NOT FULLY TROPICAL. 


 * The NHC is creative this year, also with ... eh.. wording. --88.102.101.245 18:33, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Subtropical Storm Otto
Named! And still subtropical. --Patteroast 21:09, October 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it is forecast to turn tropical tomorrow, but either way, as I mentioned, it will probrably ride up along the cold front and stay out to sea, never to affect the U.S. However, also as I mentioned, Haiti and the DR may need to watch out for flooding and mudslides from this sad excuse of a storm. Stay tuned. We won't be hit, but that doesn't mean Otto won't do anything. Ryan1000 21:42, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * SATELLITE IMAGERY AND DATA FROM AN AIR FORCE RESERVE RECONNAISSANCE UNIT AIRCRAFT INDICATE THAT THE SUBTROPICAL DEPRESSION HAS CONTINUED TO BECOME BETTER ORGANIZED AND HAS STRENGTHEN INTO SUBTROPICAL STORM OTTO.
 * Ahh... I see... atomic 77 32 23:16, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Otto
Transition to tropical is complete. Forecast to reach hurricane strength. --Patteroast 15:11, October 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * And it isn't impossible it could explode into a category 4 hurricane or so while heading out to sea, like Hurricane Greta did in 1956. It won't affect any more land areas, but it isn't impossible it could become a major hurricane before it dies. Stay tuned anyways. Ryan1000 11:38, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

Hurricane Otto
11 am update on Otto is up. It's name is HURRICANE Otto. Jake52 14:47, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * And off it zooms to the Azores to turn extratropical. --Patteroast 03:04, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * For a little while it looked like maybe Otto would make it to category two, but it's past its peak now. --Patteroast 19:44, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Extratropical. --Patteroast 15:41, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

AoI: West Caribbean
A lot of the models want to spawn another system from the same place Nicole came from. Worth watching. --Patteroast 21:41, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * NHC's showing this at 10% now. The models have stopped predicting that it'll spit out a chain of systems, though. --Patteroast 01:13, October 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Long gone. --Patteroast 22:32, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

October
All quiet on the Western Front. 128.232.237.210 09:07, October 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Not for long it won't be. I can see something big coming out of the wave in the Carribean in about 3 or 4 days, but I just can't tell what... Don't let your guard down, everyone, this year could still be nasty as sh!t in October and November. Stay tuned. Ryan1000 20:07, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

AoI: Central Caribbean
A lot of the models want to spawn something major here, extreme ones shows it somewhat like Wilma, Mitch or Hattie. HurricaneSpin 03:19, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * NHC's showing this at 10% risk, now. --Patteroast 12:45, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * And it's saying it's moving southwards. That sounds a bit unusual. 131.111.248.166 21:13, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

98L.INVEST
Invest'd. The location's making me think of Martha from 1969... the models turn it back north, though. --Patteroast 03:07, October 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't like these small invests; these are the ones that are born in favorable conditions and explode into monster storms. There isn't an ounce of shear over this thing and it's in bathtub-warm water. The conditions are coming together for rapid intensification, and I shudder to think how the Carribean will look like 3 days from now... and further down the road, the southern U.S. Stay tuned. This one could be very bad... Ryan1000 14:59, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * The latest GFDL run is rather scary... it ends with a category three hurricane in the Yucatan Channel. As for right now, NHC's got it at 30% risk. --Patteroast 19:41, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Pat, i'm expecting a lot worse than some run-of-the mill category 3 storm. Given the incredibly favorable conditions in the Carribean, I wouldn't be surprised if I see a category 4 or even 5 storm out of this thing by the time it gets to the Yucatan. Who knows what it'll do from there... Keep your eyes out. This storm very well might be the monster storm of 2010 that I was fearing earlier... Ryan1000 20:31, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Holy crap, a few hours ago it was at 30%. Now I checked and it's at 60%! However, it's moving northwest-ish, so hopefully it'll run out of water before it can explode. Hopefully...
 * Um, in the northwest direction it's going, it will just miss the northern coast of Honduras and possibly explode north of there, or just before it gets there. It isn't in the same position as Ida or Beta, so it will have more time to bomb out. Keep a close eye on this one; it doesn't look so pretty... Ryan1000 12:36, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Has any agency(NRL, RBT, or NHC) called this thing a depression yet? From how it looks on the sattelites i'd be surprised if it isn't one very soon... Ryan1000 19:37, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, NHC's development risk went down slightly from 60% to 50%. I have to say, I'd be surprised if this doesn't become a depression sooner rather than later, though. --Patteroast 07:10, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Special TWO issued... Hurricane Hunters are en route to see if we've got a depression yet. NHC has the development risk at 80%. --Patteroast 17:46, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently they found something interesting... NHC now says it's "near 100%" and "...A TROPICAL STORM MAY BE FORMING NEAR THE NORTHEASTERN COAST OF HONDURAS. ADVISORIES WILL LIKELY BE INITIATED LATER THIS AFTERNOON..." Here comes Paula! --Patteroast 18:53, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

18L.EIGHTEEN
NRL's calling it Eighteen, and it sounds like NHC will start advisories soon. --Patteroast 18:56, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the NRL is using the Eighteen designation as a formality for now; several reports from recon and the best track are calling it Paula: the first storm ever in the Atlantic to get that name. When it's named, 2010 will tie for the fifth most active season with 1936, 2003, and 2008. Jake52 19:28, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know what 2010 will have for the rest of the season, but, to tell the truth, Mexico is getting hammered this season. We've had Alex and Karl thus far. Is Paula gonna be the third big hit? Geez... If Paula hits the Gulf coast of Mexico as a hurricane, this will be the first time 3 hurricanes have hit Mexico's Gulf coast in a single season. Man, they better start getting ready for this one. It could be as bad as Karl... or worse if it tracks further north into Tampico, having more time to strengthen... Ryan1000 19:48, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Paula
Straight to tropical storm status, and 60mph winds! Wasn't expecting that. Nobody really has a clue where this one is going to go either, do they? 131.111.248.166 20:42, October 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * Uh oh. This is not good... It may not hit Mexico directly in the near future; the current forecast brings it off of the Yucatan Peninsula as a stalling category one, but, as I mentioned earlier, given the extremely favorable conditions in the Caribbean, it could easily become a category 4 or 5 storm by the time it comes toward there, and could possibly pull a Wilma. The ridge over the southeast will probrably prevent a U.S. landfall, but man, Mexico just can't catch a break this year... It's only October 11 and this is exactly what 2008 ended at:16-8-5, and 4 category 4's. Wow. This year just won't stop comin', and Paula could be the worst storm thus far in 2010... Stay tuned, everyone. Ryan1000 21:44, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Winds up to 70 mph. The highest that the forecast and models are calling for right now is a peak at category two. Still, Paula's future's pretty wide open. Either way, she should be some sort of hurricane soon. --Patteroast 04:30, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

Hurricane Paula
Yup, according to the 9am advisory, but only barely. I really doubt this thing will get above a category 3 but given that nobody seems to know where it's going, I could regret having said that. 131.111.248.166 09:31, October 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, Paula may actually die without making a landfall, to tell the truth. The current forecast pulls it right offshore of Cozumel and Cancun as a hurricane, but after that, knocks it down to a TS by the time it passes south of western Cuba. Who knows where she"ll go from there... This thing needs to be watched, but it's gonna be hard to say what she"ll do in the next week. At least it isn't as bad as Mitch was-- there was uncertainty in Mitch's forecast, but uncertainty with a category 5 may turn out to be disasterous. And it was. Uncertainty with a storm like Paula may be better than what happened in 1998, but intensity forecasting with this storm is completly uncertain... Stay tuned. Ryan1000 11:07, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey! Paula's already a category two. Major hurricane status might not be out of the question after all! --Patteroast 18:42, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's starting to get real interesting for Cozumel. I think a near-major hurricane is more than they bargained for. Here's to hoping this doesn't turn ugly. -- SkyFury 20:07, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Damn it, Eric! You beat me to it. Well, this thing could still explode before it gets there and cause severe damage there, and I mean a category 4 explosion isn't out of the question... This storm is very small, like the size of Ida or Beta, smaller than Wilma, even. Keep an eye on this thing, it's not looking so pretty... Ryan1000 20:13, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * And Eric, Paula's track is becoming more and more uncertain... It appears the Yucatan might get off lucky in this storm, but this storm's track is very uncertain. If it slows down, it could take a sharp eastward turn and end up in Central Cuba. If it parallels southern Cuba, then it will weaken due to interaction with land and probrably be no worse than a Katrina (1981). If it picks up some steam, it could end up going northeast and hitting Florida as a hurricane, but probrably not a strong one. All in all, this thing will make for a very interesting next 48 hours... Ryan1000 01:11, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Storms are becoming weirder and weirder, fortunately. In fact, Bonnie was thought to be a major gulf spill threat, Earl a east coast major, Gaston a major hurricane in the Caribbean, Igor a Nicole hitting Florida hard, and here comes Paula. In Cancun, only trace amount were received at the airport and Paula already is turning east, with much of the gale force wind well offshore. What kind of trend is this? HurricaneSpin Talk to me  04:38, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like Paula's not getting above category two. NHC seems to feel much more confident in their forecasted path into and slowly across Cuba. Impacts on Cancun and Cozumel were essentially nil. --Patteroast 17:07, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, a U.S. landfall from Paula cannot be ruled out at this point. The NHC has issued tropical storm watches for south Florida due to the uncertainty that Paula could turn northeast instead of southeast. Even so, if Paula does hit south Florida, it probrably wouldn't be any stronger than the average category one or tropical storm there, and impacts probrably won't be severe all in all. In general, I finally say that Paula had scared us, but not killed us, or anyone in the Caribbean either. And about what you mentioned, HurricaneSpin, there is no particular trend here, but all I can say is we have had an extremely good run of luck. Almost every storm in 2010 could have been much worse than they had been. Alex could have hit south Texas had the ridge not strengthened at the last moment, Bonnie could have screwed up the guf coast had that ULL not been there, Colin died due to shear in the ATL and had that shear not been there, who knows what it could have done, Earl barely missed the east coast, Gaston somehow didn't come back to us when it was forecast to, Igor could have been much worse for Bermuda had it not weakened as fast as it did, and Karl could have been a 5 in Tampico rather than a 3 in Veracruz had the ridge not strengthened like it did with Alex. How lucky can we get from a season? I guess mother nature follows her own rules... Ryan1000 20:58, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wasn't saying that Paula's track was totally certain, just that it was no longer at the stage of 'it could be absolutely anywhere'. Although it's starting to look like all tropical storm Paula (was downgraded) has left is to die over the mountains of Cuba. --Patteroast 17:18, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, GFS and NOGAPS both develop something huge in the western Caribbean towards the end of the forecast period. I'm still waiting on the 12Z run of the ECMWF to see if it follows suit. That's somewhat disconcerting. -- SkyFury 19:42, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally won't look forward to seeing a monster out of that storm... The outflow from Paula and the cold front over the southeast will both hinder its intensification rate. At best I would expect category 3 out of this new system(Richard), but NOT category 4 or 5. It's environment isn't favorable enough for that kind of explosion, but major hurricane strength isn't out of the question at all... We should stay tuned on that storm. Ryan1000 20:05, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

<I wonder. Since the models are going to a degree with a big storm, I wonder if my new adage should be "Beware storms with R names"? We've never used one that didn't become a problem. Jake52 20:08, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * We've only used two in the history of ever, and only ever had occasion to use five, so it's not exactly a large sample size. Also note that none of the other three 17th storms were anything to write home about. But it'll be interesting to watch and see if this forecast pans out. -- SkyFury 22:59, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

Retirements at a glance
So far, what are your Atlantic retirement predictions?


 * Alex 60% did quite a bit of damage.
 * Bonnie 0% Epic fail
 * Colin 0% Fish!
 * Danielle 2% Did minor effects on Bermuda i think
 * Earl 15% Minor effects
 * Fiona 0% Fish!

I won't do Gaston yet, since it could be bad... atomic 77 32 18:26, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Here is what I say


 * Alex 86%
 * Bonnie 1%
 * Colin 0%
 * Danielle 0%
 * Earl 19%
 * Fiona 0%

YE <font color="#66666">Tropical <font color="#66666">Cyclone  19:43, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Mine!:


 * Alex: 70% - Hmmm...2 billion USD in damages, I don't see why, but to be on the safe side, I'll stick with a 7/10 chance.


 * Bonnie: 5% - What a fail


 * Colin: 2% - What a huge fail


 * Danielle: 10% - Very unlikely


 * Earl: 25% - Not much damage


 * Fiona: 4% - Overshadowed by her big brother Earl.
 * Gaston: 0% - What a very, very huge fail
 * Hermine: 35% - I really don't expect this storm to be retired, as if Texas hasn't seen this before.

I usually consider myself a conservative, btw. <font color="Blue">Darren 23 Edits 22:02, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Mine:


 * Alex - 85-100% - Forget what I said earlier, I was wrong. Alex did much worse than what Dolly did, in Mexico, not the U.S. and it will probrably be retired.


 * Bonnie - 0% - A little damage, but no, it won't be retired.


 * Colin - 0% - EPIC FAIL. That's all I can say.


 * Danielle - 0% - A strong and elegant storm, but it failed to do signifigant damage; I don't see it being retired.


 * Earl - 10% - It wasn't so bad for the Carribean and I don't think Canada will submit this one; Juan was much, much worse.


 * Fiona - 0% - see Colin.


 * Gaston - 0% - It tried, but it's yet another fail.


 * Hermine - 15% - Ah, damage wasn't that bad, even Fay was worse than this thing.
 * Igor - 20% - This is official. Igor only was estimated to have done 100 million in damage. It isn't out of the question it could be retired, but I don't personally find that likely.
 * Julia - 0% - Beautiful hurricane, but because she didn't affect land, no.
 * Karl -.100% - WHOA!!! UPDATE!!! 3.9 billion in damage to Mexico? Man, that's the worst Gulf hit Mexico has ever seen, and I am CERTAIN Karl is gonna get it now. If it doesn't, I will have a heart attack.

Ryan1000 15:14, September 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Alex - 75% - Wow, I had no idea Alex was this destructive. As many as 73 dead on top of nearly $2 billion in damage in Mexico? That is definite cause for consideration. Look at Diana in 1990. Damage, casualities (and, ironically, landfall intensity) are nearly identical.


 * Bonnie - 1% - Here and after referred to as a rainy afternoon. Keeping with my custom, I never give a storm that directly affected land a 0% chance.


 * Colin - 0% - It tried.


 * Danielle - 1% - Gets points for style and getting a party started. Just how much of a party has yet to be determined.


 * Earl - 10% - Scared the piss out of us but was fortunately just an attention getter.


 * Fiona - 0% - Coming on the heels of a big hurricane isn't so great. It's sort of like hanging out with a rockstar: It's cool, but guess who gets all the love.


 * Gaston - 0% - I'm still completely vexed by this one. The sky was the limit for Gaston and it just vanished. A little dry air and a little easterly shear and it was gone. Nobody called this. The models didn't call it, NHC didn't call it, I certainly didn't call it. Just goes to show you that the only thing you can expect from the tropics is the unexpected.


 * Hermine - 15% - Those floods got pretty ugly down in Texas and into Oklahoma, but fortunately we avoided a repeat of Tropical Storm Erin three years ago.


 * To be continued


 * SkyFury 06:23, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

To tell the truth, I don't really understand why everyone thinks Alex will be retired. Eric, Diana was retired, but Gert 3 years later wasn't, for a similar damage and death toll, too. Alex hit only 80-90 or so miles south of where Dolly did two years ago. Dolly topped the billion-dollar mark and killed several people and wasn't retired, so I don't see why this storm should be retired. It's impacts were pretty much the same as Dolly's were, if not a little worse. Alex doesn't grab my interest enough for me to give it retirement. When Dolly wasn't retired two years ago, it taught us all a lesson-- the billion dollar mark doesn't get the boot from now on. 450 or so million in difference isn't gonna make the difference of a storm being or not being retired. Alex doesn't grab my attention enough to be retired, but Igor, our new Atlantic storm, very well may. Time will tell for sure. Ryan1000 20:46, September 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * I have had enough. I really don't care what grabs your attention, and I'm sure not a whole lot of people do here. Can you please keep it to yourself, its getting annoying. And Dolly made landfall in the US and the damage was agricultural, Alex was destructive. 30 inches of rain in Mexico, severe floods, I mean, it deserves to be retired. And it was a whole lot worse than Dolly. So please, don't make judgements on so little information. <font color="Blue">Darren 23 Edits 21:28, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

What, is that why Barbara didn't, but Alma did? (sorry for going to the EPac), but damage is damage, Darren. Dolly's 1.35 billion compared to Alex's 1.885 billion-- it isn't a huge difference. I'm not meaning to offend you, Darren; i'm just saying that the facts are Alex only caused 530 million more damage than Dolly. I don't consider 530 million a big difference now. If this was the 1990's or 80's, then it certainly would make the difference between being and not being retired. But now, in 2010, it doesn't make the difference IMO. I am just enraged over the fact that it has to matter where that 1 billion or 500 deaths comes from to earn retirement. Deaths are deaths, and damage is damage. I am still fearing something's coming to the U.S.-- but Alex wasn't my big fear. I initially thought it would be when it was forecast to wreck Brownsville as a cat. 4 or so, but that ridge had to strengthen at the last minute. Igor is the next big storm I'm watching out for. We will get something worse than Alex this year. I have a bad feeling about that. Darren, September is far from over, and October and November are yet to come. I highly doubt Alex will be the worst storm in this entire year. The rest of this season will not turn out to be a bust. We have started on a hot streak in the Atlantic, and it's just not stopping with Igor. Ryan1000 23:20, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Jake52 08:19, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Alex: 80%. A sizeable death toll and decent damage. Either of these usually isn't enough, but both together may do the trick.
 * Bonnie: 2%. This formed in just the right area to make everyone sweat, but outside of a death, that's it.
 * Colin: 1%. Unlike Bonnie, the death really IS it.
 * Danielle: 0%. Beauty doesn't earn retirement.
 * Earl: 10%. Although the damage seems low on paper, it IS damage on islands, so the damage may mean a bit more.
 * Fiona: 1%. Colin 2.0.
 * Gaston: 0%. It did nothing.
 * Hermine: 10%. Nowhere near Allison level bad, but damage may be the deciding factor.
 * Igor: 45%. Canada may want this one kicked off.
 * Julia: 2%. It was certainly a thing of beauty, but it did nothing to really merit it.
 * Karl: 90%. 22 dead and the damage...oh my the damage.
 * Lisa: 2%. Julia, but to a lesser degree.
 * Matthew: 25%. High death toll, but I don't think it's enough...yet I get a feeling it may get it.
 * Nicole: 10%. It did do quite a number on both fronts, but it was not enough in my opinion.
 * Otto: (25%): DRENCHED the British Virgin Islands and did quite a soaker on the other nearby islands. We shall see.


 * Ryan, for the record, Gert of '93 was one of the more substantial snubs in Atlantic history (along with Bret earlier that year). And with epic floods spreading across Texas and other parts of the southern Plains, how's your 0% chance for Hermine looking now? I have to agree with you though in that as the storms have gotten worse, the standards for retirement have gotten higher (and better defined). -- SkyFury 14:10, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

There is no damage report avaliable for Hermine, Eric, but I wouldn't expect it to be any worse than Erin or Fay at the most. If Hermine does manage to put up Allison-like numbers, then I'm changing my predictions to 95-100%. It depends... for the time being, I will put ?? for Hermine and Igor. The WMO's rule on retirement is they retire a storm if it caused a big enough impact on society as a whole. I personally don't give a sh!t about the damage caused because one or two decades later, all of that damage will be rebuilt and no one will remember what would have happened. Loss of life should matter the most. The damage will be rebuilt, but the lives can't be. Gert and Diana were not epic storms for Mexico, Eric. They have seen much, much worse than that. Eric, the best example of an epic snub is 1985's Juan. 1.5 billion in damage, largely structural, and not retired? It still puzzles me today as to why that didn't happen, but it would be retired after 2003's Hurricane Juan anyways. The "monster storm" of 2010 is waiting... as am I.Ryan1000 21:12, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Juan wasn't the only case like that from 1985: Isabel could have also gotten retired. 180 deaths and about $450 million (the deaths alone could call for retirement. Felix did less and that was in 07) yet it wasn't and the name, like Juan, was next used in 2003, where it was retired. Jake52 21:59, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well hell, Ryan, both the US and Cuba have seen a helluva lot worse than Gustav. Do you have any problems with that retirement? Didn't think so. A storm doesn't have to be epic to get retired. Gert and Diana both caused widespread devastation as worthy of retirement as Juan. And I agree, deaths should be weighed more heavily than damage (although I think you'd give a sh!t about the damage if it was your house that was a pile of rubble and you'd just lost everything you'd ever owned). Diana killed 195 people, all of them in Mexico; that doesn't qualify as epic? Pray tell, what does? Juan killed 24. Diana wins even with any US-biased, Third-World-Sucks handicap that I know you're gonna throw out. Diana's name now rightfully hangs in the rafters. Gert killed 85 and caused more monetary damage than Diana officially did. Juan was a snub, but no more epic than Gert. Bret that same year was an even bigger snub. But you want to talk about an epic snub. Gordon, 1994. Period. 1,145 dead. That one is truly shocking. That was the one that erased any and all respect I may have had for the WMO. Unbelievable. Jake, the 180 in Isabel came from a landslide in Puerto Rico caused by the precursor disturbance. Isabel did very little damage while a tropical cyclone. -- SkyFury 23:22, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Learn something new every day. Of course, when I saw the discussion about snubs, I was wondering when Gordon was coming up. Just wondering, Sky, but while on that year (1994), do you think Alberto was a snub, or was there a reason that it wasn't retired? Jake52 23:57, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Here are my retirement numbers: (An asterick* indicates estimates based on future predictions of the storm.) 2007Astro&#39;sHurricane 00:20, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Alex - 52% - This storm caused more direct and total deaths and caused more damage than Emily and Dolly, which were both close to getting retired.
 * Bonnie - 3% - Some minor flooding in the Dominical Republic and Haiti, passed over Miami, and the Gulf oil spill.
 * Colin - 1% - Born, died, reborn, killed one person from a rip current, passed near Bermuda, but almost no impact.
 * Danielle - 1% - Long-lived cat. 4, one death, but no tropical land impact.
 * Earl - 19% - Put the entire island of Antigua in the dark, one death in Canada and three in the US, but none in the Caribbean and minimal total damage despite an East Coast track.
 * Fiona - 1% - Cape Verde storm, no deaths and minimal impact, absorbed by Earl.
 * Gaston - 1% - A brief Cape Verde storm, no reported deaths or damages, but interesting track and possible flooding across Haiti and Guatemala and scared a few people in Puerto Rico.
 * Hermine - 5% - At least three killed and unknown damage, but could stand a chance if it causes massive flooding and tornado damage over Texas inland.
 * Igor - 11% - Cape Verde storm that stalled, weakened and verged on category five, largest Atlantic hurricane ever recorded but no deaths in Bermuda but four in total and was the wettest intact hurricane to hit Newfoundland but damages were lower than Florence.
 * Julia - 4% - Passed near Cape Verde as a TS, but strengthened to a cat. 4, shattering many records.
 * Karl - 57% - Rare mini-hurricane that tracked across the Yucatan, strengthening to a major hurricane further south than any other Gulf storm on record, first landfalling Gulf major hurricane since Wilma, and similar impact to Juan in 1985 which wasn't retired, but very similar track to Diana in 1990, which was retired.
 * Lisa - 2%* - Tracked east toward Cape Verde, then became a very tiny category 1 hurricane in cool waters.
 * Matthew - 23%* - Not expected to become a hurricane, but major torrential rains over Honduras, Guatemala and Belize, and track is similar to some retired hurricanes, but the main factor will depend on the death toll and damages, and whether it becomes a hurricane.
 * UPDATED. 2007Astro&#39;sHurricane 14:18, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Jake, storms like Alberto are tough. Alberto was a localized severe flood event. Amelia in 1978 was very similar. While the impact was severe, most of it took place over a relatively small area after the storm had moved inland. Also, there's a lot of bias against tropical storms (see Bret '93). It took a disaster on the scale of Allison...in a first-world country...for people to finally accept that weaker storms should be treated with the same respect as hurricanes. For a long time, the popular conception was that a weak storm couldn't be that severe unless somebody screwed up, be it warnings officals or emergency managers. This grossly unfair attitude was probably the principal culprit in the Gordon snub. -- SkyFury 06:15, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * In bot the EPAC and AT the storms that have the best chance of being retired are Alex, Agatha, and Frank. Frank appear's the least likely as more costly storms such as Norbert got retired. YE <font color="#66666">Tropical <font color="#66666">Cyclone  14:09, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * And the Hanna snub too, Eric. I guess retirements can be just as random in the Atlantic as they can be in the Pacific, at least with storms that do hundreds of millions in damage. Also, YE, Norbert did not become retired, despite it's damage in Mexico. Back in the old days, not long after retirement was beginning, it wasn't so strict at first. Juan became destructive in 1985, as did Isabel and Kate, but none got retired. Also, Eric, you(and I) still wonder why 1955's Hilda didn't get the boot. 300 deaths and millions in damage, but not retired? Had it been, 1955 not only would have been the first season on record to have 5 retired names, tying 2005, but would have also been the first one ever to have 3 successive retired names:Hilda, Ione, and Janet. It almost happened in 2008 with Gustav, Hanna, and Ike, but thanks to the snub on Hanna, it wasn't kicked out. It also could have happened in 1985 with Isabel, Juan, and Kate, but none of them got retired. As I mentioned before, If a storm does heavy damage, but is localized, tornado-like damage(exclude Charley), then It probrably won't get the boot. If a storm causes widespread impact, like Ivan or Dean, then their chances rise much more because so many countries could request it. Out of the Blue, France requested Noel. It surprised me that France did it for that storm, as Cuba, Hispaniola, the Bahamas, and Canada all could have requested that storm. There was no reason for France to step in; I mean they didn't suffer anything, nor their territories; Martinique got only a slight rain shower from Noel's precursor wave, Klaus was more ravenous for the island. I can't tell what will be gone this year as of now, unless we get big damage numbers, like Ike or Gustav. This season is only peaking right now; it is far from over. Ryan1000 20:40, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * And Eric, I hope you're understanding where i'm coming from here. I would give a sh!t if I lost my home and all of my possesions, but if I don't lose my life after a hurricane makes landfall, that's all that matters the most to me. As long as I'm prepared and I don't die during a hurricane, I'm okay with losing my house. It will be rebuilt one day; however, the memories of my lost home will not be long forgotten. I mean, if a category 5 hurricane was raging towards Mobile, Alabama right now, what would you prefer-- your home or your life? I hope you say your life-- that's what anyone on the Gulf and east coasts would probrably say right now. Ryan1000 00:01, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Hanna was a snub. I know exactly of what you speak. 1955 was an incredible year. Hilda definately should've been retired but I think information about just how extensive the damage was was slow to come out. I think this was the reason for that snub. I'm going to have to disagree with you on 1985, however. Kate was rightfully not retired. Juan should've been. Isabel I think was actually a good call. That disastrous flooding in Puerto Rico was caused by the precursor disturbance. And yes I do understand where you're coming from but I think the way you put it was a little terse. That's all. -- SkyFury 18:27, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * So no damage was avaliable at the time of the meeting for Hilda? Argh, who gives a damn about the damage? 300 deaths in Belize and Mexico? That's the deadliest Atlantic hit in that area since 1931 at least. That's more than bad enough to get the boot. Also, I said it could've, not should've happened with Juan, Isabel, and Kate in 1985. I personally think Kate probrably had a decent shot of getting it in 1985; 700 million in damage was quite a bit back in 1985, but since most of that was structural damage to northern Cuba, which has seen much worse than Kate, It wasn't so surprising. Isabel was somewhat surprising, too. Eloise was retired a decade prior to Isabel and it caused similar damages and flooding to Puerto Rico, but I think it was called off the list due to it's damage in Panama City, Florida, instead. As for this year, I can't be entirely certain as to whether Alex will get it; Mexico has seen much, much worse than Alex, like Pauline and the Mexico Hurricane of 1959. Not every hurricane that hits the area Alex did will be obvious, unless if it's something like the 1909 Monterrey Hurricane. It was the deadliest hurricane in Mexico's history, killing over 4,000 people. I can't give Alex a huge shot, but it could be retired nontheless. I'll have to wait to be sure. Ryan1000 21:29, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * And Eric, about Gordon, I don't think the WMO retired it just because it was weak. The first example of a retired Atlantic storm that doesn't have to be strong to be nasty was Hurricane Agnes in 1972. The only U.S. landfalling hurricane of that year, Agnes was a very weak storm, but it killed over 120 people and caused over 2 billion dollars in U.S. damage, largely due to flodding in Pensylvania and New York. At the time, it was the costliest hurricane in U.S. history, and the only category one to be retired up until then. Agnes should have set a prescedent for weak storms post-1972, but apparantly, it didn't, at least as Gordon showed us. Eric, I agree Gordon is the best example of an epic snub. I mean, Noel got it in 2007, for less than 1/7 of Gordon's toll, and it caused most of those deaths in the same area Gordon did. I have little if any respect after the Hanna snub 2 years ago, and I don't want it to happen ever again. That was pretty much the last straw I have for them. Ryan1000 01:40, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, does anyone on the wikia want to update their retirement predictions? Knowing what Karl did to Veracruz, I think some of you here would want to give him a shot of getting it. Does anyone really care about this section in the forum? Or is everyone else waiting until 2010 ends? I also changed my predictions for Alex, BTW. I think it will have a shot at getting it. Dolly hit the U.S, and Alex hit Mexico. I am upset over the fact that both hurricanes weren't that far apart, but I think Mexico has a better chance of requesting Alex than we would have for Dolly. What I said earlier wasn't quite appropriate about Alex, but now I changed my mind, it should get it. Ryan1000 20:20, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

67.61.48.69 01:23, September 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * I give Karl a 30% chance. YE <font color="#66666">Tropical <font color="#66666">Cyclone  12:40, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Increase the number on that prediction you made, YE. Karl is now estimated to have done 3.9 billion in damage, not 939 million. This is a recent update from the NHC and I think EVERYONE here thinks Karl will become retired now. Am I right, or am I just 100% right? I just know Karl will get it now. Ryan1000 19:51, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are my guesses:
 * Alex - 55% - significant damage in Mexico
 * Bonnie - 2% - very minor damage
 * Colin - 1% - nearly a fishspinner
 * Danielle - 3% - very minor damage
 * Earl - 20% - moderate damage
 * Fiona - 2% - very minor damage
 * Gaston - 5% - minor damage
 * Hermine - 20% - moderate damage
 * Igor - 30% - moderate damage, tied for largest Atlantic hurricane on record
 * Juila - 0% - fishspinner
 * Karl - 70% - severe damage
 * Lisa - TBA
 * Lisa - TBA

So far, this is my latest update, changed from last time. I'll give every storm at least something now.


 * Alex - 80% - Knowing it's damage in Mexico and elsewhere in North America, this one seems likely.


 * Bonnie - 1% - She caused some minor flooding in southern Florida and delayed BP's efforts to contain the spill, but she wasn't very bad, and probrably won't be retired.


 * Colin - 1% - He caused some brief rainfall and minor impacts to Bermuda, but just lke Bonnie, no, it won't happen.


 * Danielle - 2% - The surf from this beauty killed a few people on the east coast and caused wave action to be rough on Bermuda, but it won't be retired.


 * Earl - 5% - He caused some damage in the lessers and scared the sh!t out of the east coast, but he wasn't as bad as he could've been.


 * Fiona - 1% - Just like Colin, she briefly caused rainfall and the occasional downed tree limb on Bermuda, but no, it won't happen.


 * Gaston - 0.001% - While he didn't affect land while tropical, his remnants caused some rainfall in the Carribean. However, out of all of the storms thus far in 2010, this one is the least likely to be retired.


 * Hermine - 10% - She flooded up parts of Texas and Mexico under several inches of rain, but no, it probrably won't happen.


 * Igor - 7% - Soaked up Cape Verde under a lot of rain and passed right by Bermuda as a category one, but it could have been much worse than it was.


 * Julia - 1% - She dropped a minor shower over Cape Verde after Igor, but other than that, no.


 * Karl - 100% - Yes, definitely yes. With 3.9 billion in damage and 16 deaths, I'd be stunned if Karl isn't retired.


 * Lisa - 1% - She is an unusual storm by means of where she went and how small she was, but I personally don't see her being retired at all.

Ryan1000 20:22, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to make a big list with percentages as most storms have no reasonable chance. I will say that I think probably Karl and/or Alex, with an outside chance for Igor or Earl if they're requested by somewhere in the Lesser Antilles or Canada. Everything else, not so much. My guess is one or two retirements so far. --Patteroast 14:27, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not so fast everyone. Igor is the worst hurricane in Newfoundland's history and the Canadian Hurricane Centre is calling it a 75-100 year event, and it could cause >100 million in damages, and Stephen Harper called it the worst he's ever seen in Canada. Therefore, here are my predictions for the storms and updates

<font color="Blue">Darren 23 Edits 01:15, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Alex: 80% Upping after looking over data.
 * Igor: 55%: Not sure about it, but someone who has connections in CHC has told me that they might be requesting Igor to be retired because of the tremendous damage, worst hurricane since 1935 Newfoundland hurricane
 * Julia: 6%: Nice storm, no damage in CV though.
 * Karl: 88%: Worst natural disaster in Veracruz in recorded history, that should sum it up


 * Well, Darren, about Igor, it was a bad storm, but I don't personally see it being retired unless I get some real numbers out. And the 100 million in damage was solely from Bermuda. Canada doesn't have any numbers from Igor yet. Also, Karl was the strongest hurricane ever recorded in Veracruz, but the unnamed tropical depression from 1999 killed nearly 400 in that same area. Not to say at all that it won't be retired, but it wasn't the worst storm in the area ever known to be. And Newfoundland's worst hurricane ever recorded in history was the 1775 hurricane, which killed up to 4,000 people, making it the deadliest natural disaster in Newfoundland's history. That hurricane was basically 1978's Hurricane Ellen taking a track just a little further north. Igor is nowhere close to being in the 1775 storm's league, but it still could be retired. Alex is the second most likely canidate after Karl, but I still have some doubts as to whether it will happen... And keep in mind October hasn't even begun yet, so we still could have one or two more canidates. We should wait for that. Ryan1000 01:37, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, there's another source saying it could have caused >100 mil in Canada. And I might have forgotten the word "recorded" for Karl and it is also regarded as the worst in generations. Also, can this change your mind about Igor? I do believe the worst storm in 75 years needs to be retired. <font color="Blue">Darren 23 Edits 10:50, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * If Canada wants Igor to be retired, go ahead. I mean, I wouldn't be upset if Igor becomes retired, but after the first two "I" names were retired in '55 and '66; Ione and Inez, respectively, we have had 5 more since the turn of the century, 4 of which were one year after another, Iris, Isidore, Isabel and Ivan, most recently Ike, I mean, we could run out of "I" names at this rate... And for Karl, I know it was Veracruz's strongest hurricane in recorded history, and defined as the worst in that city's history by some people, but survivors of the 1999 flood might say otherwise. And about Karl, why not just give him a 100% chance altogether, Darren? 3.9 billion in damage is incredible for a hurricane in Mexico, and as a matter of fact, Karl ranks as 4th most destructive hurricane in Mexico's history, behind Gilbert, Pauline, and Wilma-- and he is the costliest hurricane ever known to hit Mexico's Gulf coast. I mean, it was more than twice as destructive as Alex, and for all intents and purposes, will be a retired name. You should only give a storm less than 100% in these lists if you have any doubts to it being retired. Do you think there is any chance that Karl won't be retired, Darren? I don't. And as I mentioned, 2010 is not over yet, so we still could have one or two more canidates up for retirement. Ryan1000 12:49, September 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Alex - 60% Generally same with Dolly, but on the worse side.
 * Bonnie - 2% Scared everyone, but failed
 * Colin - 1% Failed
 * Danielle - 3% Got the Atlantic party started.
 * Earl - 15% Doesn't reach 200M mark.
 * Fiona - 1% Failed
 * Gaston - 1% Epic fail
 * Hermine - 10% Minimal damage, mostly caused by tornadoes.
 * Igor - 60% Pretty bad one as of now.
 * Julia - 1% Long live Julia.
 * Karl - 95% Yeah...
 * Lisa - 0% Seriously tiny, though that can't retire storms.
 * Matthew - 25% IDK about this one.
 * Nicole - 20% Thought to be much worse.
 * Otto - 2% Still active.

Retired names: Karl, Nicole, Paula and Tomas HurricaneSpin 02:51, September 28, 2010 (UTC) Um, I don't see the big point of guessing that future storms in 2010 will turn out to be retired. Also, this kind of prediction would be better suited to the Betting Pools than here... But if you're confident about potential future storms in 2010 being retired, I can't say that won't happen... Ryan1000 03:09, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * If the landslide deaths in Mexico do end up being attributed to Matthew, I'll add it to my list. --Patteroast 16:19, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Me, too, but I would expect these deaths to be indirectly attributed to Matthew's remnants, like Stan in 2005. It, and the low pressure system, both caused 2,000 deaths in Central America. Stan only directly caused 80 of those, yet it did do 1-2 billion in damages... I will have to wait some time. For now, I won't include him. Ryan1000 19:55, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh. They got emergency workers in there finally, and now they're saying that 11 people are missing. Not 'maybe 1000'. Nevermind... --Patteroast 07:24, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Also, only 23 of the over 200 deaths in the mudslide in Mexico were directly caused by Matthew... I would only give him a 20% shot based on this fact. Ryan1000 20:43, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nicole only caused 151.9 million in damages, not 13 billion, well, not even close to 13B. I still think so far, Igor, Karl and Alex will be retired. And can we also just not forecast retirement for future storms? Thanks. <font color="Blue">Darren 23 Edits 01:02, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops it's Jamaican Dollars :P HurricaneSpin 02:39, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Here are my bets:

Alex - 60% - Pretty major damage, although there is the possibility it will go the way of Dolly.

Bonnie - 1% - Minimal damage

Colin - 1% - Minimal damage

Danielle - 3% - Strong, but little to no damage.

Earl - 15% - Damage not extremely severe.

Fiona - 1% - Minimal damage

Gaston 1% - Minimal damage

Hermine - 15% - Damage significant but not severe.

Igor - 50% - While not extremely damaging, much of its damage was in Newfoundland, and Canada does seem to be liberal when it comes to retiring names, as they did with Hurricane Juan in 2003. Also, since this was the largest Atlantic hurricane on record, it could also have a chance at retirement.

Julia - 2% - Minimal damage

Karl - 90% - Caused over $5 billion in damage.

Lisa - 0% - Fishspinner

Nicole - 15% - Damage significant but not severe

129.24.64.23 18:11, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I still think it's bizarre that people say that Canada gives out retirements easily... what's an example other than Juan? Oh right. Juan's the only one they've ever requested. And pretty much directly hit a major city. :P --Patteroast 12:50, October 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * One thing about Igor, since Newfoundland is a sparsely populated area, the damage generated by Igor it's probably enough damaging for it to get retired, it's also the third wettest tropical cyclone up in Canada. For Bermuda, it was a bad hit too, about 3.28" of rain were recorded all by Igor itself. After researching I upped Igor to 60%. <font color="#000000">HurricaneSpin <font color="#654321">Talk to me  05:35, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Well, HurricaneSpin, it all depends on what Canada wants to do with it. However, Bermuda will NOT request a storm that did 500,000 in damages; Igor could have been much worse had it not weakened to a category one prior to hitting. Igor was the worst Newfoundland hurricane in 75 years; Juan was the worst in 110. If Canada wants Igor to go, it'll get it. However, I can't say it will get it no matter what; the only storm that I know will be retired is Karl. 5.6 billion in damage and 22 deaths will get the boot. Alex is the second most likely, after Karl, and if Canada requests Igor, he's third in line. I(and anyone else) probrably can't guess anything else from here, unless we get one more bad storm or so. Ryan1000 11:36, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, also Igor could have restrengthened into a cat 2 when it made landfall.
 * Top candidates
 * Karl
 * Alex
 * Igor
 * Matthew
 * Nicole


 * Nope, Igor could not have restrengthened into a Cat 2 since many locations only reported about marginal hurricane-strong tropical storm force winds. <font color="Blue">Darren 23 Edits 23:58, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, I don't know who typed the above comment, but I didn't say Igor could have been a category two at landfall; I said it would have been much worse for Bermuda had it not weakened from category two intensity prior to hitting. I would call for at least Karl to get retired, Alex is likely, but it isn't impossible he could pull a Dolly, too. I can't say Igor will be retired; right now, I would give him a 50/50 shot, depending on what Canada wants to do with him. I don't want to go to the top 5 retirement canidates because every storm other than Karl, Alex, and Igor has virtually no chance, IMO. That's all I will say for now, unless, as I mentioned earlier, we get another bad storm in October or November. Ryan1000 00:56, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd rather think that Noel's retirement was requested by France because of the name is actually inappropriate – in French Noel means Christmas, would the NHC name a hurricane Christmas? Surely not. Therefor you can't take Noel for any comparisons.
 * So here are my candidates:
 * So here are my candidates:
 * So here are my candidates:


 * Alex 30 percent (Mexico might ask retirement)
 * Igor 60 percent (Canada might request retirement)
 * Karl 50 percent (Mexico might ask retirement)
 * all others: zero percent
 * None of them killed many people so the question is if they were destructive. Lots of dollar blown in the wind does not necessarily mean that the sorm was destructive. By the way, most damages in Canada were caused by post-tropical Igor so why actually it should be retired? --88.102.101.245 05:45, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, no. Igor was a hurricane when it made landfall, not a post-tropical storm, and the CHC(Canadian Hurricane Center) said Igor was described as Newfoundland's worst hurricane since 1935. A storm that rare probrably would deserve retirement, but I have to disagree with your overall predictions. Karl has the 90-100 percent chance here. Igor only did 100 or so million in damages to Canada, and only Canada can decide Igor's fate. Karl is a goner. Mexico will submit a 5.6 billion dollar storm for retirement, and it will become retired no matter what; it was the worst hurricane ever known to hit the city of Veracruz in recorded history. Alex is second in line; you can't really use Dolly as an excuse for Alex because Dolly was largely an agricultural event in south Texas, wheras Alex was a very destructive flood/wind event in Monterrey and Matamoros in Mexico; I mean, they'll probrably submit Alex as well as Karl. There isn't anyone else we can guess on as of now... Ryan1000 12:49, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 1- This states that last year was near normal. #2- I never said it was, I just said forecasters are leaning towards it. #3- Most, if not all indications lead to an above normal season, and as I said, its just early August. I'm just trying to make sure people don't get their guard down. I will be happy if this season will not be destructive, but claiming that this season will be a bust with all the evidence presented is outrageous. I'm not saying its not possible that this season will be a bust, but I'm just trying to put some sense into some people who claim this basin is dead. <font color="Blue">Darren 23 Edits 21:14, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. It depends which average you use. 2. Ok 3. we just slightly below average so thats why i predcit 11 named storms. BTW, the EPAC will be similar (maybe identical) to 2004. YE

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


 * West Pacific: 42 depressions, 25 named storms, 14 typhoons, 7 "major" typhoons, 1 cat. 5, $6 billion in damage.
 * Central Pacific: 2 depressions, 1 named storm, 1 hurricane, no major hurricanes, no damage.
 * East Pacific: 17 depressions, 14 named storms, 8 hurricanes, 6 major hurricanes, 2 cat. 5s, $4 billion in damage.
 * Atlantic: 19 depressions, 15 named storms, 10 hurricanes, 6 major hurricanes, 2 cat. 5s, $60 billion in damage.
 * North Indian: 11 depressions, 5 named storms, 3 hurricane-strength severe cyclonic storms, 2 "major"-strength very severe cyclonic storms, no cat. 5, $3 billion in damage.


 * 2007Astro&#39;sHurricane 20:43, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking of predictions... I'll make mine for the Atlantic now...
 * 15 storms (TD's included), 9 hurricanes, 3 major. I haven't predicted much, so it just my guess. Atomic7732 21:23, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering how weve only had 3 deps so far i think 11 deps in total for the NIO wont happen. However if youre NS prediction came true it would be the most active season in terms of NS since names were introduced, and the most amount of NS since 2000.JasonRees 00:58, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I will hold off on making my final predictions for this season until the end of August. This has been the slowest start in the West Pacific since 1998, when the first named storm didn't form until July 8 and the first typhoon didn't form until August 3 (I'm pretty sure that's a record). If you remember, the Atlantic wasn't so quiet that year. When the Pacific is quiet, 9 times out of 10, the Atlantic is active and usually destructive. In 1998, Georges killed 600 people and Mitch killed over 18,000 and was the deadliest Atlantic hurricane since the Revolutionary War. -- SkyFury 04:03, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe we can't really assume anything about us being so quiet right now; that 1008 mbar low in the Keys looks pretty ominous to me. I would think that the AHS will have 13 storms, 6 hurricanes, and 3 majors, with zero or one category 5(s), only slightly above average. About damages? 60 billion seems a little too high for an AHS, Astro. At best I would think that the AHS would have 20 to 30 billion in damage, but it's very hard for a season to make over 40 billion in damage alone, and only 2004, 2005, and 2008 have done that. I do think this season will be destructive to some extent, but not "over 60 billion dollars" destructive. I think we should keep an eye on that Gulf low, however. Ryan1000 16:34, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have raised my ALT prediction to 12-6-3. However, i don think we will see many catastrophic storms this year, though we might have an Ida-type storm or two this year. However, I think the damages will be under $10 billion ( know people on WU call me wishcasters and downcasters for this, but I have a good accuracy). YE
 * Ok, I have raised my ALT prediction to 12-6-3. However, i don think we will see many catastrophic storms this year, though we might have an Ida-type storm or two this year. However, I think the damages will be under $10 billion ( know people on WU call me wishcasters and downcasters for this, but I have a good accuracy). YE

I do believe that ATL will eventually become more active, and here are my predictions for the basins (NS-Cane-MH-C5): And YE, I think there is a good reason they call you that. I am not saying that is 100% impossible, but a near normal/below normal season forecast is wishful thinking and not backed by current evidence, hence thats why they call you that. <font color="Blue">Darren 23 Edits 16:51, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * WPAC: 22-12-6-1
 * EPAC: 13-6-4-1
 * ATL: 16-8-4-0


 * Then why are all the storms these year since Alex have been epic fails. YE 17:12, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, YE, don't judge June or July, judge the peak of the season, okaye? June/July aren't supposed to be active; 2002 only had 12 total storms, 8 of which were in September. 2004 had 15 storms, 8 of them in August. Give the basin time. It'll get rollin' at some point. It slowly rises from June to July, skyrockets in August, peaks at september 10, then downturns in October; there is a brief secondary peak by October 19 when the East Pacific monsoon trough extends into the Carribean, and lastly, slows down to the end of November. I think this season will be somewhat destructive, but nowhere close to 2008, even. Just be patient, everyone; this season will get rolling by late August into September. Now is not the time to let up, but NOAA's predictions aren't looking so true, I agree. Ryan1000 23:48, August 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * GFS is forecasting something nasty to come off Africa in five days. Multiple models also forecast something to form in the northern Gulf around the 4-5 day mark. -- SkyFury 06:36, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Guess what, 91E has died. Another epic fail. YE 12:49, August 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Does anyone else think that the silence in the Atlantic is getting rather ominous? All the models whose long range forecast I have access to develop something big off Africa in 3-4 days (although GFS and NOGAPS appear to take it out to sea). They also all develop something out of the remnants of TD 5 in the northern Gulf in about 2-3 days. Things may be about to get a little interesting. -- SkyFury 06:16, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have seen the GFS predicting two fishes next week. However, I have a felling they are going to epic fails an get torn apart by upper-level low. I also cant see ex-Five regenerating in the Gulf. YE 14:23, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't count your epic fails before they hatch. The entire Northern Hemisphere is quiet and since most of the heat is focused on the Atlantic, when the MJO gets back here we can expect an absolute explosion of activity. The second storm on GFS doesn't look like a fail, in fact it might even head into the Carolinas or New England and end up like a Hugo or a Floyd. 2007Astro&#39;sHurricane 15:04, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that silence is rather ominous to me, but after all of the epic fails we've had (Bonnie, Colin, and #5), I just can't see this season producing a monster storm like Andrew or Hugo. The conditions in the open tropical Atlantic are no different, or not a lot different, than when Colin was out there now. From all of the deadened activity weve had so far, I don't see anything big going on out there, or coming out there. We're halfway through August and the tropics still look like a wasteland. I don't think we'll pull a 1992 or 1988; this season will be a dead one, just like it was last year. Ryan1000 17:31, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I still think ATL will be active and will produce ~15 storms because it is La Nina. People are saying that this season is a bust because they think that ATL has been below average. Well, guess what, it is very near average. And Ryan, last year was a strong El Nino, and this year is a La Nina, and has a potential for a very strong La Nina. The basin is not dead yet, and anything is possible. This season has the capabilities of potentially producing an extremely dangerous hurricane, it just takes conditions to align right. Do not let your guard down, and if some Cape-Verde type Major Hurricanes come along, well, that would be no surprise. <font color="Blue">Darren 23 Edits 18:04, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Daren, no. In fact, I am not 100% convinced that there is a a La Nina. we are below the 1995-20009 average of 14 named storms. Again, we will end up being 12-6-3 IMO, and I think my prediction is generous. But again the activity cycle is ending. You might want to check out my blog and do not call me crazy, I disagree with experts 100%. It should be noted that there is a similar dissipation at Strom2k. YE <font color="#66666">Tropical <font color="#66666">Cyclone  19:04, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Then please see the definition of La Nina, and all 4 Nino regions indicate La Nina. And No, we are at average. The Average is 11-6-2 per last year's TWS.. And what evidence do you have? Give me credible expert evidence, as no offence, clearly, you are not an expert. If you disagree with experts, then you better have a very, very good argument against the expert consensus. I'm sorry, but what your're saying cannot be taken with credit. <font color="Blue">Darren 23 Edits 19:57, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Darren, clam down. All I am saying is the IMO we are in a weak El Nino. i have the right to my opinon. But again, SST's suggest otherwise saying that there is a weak to moderate La Nina. YE <font color="#66666">Tropical <font color="#66666">Cyclone  20:21, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

YE, it's hard enough for guys with doctorates to figure out ENSO. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you're somewhat short of a doctorate in meteorology. I often disagree with season predictions but when it comes to ENSO, I defer to the experts. Ryan, for the record, there were only six storms in 1992 (seven if you count STS 1) and only one major hurricane. That one major hurricane just happened to cause $26 bil in damage. While I don't think this will be a "dead year," I do think 18 storms is a little aggressive. Forecasters have warned that synoptic scale patterns look like they could be about to change with a more stable Azores High providing a lower-shear environment over the open Atlantic. -- SkyFury 05:00, August 16, 2010 (UTC)


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

ATL 12-6-3-0

EPAC 12-6-4-1

WPAC 25-10-6-3

YE <font color="#66666">Tropical <font color="#66666">Cyclone  17:24, August 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, 2007 was La Nina, and yes, it was below average. But 2004 is El Nino, but was hyperactive. It is true that La Nina conditions don't guarantee an active season. And about the 2005 thing, when did experts say that? No one was expecting a 2005-type season, and it is impossible as 2005 had absolute perfect conditions. But, they did and still do predict an active season, and if you think that you can just disagree with their statements and say "I think this season will be a bust" is absolutely wrong (I'm not talking about you Ryan, I'm talking to anyone who has said this statement). They went to college studying this, and I expect most of us here did not. Yes, some forecasts have been way off, but stating that these will is just absurd. You don't now that. I know for a fact that people in the meteorological society have been angry at the people bustcasters right now. The public were angry at them for "scaring them" because of the ominous forecast, but the real dangers are the people who spread news that this season will be a bust. So I do suggest that this topic should stop, and we should wait until the end of September. And to the 2nd part: we are in moderate La Nina, and I'm expecting a long-lasting La Nina that will extend to next year and maybe until May/June/July, so don't count on the activity cycle to end just yet. And I really wan't a source on the end of the activity cycle? Did experts expect the activity cycle in 1995 to start? No. Can we predict it with accuracy? Absolutely not. So, I do not think the activity cycle will end within the next 2 years. If it does, great, no more 2005's. <font color="Blue">Darren 23 Edits 17:34, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, this season is a bust. SINCE WHEN DO STORMS DIE IN THE GULF. I am not expect no more than a weak La Nina and that is if we are even a weak La Nina. This is not Wikipedia, we dont need source for every stupid fact. Also, 2004 was not hyperactive, unless you mean ACE. If you are asking for a source, give me a source that says the that there are angry because this season is a bust thus far. YE <font color="#66666">Tropical <font color="#66666">Cyclone  17:58, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * We are already in moderate La Nina. And I never said people were angry this season has been a bust, people are angry because of the high forecast numbers and as a result scaring them. And we do need a source if we are making statements to make them credible. And Bonnie died because it speeded up to the ULL, Five died because of poor organization, Two didn't become a TS because of Alex. Those are the explanations. And hyperactiveness is determined by ACE, and 2004 is in the top 10. Happy? And as I said, earlier, I believe this topic should stop, because of the reasons I said earlier. <font color="Blue">Darren 23 Edits 18:29, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * The question is are the ULL's are going to go bye-by. Also, how can a storm die because of poor organization? I still say but consertivly 12-6-3 which is not all that inactive at all. We could have a Gustav-type storm. And what in the heck is happening to the EPAC. They make high predilections, so that people prepare. YE <font color="#66666">Tropical <font color="#66666">Cyclone  18:50, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * If nothing else in teh EPAC forms this month, shut up about the Atlantic please? lol SOmething would be wrong.<font color="#ff7f00" family="Nyala">atomic <font color="#0000ff" family="Nyala">77 <font color="#00FF00" family="Nyala">32 22:32, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, there is nothing wrong with EPAC, it's just that conditions aren't favorable there because of La Nina. <font color="Blue">Darren 23 Edits 23:20, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Darren, I hate to break it to you, but despite what you're thinking about the heart being three weeks away, chances are, from where we are now, we won't have even a 2008 type-season; however, I completly agree with your point. It's not the forecaster's fault that they made the very active, scary prediction, it's when all these other people come in and say we'll be dead for good that kills the preperations people make for the season. Truth is, we probrably will be less active than forecast, it's just that, these people think we will have a completly dead season. SkyFury and I mentioned that it doesn't take an active season to get a notable season. Andrew permanently taught us that lesson. Every storm other than Andrew was an epic fail in 1992, but when he came along, he was at the time the costliest hurricane in U.S. history. I do not think we will get the forecasts NOAA was predicting, but I never said we won't get any notable storms this year. I'm fearing something big is lurking in the tropics this season, and no one should let their guard down just because it's mid-August. September, October, and November are yet to come, and all three months are capable of producing severe hurricanes. We shouldn't assume that this season will be dead until the season actually ends. Activity and notability rarely have any direct correlation; some exeptions are '05', '04', and '08. We need to be patient for the time being, as this season is far from over. About the active hurricane cycle, Darren? It had begun in 1995, and I had heard from climate experts that they were expecting it to last for 15-20 years from 1995, so it will probrably close up anytime from this year to 5 years from now in 2015. The reason why the mid to late 1970's, 1980's, and early 1990's were quiet was because the Cape Verde season in Africa basically shut down. From the 1970's to 1987, there was a severe drought over the Saharan desert, which sent a lot of dry air to stop any African waves from developing in that time period (The inactivity would continue until 1994 due to continued El nino events), but that drought killed all the hurricane seasons in the Atlantic ocean, and meant booming business for the Pacific ocean. From 1970 to 1994, exactly 9 major hurricanes made landfall in the United States:Celia, Carmen, Eloise, Frederic, Allen, Alicia, Elena, Hugo, and Andrew, but from 1995 until now, we have had Opal, Fran, Bret, Charley, Ivan, Jeanne, Dennis, Katrina, Rita, and Wilma-10 U.S. landfalling major hurricanes in 15 years-that averages to 2 every 3 years, but from 1970 to 1994, we had an average of one major hurricane every 2 years. One half vs. two-thirds. It's a big thing, and we might get another one of these dead periods in the near future. Also of note, the total number of hurricanes to hit the U.S. in the 1970 to 1994 period was 29 (6 from 1985 alone), but as of now, we have had 25 from '95 onward (forgive me if i'm off by one or so), but still, that is quite remarkable. Ryan1000 02:05, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * The conditions of the EPAC have still not been explain, arent post-El Nino EPAC suppose to be years interesting. i agree ,t will be LESS ACTIVE in the forecast, but not saying we could have a Gustav type storm. I have a felling we will have a rapid flip to EL Nino in a year or so, but the SST's are expected to be a little cooler than last time, but we will probably have about 15 named storms. YE <font color="#66666">Tropical <font color="#66666">Cyclone  14:04, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Remember, the real Cape Verde season hasn't even begun yet. We got an early taste of a Cape Verde wave developing into a storm in the western Caribbean, and that became Alex. Bonnie and Colin after that were duds, but only because they started out as Cape Verde waves but only barely became tropical storms. The lid on the Cape Verde season is going to come off in about a week. The continuous wave activity will banish some of the dry air, and we'll have one storm after another. A late start to the season does not imply low activity, and in fact most of the late starting seasons in recent years have become monster hurricane seasons, just look at 2004 for example. We've gone from a strong El Nino to a strong La Nina, so this could easily end up like 1998. All it takes is one storm to devastate an entire country. Cape Verde storms are dangerous, as they could hit the Caribbean Countries, the Gulf or the East Coast. The Cape Verde train this year starts in late August and probably will not stop until late November, and since the ENTIRE Northern Hemisphere has been quiet and again, most of the extra heat, moisture and energy is right in the Atlantic, once that cap comes off we'll have a freight train of storms. Not only could this storm season end up like 2008, when all of its category four storms formed after this date, but even a 1998 or a 2005 is not out of the question. 2007Astro&#39;sHurricane 23:07, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Astro, this year's Cape Verde season is starting a little later than those other years, but the lid won't come off enough for us to have 28 named storms, yes, this season probrably will be slightly above average; I still hold my 12-6-3 prediction, but we are definitely not going to pull a 2005. 2005 had 7 named storms before August, 5 more in August, and 16 more from September to December. We will NOT have a 2005, but I can't really see even a 2008. 2008's Cape Verde season kicked off in July with Bertha and later-forming Dolly, just like 2005's. If this season's Cape Verde begun in July, then we probrably would have a 2008 or 2005 like season, too. The season generally has to start early to show a bad sign for future activity, because the contitions are favorable for a longer time period. Also, 2004, as I mentioned above, had 8 named storms in August, making it the most active August on record, and we will NOT have enough activity in the next two weeks for 7 more August storms. We will probrably get one or two more storms, but we won't have a 2004 August. Trust me, Astro, that won't happen. But September, October, and November are after that, and they could all be pretty nasty. Just be patient for now. Time will tell what will happen in the Atlantic, and worldwide, too. The Eastern and Western Pacific basins still haven't had their boom yet, either. The final predictions I'll make for the worldwide tropics are as follows:




 * WPAC:15-19 storms, 4-10 "phoons", 2-7 majors, and 1 cat. 5.


 * EPAC:9-14 storms, 4-6 'canes, 3-4 majors, and 1 cat. 5 (Celia)


 * Atlantic:8-13 storms, 3-6 'canes, 1 or 2 majors, and 0 cat. 5's.


 * SHem:24-31 storms, 14-18 cyclones, 6-12 cat. 3's, and 3 cat. 5's (by the SSHS)




 * Ryan1000 02:48, August 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * The thing about this season is that the air off the African coast has been just dry as a frickin' bone. The Saharan Air Layer is really thick this year. Look at this: . There is a huge cloud of dust sprawled way out across the Atlantic as far west as 40W, and this is not even as bad as it's been. That's what's killing your Cape Verde season right there. The cloud has spread so far south that it covers the Cape Verde Islands, the heart of Hurricane Alley. And this makes me think of an interesting theory that some scientist has come out with: that global warming may in fact hinder hurricane development as much as promote it. While the warming of the Earth's surface may make the ocean water warmer, it can also affect atmospheric patterns in ways that don't necessarily promote tropical cyclone development. One of those atmospheric wild cards is the Saharan Air Layer. A lot of scientists think that global warming may be enhancing the SAL. I found that to be a very interesting theory. Just because the oceans are getting warmer doesn't mean hurricanes are gonna have a field day. There's a lot more at play than just the temperature of the water. -- SkyFury 07:34, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I mentioned that special fact above because some people in the U.S. are wondering why the 80's were so dead in the Atlantic. 2006 had very warm sea surface temps that weren't that much colder than 2005, but the atmospheric conditions were so unfavorable in 2006, we got nothing but a pretty average year. In the 1980's, during the Saharan drought, every African wave, or most of them, anyways, died out while crossing the Atlantic, but got going in the Eastern Pacific. In fact, all of 1990's storms in the Eastern Pacific came from westward moving African waves. If the Saharan Desert did not have their drought in the 70's to '87, then the AHS's in the 80's would look just like they were in today's active period. The truth is, the number of tropical waves to cross the Atlantic in the 80's wasn't that much lower than where it was from 1995 until now, but the African dust was nothing from 1995 until now, wheras in the 80's, it was so dense that almost all of the African waves died in the Atlantic, and redeveloped in the Eastern Pacific. If we have sea surface temps that are 1000 degrees, but crazy as shit shear and stable air, we can't really have a nasty season. In the same way, if there isn't an ounce of shear and freezing sea surface temps, then we still can't have a season. The 2005 season is a case where both factors came together, which explains the immense activity in that season. 2006 had very warm temps but very unfavorable wind shear and dry air, which corresponded to such a dead season in that year. We can't assume that the sea surface temps are the solemn reason for so many storms in 2005; if the atmospheric conditions don't correspond, then we can't have a season. In such a case, if we get knocked into an inactive period again, we might be less active then the 80's were because back in the 1980's, Global warming was not a very severe issue in the world. Now that it is, more dust will cross Africa's Saharan layer, which will kill more tropical waves. In the same way, during our next active period, 30 to 40 years from now, we could have more storms than during the one we're in now. I think the graph for hurricane activity will get steeper over time if this trend keeps up, in such a way as to where we are really quiet during our next cycle-quieter than the 80's, explosive in our next active cycle, more active than this one, then quieter than the previous quiet cycle, and more explosive than the last explosive cycle. Would you agree with this, SkyFury? I think this is a pretty decent theory for future hurricanes in the Atlantic, but patterns for seasons in the NIO and southern hemisphere have yet to be tested and figured out. The Pacific is supposed to contradict the Atlantic by most means. Ryan1000 18:32, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Well, keep in mind that SSTs in the Atlantic were much lower in the 1980s than they are now. Remember in the early '80s, the east coast was getting slammed by massive blizzards. Record or near-record low temps were being set right and left across North America. This marked three-year dip in temps over North America corresponded with a dip in the jetstream that resulted in a harsh, almost winter-like environment over the Atlantic, with troughs (and therewith severe wind shear) extending deep into the tropics. At the same time, one of the strongest El Ninos in recorded history hit. But you brought up an interesting caveat in that the severe drought in Africa during the 1980s (very dry conditions prevailed worldwide throughout much of the 80s) would've enhanced the SAL. I think these three factors combined to cause near-record low activity in the Atlantic in the early 1980s. This, however, does not explain the inactivity in 1986-87. I think the big culprit there was another strong El Nino. The thick SAL may be partly responsible for '86, but most of the seven storms in '87 formed east of the Lesser Antilles. The SAL generally only affects areas east of 40W, not the entire basin, so I don't think it'll lead to a downswing in activity. However, I do think that it could lead to a pronounced westward shift in activity and fewer long-track Cape Verde hurricanes, or at least cause them to struggle until they emerge from the cloud at points westward. Look at 2005. Not one storm of tropical origin formed east of 40W. Vince was the only hurricane to form east of 55W, despite the fact that 2005 had more hurricanes than any other season in recorded history. All major storms except Maria did their business in the Caribbean or Gulf of Mexico. That's hardly encouraging to any of us on the Gulf Coast, but that's the kind of activity that we may be looking at in the near future. (Although note that 2004 did not have this problem) -- SkyFury 08:34, August 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * Sky, keep in mind that the Saharan drought lasted until 1987, so '86 and '87 were probrably hindered from that, too. Also, '88 and '89 were more than exeptional for AHS's, and 1990 was very active but only Diana was rather exeptional that year. And from '91 to '94, we had a last-ditch strong El Nino before the 1995 to now hot streak in the Atlantic. When I realized how quiet 2009 was, and how quiet we are so far in 2010, i've been thinking we are falling into a dead period again. Worldwide, this will be a down year, but I can't be certain when that dead streak will come, but hopefully it will be soon. However, as you mentioned, hurricane activity can be hindered as much as promoted with the SAL. We'll have to wait and see what mother nature really does to us. Ryan1000 16:31, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, there was a lot of rain was a lot of rain in the SW US, but at the same time cool weather. Wind shear was also lower than they are today in the EPAC, but the winters were slighlty warmer in the SW today. The smae shoudl apply for th next activty cycle, whcih should begin soon. The ATL will see about 8 storms per year and the EPAC will likely see about 20 named storms per year. Becuase i live in Nevada, i will look foward to both. YE <font color="#66666">Tropical <font color="#66666">Cyclone  22:40, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it is. Wind shear varies from time to time, and just because it is low today doesnt mean it will 5 days from now, and I'm sure you know that (actually, I'm not). And what's the basis to your activity cycle thing. How on earth would you know what's coming. I would like it to end and to end the misery in all the destructive ATL storms, but I believe that the only reason your saying that is because you love EPAC and you hate the inactive cycle. Well, guess what, the cycle aint gonna change only because you want it. Its gonna change eventually, but where's the proof that it will change this year? 2006 was a dead year too. 2007 was a fail year. But 2008 was an active year. What I'm trying to say is, don't make predictins which motivated only by your bias for EPAC. I think it might happen in this decade, but it also might not. <font color="Blue">Darren 23 Edits 23:00, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Darren, climate experts have been studying the pattern for the active Atlantic seasons since 1995, and I read and saw that they were expecting it to last for 15 to 20 years from 1995, but it's hard to pinpoint direct accuracy for this fact. I mean, you and I, and everyone else on the Wikia, want the basins to switch around as soon as this year, but we can't tell if that'll happen for sure. We've had enough bad seasons, but if it doesn't end this year, then it will probrably end in any year from 2011 to 2015, based on what climatologists have been studying. You say we can't assume when it will end, but we want it to end ASAP. SkyFury, I can tell you want the West Pacific to be active again in hopes of seeing another Tip over open waters, but a Tip would be unlikely to see in the cycle we're in. And Sky, following what you mentioned with Rick of 2009, Tip would look beautiful on the sattelites with today's technology. Ryan1000 23:14, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Syper Typhoon Nida last fall in the West Pacific was quite a storm, and almost as large as Tip. It stalled for days and pumped out lows that injected themselves into the subtropical jet before bombing themselves out at 950mb until the typhhon dissipated. Those lows eventually stroked the Hudson low and brought the jet stream south to set up a snowy winter in the US but a warm and dry one in Canada. 2007Astro&#39;sHurricane 17:37, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ryan, I know the SAL was thick in 86/87, but in 1987, most of the storms that year formed in the eastern Atlantic, which would seem counterintuitive if you're looking at the SAL as a major cause of inactivity. In 1986, there was a strong El Nino. Only one storm formed after September 10, signifying the onset of El Nino. In 1987, the first storm didn't form until August 9, signifying the departure of El Nino. I think ENSO was the primary cause of inactivity in those two years. SAL increase alone cannot bring an end to an active cycle. A dramatic shift in large scale weather patterns would have to occur. That hasn't happened yet. We were on the 'D' storm at this point in 2000 and 2001, and were on the 'E' storm in 2004. I don't want to hear about the active cycle being over just because we're not putting up 2005-like numbers. We're actually running at about the average active cycle pace. In nine out of the past fifteen seasons, including this season, the 'D' storm formed between August 19 and August 29. Of the other eight seasons, six had at least twelve storms and five had at least eight hurricanes. -- SkyFury 01:26, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Then, please explain why the EPAC went nuts during the 80's. YE <font color="#66666">Tropical <font color="#66666">Cyclone  01:57, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Two of the strongest El Ninos in recorded history. Also the multi-decadal cycle was in favor of the Pacific during the 1980's. -- SkyFury 04:22, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Eric, in 1987, the Saharan air layer didn't dip south over Cape verde, but rather west across the Atlantic, so we had some Cape verde storms in that year, but they ran into the air layer after developing(exept for Emily, it was a rather ravenous storm that year). And the following two years, '88 and '89 were two years in the 80's that just woke up. We had a last ditch el nino in the early 90's, and in 1995, we just exploded. Since then, the Atlantic was on a roll, but we want this "roll" to end ASAP. I don't want any more terrifying atlantic seasons; when can the 80's come back to us again? I missed the quiet cycle and I want it to happen again. Ryan1000 13:40, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, there's a reason they call it the "multi-decadal cycle;" because each cycle, active and inactive, lasts multiple decades. And didn't you just say you're not interested unless the Atlantic is losing its mind? -- SkyFury 15:01, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wel,l this is when Wikipedia come into play. The peak of AMO is 2020. But the Pacific page (which is call the dedcadal oscillation noted that 2008 was the mist of the cycle. So in about 2012-2015 the activity cycle /could/ change. YE <font color="#66666">Tropical <font color="#66666">Cyclone  16:03, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * According to climatology, the season should be really picking up right about now. And it is! 2007Astro&#39;sHurricane 17:37, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Astro! Also, everyone keep in mind that seasons immediately following an El Nino year often peak late. -- SkyFury 00:24, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * New research suggests recent El Nino Modokis occurred in 1991-92, 1994-95, 2002-03, 2004-05 and 2009-2010. Since this is a year following a Modoki ("Modoki", similar, but different, is the type on El Nino that does not supress Atlantic hurricane activity) and all of those other seasons had notorious storms (Andrew, Luis, Marilyn, Opal, Roxanne, Fabian, Isabel, Juan, Dennis, Katrina, Rita, Stan, Wilma), we should still expect this to be a late-starting, hyperactive season with notorious names and notorious tracks. 2007Astro&#39;sHurricane 02:32, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what i'm fearing, Astro and Eric. My fear for Earl could turn out to be a nightmare, the first bad storm of this year. Stay tuned on Earl. I typed my fear above. Unfortunately, it very well might happen. Ryan1000 14:36, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Dead basin thing (continued)

 * Our fist bad boy this year was Alex. You now what all of those years Asto mentioned expect for this year have in common, an active EPAC hurricane season. 1992 had 28 named storms, we have 6 thus far. YE <font color="#66666">Tropical <font color="#66666">Cyclone  15:09, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not true, last year was average. The average is 16.3, and there were 17 named storms. <font color="#ff7f00" family="Nyala">atomic <font color="#0000ff" family="Nyala">77 <font color="#00FF00" family="Nyala">32 15:37, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Depends which average you use. the NHC site says 15, 13,4 and 15.5. YE <font color="#66666">Tropical <font color="#66666">Cyclone  16:12, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually 15.3 1 <font color="#ff7f00" family="Nyala">atomic <font color="#0000ff" family="Nyala">77 <font color="#00FF00" family="Nyala">32 16:43, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, there were 20 storms last year, I count CPac storms. The CPac is not it's own season, it is with the EPac. It was thus the most acive season since 1992, the most active on record. This year cannot truly be predicted from now. Ryan1000 18:56, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2009 PHS was 95% of the ACE median (AKA, near normal). I usually dont like using #of storms for activity, because for example 1950 AHS did not have many storms, but it had an epic amount of major hurricanes, making it the 2nd most active season in terms of ACE. Anyway, 2010 EPAC, unless it gets the occasional wave or trough or whatever is there, will not have many storms. We are well behind climatology (1 month) in the number of tropical storms, a month behind in hurricanes, so unless there will be an epic amount of storms like what will happen in ATL in the next month, we will probably not see a very active season. I'm sorry YE, but its gonna be hard for a near-normal season to happen. (BTW, I'm using the 71-09 Average because apparently, the NHC thinks its accurate enough, and I agree) Using a different average leads a different result, but for the most accurate average, you have to put the most amount of accurate years.) <font color="Blue">Darren 23 Edits 19:09, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Darren, to tell the truth, I actually think that a season should be ranked on notablility. ACE determines how much "energy" the cyclones have in a season, but what's the point of that energy if no storms affect land? The 1950 AHS had two or three notable storms, and that's it (King, and Dog, possibly Easy). The 1992 AHS was a below average ACE of a season, but Andrew made that year very notable. The 1990 PHS was second to 1992 as the highest ACE on record(although the average ACE per storm in '90 was higher than '92) but only TS Rachel made landfall in 1990. Everything else was a fishie. The 1996 PHS wasn't very active, but it is only second to 1971 as having the highest number of landfalls in an EPac season, and great impacts, especially from Alma. No offense, but I don't care about a season if there is nothing special about it. 1887 is an example. One of the most active seasons on record, but nothing special during that year. You think that the longer strong storms last and the higher ACE they have, the more notable the season. Your ACE does come into account with storms like Allen, the 1947 hurricane, and the 1893 Charleston Hurricane, but notability is what matters most. There is no big point of a season having any worth unless a storm makes landfall and causes a great impact in the area hit. In the same way, # of storms and notability don't correspond either, or with ACE. Right now, rather than talk about ACE and dead basins, continue with what I typed about Earl above. It could be a big threat to New England. Ryan1000 19:40, August 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, to a meteorological standpoint, a season which is active will be more notable than a basin which is deadly. If you dont give a damn about a very active season with fishies, then this aint the proper forum for you. So what if this season is not deadly? You're just gonna disregard it just because in your mind it ain't notable? This is a hurricane meteorology forum, not the hurricane deadliness or whatever you think it is forum. <font color="Blue">Darren 23 Edits 19:53, August 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * I dotn see any reason why we cant get 12-15 named storms in the EPAC. I agree with Ryan, some years have lot's of storms, but no major impact such as 1990 PHS. On the other had 1996 PHS had a lot of impact but few storms. Darren, you just want to call 2009 "near normal" to silence EPAC lovers such as me who love last year. YE <font color="#66666">Tropical <font color="#66666">Cyclone  20:25, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't see why? You don't see why? I give up in explaining stupid facts to you. EPAC will be inactive, whether you like it or not. And accept the fact that 2009 and the NHC calls it "Near-Normal" and the ACE is Near normal and the averages are near normal. Get over it! You just dont get it do you? <font color="Blue">Darren 23 Edits 20:34, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2009 is just not "near-normal" in my book. I look at it this way "2009 had 20 EPAC/CPAC named cyclones the most since 1994" I have told you sevral times that post El Nino's are suppost to be at least somewhat active (12-15 NS). YE <font color="#66666">Tropical <font color="#66666">Cyclone  20:47, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Your book isnt official. And this season is different. 1998 was in H by now, 2005 was in I right now, and I really don't care about the rest the post-El-Nino's. The point is, we've seen only 5 storms, and getting to double digits would be hard enough since June was an anomaly and that gave you 4 systems and 3 storms. <font color="Blue">Darren 23 Edits 21:22, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong, we have had 6 storm ths far. I don't think what hard about getting another 6 storms. EPAC storms coem in buches, so if we get a bunch of two or three more storms we are at 8 or 9. YE <font color="#66666">Tropical <font color="#66666">Cyclone  21:38, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * They sometimes form in bunches. But since the mighty ATL is now stealing all the tropical waves, that wont happen. Trust me YE, EPAC will be below average (I say that with 95% certainty), so do not get your hopes up. <font color="Blue">Darren 23 Edits 21:41, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thus far, I am sastfied with the year. Howevr, I need 11 more stroms to be happy. Odds of that happening=good IMO. YE <font color="#66666">Tropical <font color="#66666">Cyclone  00:28, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Darren, I don't think that a season must be notable, but I view notability as more important for a season than ACE activity. It is fun to root for the big fishies to get very strong, but when it comes to things like the "Retirements at a glance" sections, I can't give these fishies any hope. I agree Darren, the EPac season will probrably be below average (no offense, YE), but again, notability and inactivity do not correlate all the time. 2002, for example, didn't turn out to be extremely active, although the ACE wasn't so far off, but when Hurricane Kenna came along, she became one of the strongest hurricanes to hit Mexico's Pacific coast, and by means of pressure, was the strongest. Let alone, 2002 was an el nino year, too. Darren, just one storm can make a bad season. We don't want any more bustcasting with fishies, and I fear something big is lurking in October of this year's Pacific season-but I just don't know what it will be. And as I mentioned, Darren, this discussion should stop. We should be paying attention to Hurricane Earl more than any "dead basin thing"s. It will be a bad storm, and it bears watching. Why don't you wan't to talk about him? If you want to talk about the EPac dead streak, go to that forum, this one isn't for the Eastern Pacific; it's for the Atlantic. Don't get me wrong, I don't want a bad season, but I don't want anyone to think there won't be any bad storms this year. If we don't lose the bust attitude or fishie attitude, it will just make things worse, trust me. I don't want anyone living in denial thinking it won't happen to them. Everyone must be prepared. Mother nature can throw anything at us at anytime. In short, my only fear is we will have a lot of fishie storms, but then we get something that isn't any fishie, and things will not look so good for those who were thinking this season was a fail. I DO NOT want this year to be like "the weatherman who cried hurricane" in which the forecasters say "get out" for the first several storms and they miss, but then a hurricane comes along and doesn't miss, but the people think it will, and bad things happen. That's what happened with Katrina. It's better to be safe than sorry. Ryan1000 01:18, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * To Ryan's post way above. ACE is a measure of activity and strength, not notability. You can't measure notability. You can't call 1992 "active", just because of Andrew. <font color="#ff7f00" family="Nyala">atomic <font color="#0000ff" family="Nyala">77 <font color="#00FF00" family="Nyala">32 02:55, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Alive basin thing
The activity is much more alive again. I dont live in the East coast, so I not concerned for my sake. It reminds me of last year, exept the EPAC and ATL are opposites! YE <font color="#66666">Tropical <font color="#66666">Cyclone  02:29, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Though the basins are alive, that isn't the point of the discussion. <font color="#ff7f00" family="Nyala">atomic <font color="#0000ff" family="Nyala">77 <font color="#00FF00" family="Nyala">32 02:57, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ryan, why don't I just come out and say something like "Earl's gonna plow into NYC as a Cat 4!" That'll guarantee it comes nowhere near the coast. -- SkyFury 04:53, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Eric, we can't assume what it'll do. I personally do not think New York will get a direct hit from Earl as of now, but it is not out of the question that it could hit eastern long Island or Rhode Island, ect. I'm just waiting. And Atomic, notability cannot be measured, but I view 1992 as "bad" not "active". I think that we as people should view storms that threaten land as more dangerous than those that don't affect land. Not to offend anyone by a meteorological standpoint, but it's what I think, overall, is true. Andrew was that kind of case. It wouldn't have been remembered for a long time to come had it not affected land. I think Earl will be something big to watch over the next few days. Also, I think you have noticed recently, the WPac is exploding right now. It's a good thing if storms don't affect land, but we are mainly worried about the storms that do threaten us, rather than the ones that don't. Ryan1000 11:18, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I was kidding. All of New England needs to be paying very close attention to this thing, but in the long run, I don't think NYC will be directly impacted. I doubt they'll be enjoying their weekend much, but I don't see any major impacts coming into the Five Boroughs. Cape Cod, eastern Long Island and Rhode Island may be a different story though. -- SkyFury 22:45, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, then all we can do is wait. Ryan1000 22:59, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, seems like I was right. For August, ATL was above average and is 50% above average for the year. Any bustcasters around? :P <font color="Blue">Darren 23 Edits 16:33, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. A few WU users. YE <font color="#66666">Tropical <font color="#66666">Cyclone  16:56, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Atlantic will be below average, but we still need twice the number of named storms and major hurricanes from where we are now to hit NOAA's minimum predictions they made on August 5th. However, I still think the WPac will be well below-average, and the recent hot streak they had there won't last very long. The East Pacific will probrably hit the average mark in numbers, but I don't think we will have lots of hurricanes and major hurricanes there. Ryan1000 20:27, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * If I am reading the ACE numbers right, the season is already at average for the year and is already above 2009, and IMO, there is a nearly 100% chance for an above average season in terms of ACE and storm amounts now. So, I'm still thinking that 16-8-4 is still possible if you think about it. <font color="Blue">Darren 23 Edits 22:19, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I still hold the 12-6-3 prediction I made earlier, Darren. The peak of the season is 3 days away and after that we have just 3 more weeks until October comes. As of now, I am not very interested. The new waves off of the coast of Africa are very disorganized and won't develop in the near future, and the NHC says Gaston now only has a 20% chance of redeveloping in the next few days. I do not consider that number as "Gaston will redevelop". It could do that in the Eastern Pacific, but I don't think we will have a 2004 or 2008 from where we are right now, not in numbers anyways, but the ACE could be very different. Ryan1000 15:41, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Think about it very carefully. 12-8=4. 4 isn't a whole lotta storms. In fact, it can be done in September if this season sped up. Igor (91L) has been forecast to form for a few days now off Africa, I think there are still a few forecasting Gaston redevelopment in ATL, and some IIRC are forecasting Julia. We have a great chance at >14 storms (very good chance, and I'll bet we'll go over 14), and since this is La Nina, this season should last to... December maybe. And to the Gaston forecast: it has a 20% chance to form in the next 48 hours, that doesn't mean it will not form alltogether. I also think since most storms so far are weak and not-long lasting, we will probably not see a 2004 in ACE numbers, but a 2008 is not out of the question (80 ACE units I think to the 2008 number). <font color="Blue">Darren 23 Edits 23:22, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Gaston wont regnerate. Since when do storms regenerate of DR. I am not sure if 91L will develop if it does it will likely be a fishspinner. Not all La Nina are hyperactive such as as 1991, 2007. Darren, you are just an ATL lover, but my prediction is 15-7-4. YE <font color="#66666">Tropical <font color="#66666">Cyclone  00:36, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, YE, 1991 was the start of an El Nino, and even so, Bob made 1991 somewhat exeptional. 1973 is a better example. Also, I'm still not predicting the numbers, but again, the ACE might still counteract that. Overall, I haven't found anything interesting so far this year in the Atlantic, exept for Alex a little bit. However, our new Atlantic storm, Igor, could change that in a heartbeat. Ryan1000 20:54, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Did i say 1991? I meant 2001. YE <font color="#66666">Tropical <font color="#66666">Cyclone  22:43, September 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Uh, YE? Did you look at 2001? 2001 had an ACE of almost 100, which definitely isn't below average. Also, 2001 had over 7 billion in damage, so it was both notable and slightly hyperactive. Just say 1973. That year was a La Nina, but was terribly inactive in terms of ACE and notability. 2007 was not at the average, but it did have 3 rather exeptional storms. This year is a whole new ball game. Ryan1000 23:27, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Major hurricane number 3 is here, Julia is coming, maybe even Karl, and there still many more where that came from. Ryan, are you sure you don't want to change your forecast? <font color="Blue">Darren 23 Edits 21:01, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah. 'Bout that, yes, I say 15-8-4 instead of 12-6-3. I highly doubt we'll end up with my earlier prediction as of now. We will probrably turn out to be as active as 2004 or 2008 as of now, but I highly doubt we will suffer the impacts from those two seasons. We won't have a 2005-like season from where we are now, but 50 billion in damage seems somewhat unlikely, too, if all of these storms wheel around the Bermuda High and out to sea. Stay tuned.Ryan1000 21:13, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * We are ahead of 2008 and 2004 now and I change my prediction to 18-9-6 with an ACE of about 210% above median, and this could go further up.
 * I say we will probrably get a 2004 or 2008 season from now, but a 2005 is out of the question-- not by means of ACE, but numbers. I'll have to wait another two months until this season is done, by then i'll know for sure. Ryan1000 20:55, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * This has been a simply amazing season so far. I don't know why anybody thought this would be a bust. The atmospheric conditions were there, the sea temperatures were there, the steering patterns were there, the low shear was there, the increased instability was there, and even a late start usually indicates a bad season, just look at 2004 for example. Once climatology picked upm the season picked up, and it eat our expectations in the blink of an eye. 2007Astro&#39;sHurricane 15:18, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is what I and alot of other people here were saying :P. It wasn't gonna be a bust as everything was there for an explosion of activity which is what we saw. 3 back to back major hurricanes! 2 of them rapidly intensified where no major hurricanes have, and 1 was a very intense Cat 4 (I could argue that it was a Cat 5, but I'm not going to). Oh well, there is an outside chance we could go to R, S or tie 95 with a T storm. <font color="Blue">Darren 23 Edits 15:58, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * The only reason people were saying this season would be a bust back in July and August was because we didn't put up 2005-like numbers at that time. Truth is, we will not do that, but we will have an above-average season. I'm thinking we will get a large number of strong hurricanes during this season, like 1950 in terms of majors, but more category 4's than 1999 or 2005. We have yet to see a U.S. landfalling hurricane, and the only TS to hit us as of now was Bonnie back in late July. Not to say we won't see one, but if we do, it will be one of the latest first U.S. landfalling hurricanes on record. This season isn't done, and we have a long, long ways to go. Ryan1000 22:51, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I raise my prediction to 20-11-7. <font color="#ff7f00" family="Nyala">atomic <font color="#0000ff" family="Nyala">77 <font color="#00FF00" family="Nyala">32 03:30, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the NHC's monthly report for September came out, and the ACE turned out to be 178% of where it otherwise should have been for September, but the long-term ACE is only about 153% above-average. Are there still any people out there bustcasting about this year's season? I didn't think so. A quiet settting does not imply a quiet plot or ending. This year has been truly remarkable thus far. We have had 8 storms form in September of this year, which ties 2002 and 2007 for the most active ever recorded, and 10 storms "existed" in the month, an all-time record for the ATL. Also, some of 2010's names thus far are some of the earliest storms of the letter, like Matthew and Nicole. We are only one storm behind where 2004 peaked at, and two behind where 2008 ended, yet half as active as 2005 was. This year was never going to be a bust based on the conditions that were present for the season back in July and August, but we didn't have(and likely won't have) 50+ billion in damage, either. Even so, at the rate we are going, this might just turn out to be the second hurricane season in a row when the U.S. saw no hurricanes, but we did have some very close calls, and it definitely isn't too late for us to see one. October/November will have some storms, but who knows what they will be like. This season has two months left, and there is still plenty of potential for us, or somewhere else in the Atlantic, to see a monster hurricane. Stay tuned on the rest of 2010. Ryan1000 04:04, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, forecasters are still predicting 2010 could be active in October and November. If anything, I would say we would have 3-4 more storms, tops. I am not saying we won't get any strong storms in the last two months of the 2010 season, but in general, I wouldn't expect to see a category 4 hurricane hitting Tampa and causing 50 billion in damages or so. The Carribean must watch out, but because there are a lot of cold fronts dipping down into the southeast at this time of year, a U.S. landfall anywhere would be confined to southwestern Florida and likely nowhere else. This season isn't over yet, but, IMO, it is a sad excuse for a repeat of 2004, 2005, or 2008. Still, stay tuned. Ryan1000 00:09, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Forum:2010 Pacific hurricane season

 * This forum seems somewhat dead lets make it a little more active. Ill also create another forum later today. YE <font color="#66666">Tropical <font color="#66666">Cyclone  15:51, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the ATL basin forum... :| <font color="#ff7f00" family="Nyala">atomic <font color="#0000ff" family="Nyala">77 <font color="#00FF00" family="Nyala">32 16:55, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I know :P. YE <font color="#66666">Tropical <font color="#66666">Cyclone

Replacement Names
Still early, but anybody have any replacement names for the possible retirees? Here's mine:

Alex: Aaron, Aurelio, Ashton, Arlo, Axel, Avery, Adam, Anton

Karl: Kurtis, Kurt, Ken, Kip, Kelly, Kent, Kel, Keenan (I doubt it though) Jake52 03:40, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Aurelio??? Really? <font color="#ff7f00" family="Nyala">atomic <font color="#0000ff" family="Nyala">77 <font color="#00FF00" family="Nyala">32 04:17, September 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * Kelly is a girl's name! Why bring that up? I have many other recommendations, but I would wait until 2010 is over until we make a big list of these names... Ryan1000 11:38, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * I will not even say mine since we know how WMO is with new names (Seriously, Gonzalo, Isaias, Paulette, Nestor, Dorian, Rina, Don, and many more?) <font color="Blue">Darren 23 Edits 01:19, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am upset over their stupidity for replacement names, but then again, this season isn't over. We will have one or two storms thus far, but October and November are just around the corner, and both months can produce catastrophic hurricanes. We must wait until this season really ends. Ryan1000 01:41, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Here are some of my suggestions:

Alex:


 * Alejandro, Amaranto, Amedeo, Antonio, Arturo, Augusto, Alessandro, Alfonso, Alfred, Alfredo, Angelo, Antonello

Igor (has a chance for retirement considering it affected Canada and that it was the largest Atlantic hurricane ever recorded):


 * Isidoro, Ignazio, Italus, Irving, Ian, Immanuel, Iezekiel, Ignatius, Ilbert, Ildefonso, Ioan, Iohannes, Ishmael, Izzy

Karl:


 * Kai, Kaiser, Kaito, Karlo, Kaspar, Kazuki, Keaton, Kendall, Kennedy, Kerry, Killian, Kim, Kirby, King, Knox, Kobe, Konstantin,

Does anyone like these names? 129.24.64.23 18:32, October 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * A couple of recommendations: I personally don't prefer Arturo because it is somewhat confusing with Arthur, the english version of the name used last year. Isidoro is a no-no because Isidore was used and retired in 2002. One letter off could be quite confusing, and probrably not necessary for replacement. Ignazio is confusing with Ignacio, which was used in last year's Pacific hurricane season and will be used again in the 2015 season. Karlo is confusing with Karl itself, and probrably won't be a good choice for replacement. The U.S. government probrably won't prefer Kennedy as Germany didn't wan't the name Adolph to be on the Pacific list and Israel didn't want their country's name to be used for a replacement name, after 1995's Hurricane Isamel, and lastly, Ilbert is a bit confusing with Gilbert, which was retired after 1988. Other than that, this is a good head start, I suppose. Ryan1000 21:53, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't Izzy a female name short for Isabel? BTW aren't Kim and Kerry female names too?
 * My list: Aaron, Abel, Adam, Al, Anthony. These are the most likely used candidates. Kai, Kay, Ken, Kennedy, Keenan. Ian, Ignacio. Names do get used in the EPac and Atl a example being Celia. HurricaneSpin 00:38, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * BehindTheName says that Izzy, Kim, and Kerry can either be male or female. I actually have heard of some males named Kim, such as smooth jazz saxophonist Kim Waters. Also, it isn't unsual for a variant of a retired name to be used. For example, Frederic was replaced by Fabian, which was later replaced by Fred. 24.117.97.9 04:05, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * BehindTheName says that Izzy, Kim, and Kerry can either be male or female. I actually have heard of some males named Kim, such as smooth jazz saxophonist Kim Waters. Also, it isn't unsual for a variant of a retired name to be used. For example, Frederic was replaced by Fabian, which was later replaced by Fred. 24.117.97.9 04:05, October 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice list, though I would say the WMO prefers to use shorter of names. <font color="#000000">HurricaneSpin <font color="#654321">Talk to me  04:20, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * There's another thing. If they retire Alex and Igor they can't replace them with e.g. Aurelio and Ignacio because of tbey must make proportional use of English, French and Spanish names. It is therefor pretty certain that Axel would be replaced by Axel. For Igor I don't know: Igor replaced Ivan, so Ian would be a choice as well as any other I-name but maybe they will stick to Russian names for I... what about Ilya? For Karl maybe Knut, Kai, was there any Konrad yet? Maybe Kuno? Konstantin might be too long. --88.102.101.245 06:19, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO, Fred and Frederic aren't really as confusing as Isidoro and Isidore, or Ignazio and Ignacio. I personally would want Aaron, Ian, and Kurt as replacement names. There are may others out there, however, and the WMO will decide what to do. Ryan1000 22:03, October 13, 2010 (UTC


 * Why not Ignacio/Ignazio? It has never been used in the ATL before. <font color="#000000">HurricaneSpin <font color="#654321">Talk to me  00:09, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * HurricaneSpin, Ignazio can't be used because Ignacio is currently in use in the eastern Pacific basin; it was most recently used last year, and the same name cannot be in use in the Atlantic and Pacific at the same time. I typed this exact thing above as well. I'm sorry if you didn't notice what I mentioned above about this but that's just how things work with the WMO. Ignazio is too closely related to Ignacio to be used as a replacement name. Ian would probrably be my best choice for Igor, and Aaron would be my personal choice for Alex. I don't know what Karl will have as a replacement; Kurt wouldn't be my best choice, but it's a possible reccomendation nontheless. Ryan1000 01:34, October 14, 2010 (UTC)