Forum:2010 Atlantic hurricane season

AoI: South of the Cape Verdes
There's another good looking wave that's come off of Africa. The models don't think much of it, but I think it bears watching. Beware the first storm of September! -- SkyFury 22:49, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe shear is higher than was over the past two systems. IMO, Fiona was the end of this round, but could it become Howard? YE Tropical Cyclone  23:38, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

98L.INVEST
Invest'd and up on NHC at 10%. --Patteroast 06:42, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * The Cape Verde train continues. I'm just waiting for the carnival music to kick in. Watch out for this one! While we're all busy with Earl, 98L is just patiently getting its act together. The models take it more to the south, generally making it a weak tropical storm/developing tropical depression headed for the Caribbean by the end of the period and it's got all the time in the world to develop. Stay tuned. Need I repeat myself? BEWARE THE FIRST STORM OF SEPTEMBER! -- SkyFury 00:10, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Up to 20%. Looks rather well-organized for something at its stage of development... --Patteroast 00:22, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Check back a week from today and see what 98L looks like then. I think this one could be very interesting. -- SkyFury 06:34, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 60%. YE Tropical Cyclone  12:58, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking we're going to see something sooner than a week from now... up to 80% risk. Gaston? --Patteroast 13:09, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Tropical Depression Nine
Up on RBt. YE Tropical Cyclone
 * Up on NRL too. Colorado State's tracking site already lists it as "Tropical Depression Nine." I can't say I expected this. Wow. If these independent agencies are right, we should have advisories later today. And I agree with them, it looks like a tropical depression. I thought they were lowballing it yesterday when they only had it at 20%. I thought it should've been at least a medium risk and it turns out I was right. The models are all over the place right now. The ones that make it a stronger storm take it north of the Caribbean. This one makes me a little nervous. -- SkyFury 14:47, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting for NHC confirmation... but this one bears watching because it's much farther south, and the trough that could recurve Earl is going to be long gone when Gaston comes in. Stay tuned. Ryan1000 14:55, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's official. Forecast to head west and strengthen. -- SkyFury 15:07, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I'm a bit concerned about this one. The "cone of uncertainty" is somewhat wide for this storm. It could end up winding into the carribean, or it could make landfall on the northern lesser antillies as a hurricane, or just explode and never really affect land at all. Stay tuned on this one. And Eric, about the "BEWARE THE FIRST STORM OF SEPTEMBER" thing you typed above, Felix formed on the last day of August, so he doesn't really count toward your motto; it's the first storm to form in September, not the first to exist in September, remember? Ryan1000 15:24, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Holy holy cow, cow, cow. The Cape Verde train keeps spewing out storms and so far every single one of them since Danielle has been developing despite dry SAL in the area (what did I say about the southward-moving TD5 setting off an active season?). It seems that the storms that fizzle out are the ones that break through the weak Bermuda high to be enveloped by dry air and/or shear, and the end of the forecast for this storm shows acceleration, intensification AND a westward turn due to the Bermuda High building in. Some computer models don't even show this storm existing, which presents an extra forecasting difficulty. Therefore, it could hit anywhere from Nicaragua to Bermuda, and we ain't got a clue this early! However GFS ensemble seems to be hinting at Greater Antilles. It has some stable, dry air to its north, but if it manages to carry some ITCZ monsoonal moisture with it, and then gain enough latitude under favourable conditions, it could actually become a very large storm. The depression at this stage is comparable to the wave/Invest/probable TD that preceded the formation of Hurricane Alex back in mid-June. 2007Astro&#39;sHurricane 16:25, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Gaston
Upgraded! Forecast brings it to hurricane strength well before getting to the Lesser Antilles. --Patteroast 20:47, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * THE GUIDANCE NOW INDICATES CONSIDERABLY MORE INTENSIFICATION OF 

GASTON...WITH THE NORMALLY CONSERVATIVE LGEM SHOWING THIS SYSTEM BECOMING A MAJOR HURRICANE BY THE END OF THE PERIOD.
 * Yikes! The GFS 12z is predicting a direct hit on Puerto Rico. 2007Astro&#39;sHurricane 21:25, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

If this thing pulls an Earl, it might not be as bad as it could be, but as I mentioned above, that trough will be long gone when Gaston comes in. Stay tuned. Ryan1000 02:09, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Since Advisory 2, may intensify into a cat 2 sonn after the weekend. --88.102.101.245 08:43, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's weakened back to a depression, but may strengthen and weaken periodically until it reaches more favourable conditions. Caribbean, Greater Antilles, and the US Gulf and East Coast should watch this. 2007Astro&#39;sHurricane 16:34, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, Gaston is dying away now. This weakening will not last forever, but I feel it will be making it's way into the Carribean at this rate. Stay tuned on Gaston. Ryan1000 17:30, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Dead. YE Tropical Cyclone

Remnants of Gaston
Bye bye promising Gaston... You disappointed us. atomic 77 32 22:28, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Disappointed? At this point, I've got a bad feeling from this one: weaker systems aren't as affected by steering conditions like the ones driving Earl, so Gaston may end up a Gulf threat. Jake52 23:33, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wind shear. YE Tropical <font color="#66666">Cyclone
 * Hmmm... Interesting. Gaston is now an open wave. The last time a storm formed in the open Atlantic, died, and regenerated to affect the U.S. was 2005's Katrina, if I recall correctly. Now this storm will head much farther south and not at all make a turn out to sea unless it regenerates right now. Stay tuned. This one is trying not to strengthen so fast, unlike Danielle, and to a lesser extent, Earl. Ryan1000 01:20, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * A deadly Fiona? And YE, it's called "dry air". <font color="#ff7f00" family="Nyala">atomic <font color="#0000ff" family="Nyala">77 <font color="#00FF00" family="Nyala">32 02:30, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to say I'd be surprised if Gaston did NOT regenerate at some point. Still, this is good news for now for anyone in its path. --Patteroast 03:34, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Remnants of Gaston are at 40% chance of redevelopment, per NHC. --Patteroast 13:18, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I too would be a little surprised if Gaston did not redevelop. The circulation is intact, so if conditions improve enough for deep convection to redevelop, ex-Gaston should be in a good position to take advantage. SHIPS, LGEM, GFS, NOGAPS and IVCN all redevelop it. Of those, only NOGAPS doesn't make it a hurricane by the end of the period. -- SkyFury 15:15, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree too, Eric. This thing is having a tough time with Earl and Fiona's outflow, but once Gaston reaches the Carribean Sea, then he will be out of the shear and go berserk in the conditions there. I don't think it will redevelop today, but 3-4 days from now, things could be very different. Ryan1000 18:11, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Up to 60% now. --Patteroast 01:37, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 70%. The wording that NHC is using makes it sound like they're pretty confident that advisories will start up again at some point. --Patteroast 17:19, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 80%! "...A TROPICAL DEPRESSION COULD RE-FORM IN THIS AREA AT ANY TIME." --Patteroast 17:58, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Gaston's remnants are much farther west than where they had been, and now this thing is much more likely to wind up in the Carribean. Stay tuned. He's making a comeback! Ryan1000 20:31, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Darnet. I don't want devastation. Please ULL's come back Please. YE <font color="#66666">Tropical <font color="#66666">Cyclone
 * Most models take it due West/West-Southwest all the way to Hispaniola, and the OFCL forecast has it to 75 kts by 120 hrs IIRC. Stay tuned, this might be worse for the Leewards than Earl, and it caused ~$150 million so far. After that, it may do an Ike, or it may go to the East coast, its just too far to tell. <font color="Blue">Darren 23 Edits 21:27, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * This storm is turning out like Alex did early in the season, when the precursor storm existed as a possible TD, then a wave for about two weeks before exploding in intensity. Some models bring it back to a hurricane in a few days, but the NHC was correct in keeping the system as an open wave for five days after the "last advisory". This could end up being a Gulf Storm. 2007Astro&#39;sHurricane 15:38, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Now near Puerto Rico. The chances have gone down over the last day or so, but still at 20% right now. --Patteroast 04:07, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * ... and now near 0%. Maybe Gaston's not coming to get us after all. :P Still, worth keeping an eye on its remnants as much as any other wave in the Caribbean. --Patteroast 12:30, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Remnants located between Jamaica, Haiti and Southeastern Cuba. Will likely continue to experience land interaction until entering the Gulf. 2007Astro&#39;sHurricane 11:50, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Remnants are re-organizing south of Jamaica. Keep an eye on this one. Potential for re-generation in a few days IMO. 2007Astro&#39;sHurricane 23:34, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome to land masses. YE <font color="#66666">Tropical  <font color="#66666">Cyclone  00:07, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Now north of Honduras. Unlikely to develop at this point unless it moves over the Isthmus of Tehuantepec and could develop in either basin. 2007Astro&#39;sHurricane 15:05, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

AoI: Coming off of Africa
Yet another wave is coming off of Africa. A couple of the models show some development from it. --Patteroast 13:18, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Up on NHC at low risk, 10%. --Patteroast 16:36, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * 20%. Still, Gaston just fell apart, so... --Patteroast 13:20, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * 30% Hermine gonna follow her brother? Is she gonna be smart and not to try to form? <font color="#ff7f00" family="Nyala">atomic <font color="#0000ff" family="Nyala">77 <font color="#00FF00" family="Nyala">32 23:14, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

99L.INVEST
Invest'd. Both this and ex-Gaston are on the Mariner's 1-2-3 rule graphic as danger areas. --Patteroast 01:39, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * The invest has become more spread out, risk is back down to 20% for now. --Patteroast 17:21, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, reduced to 10% shortly after I posted that... --Patteroast 17:58, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * And not even on NHC or NRL anymore. --Patteroast 09:23, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

AoI: Bay of Campeche/Remnants of 11E
Some storms that seem to be pretty closely related to ex-depression 11E have been mentioned by NHC the last couple days. In 11E's final advisory, there was mention that some models develop something in the southern Gulf of Mexico... it's unclear whether it might be 11E itself or other nearby storms. Either way, there's a 20% risk right now. --Patteroast 17:28, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * And of course, right after I post that they up it to 30%. --Patteroast 17:58, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

90L.INVEST
Invest'd and up to 50% risk. --Patteroast 09:23, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * High risk, 60%. --Patteroast 13:10, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * It will be a new Depression since the invests been renumbered and the LLCC has dissipated.JasonRees 00:48, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I figured. I can't say I've even seen them mention any connection to 11E. It's up to 80% now. --Patteroast 00:59, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Tropical Depression Ten
Upgraded! Tropical storm warnings up to the Rio Grande. Forecast to become Hermine. --Patteroast 02:56, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Hermine
Upgrade on 5:00 UTC. --88.102.101.245 11:33, September 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting again. Formed out of 11-E's remnants in the East Pac, and now it could threaten Texas. At worst it could pull a Bret, but we have to wait to be sure. Ryan1000 15:06, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, this storm crossed over via the Isthmus of Tehuantepec and ended up in the Gulf. Model tracks have trended farther north in past 12 hours. 2007Astro&#39;sHurricane 15:42, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Hermine did not form from 11E, instead, it formed from a trough-split and TD11E's remnants just went over to that area. Hermine should make landfall tonight, and we should see some flooding in MX especially since they haven't fully recovered from Alex. <font color="Blue">Darren 23 Edits 22:15, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I belive it partly formed from ex-11E and a trough split. YE <font color="#66666">Tropical  <font color="#66666">Cyclone  00:43, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Landfall. --Patteroast 03:13, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Final advisory, over northern Texas. --Patteroast 12:35, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

AoI:Yet Another Wave
Wow... This could get serious. GFS has it forming upon contact with water. So does TAFB experimental. <font color="#ff7f00" family="Nyala">atomic <font color="#0000ff" family="Nyala">77 <font color="#00FF00" family="Nyala">32 02:05, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Jeff Masters on Wunderground mentioned this. Wonder how it will fare compared to 99L... --Patteroast 03:06, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * This wave scares me, really, I mean, there is a good chance it will form, a good chance it will be a hurricane and a very decent shot at major hurricane status. I will watch out for Igor in the next 5 days. <font color="Blue">Darren 23 Edits 03:12, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I want a fish please. YE <font color="#66666">Tropical  <font color="#66666">Cyclone  03:33, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * One circulation appearing northwest of Cape Verde, and another just coming off the coast of Africa. 2007Astro&#39;sHurricane 15:45, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

91L.INVEST
The circulation closer to the coast is now 91L. NHC has it at 40% risk. NHC also has the other center at 10%. --Patteroast 04:00, September 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * I know I said this for Gaston (the redevelopment of which is still not out of the question) but this one looks scary. Most of the models make this a significant hurricane and take it westward to just north of the Leeward Islands, maintaining a strong ridge. I've seen far to many 'I' storms become household names. Gaston was killed by dry air, the abundance of which has been the wild card this season. There is a huge mass of dry air in the upper levels over the tropical Atlantic that seems to be associated with a massive upper-level low. That low is forecast to lift out to the northeast over the next few days. I don't expect this ridiculous amount of dry air to stick around for very long. I don't expect our ridiculous amount of good luck to stick around much longer either. Nature keeps shooting at us and I get the feeling that sooner or later, she's gonna find her mark. -- SkyFury 05:52, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * NHC no longer notes the western bit as being separate. 91L is at 70% risk. --Patteroast 12:32, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Igor
Whoa! Went to check up on 91L and found Igor. Still in the vicinity of Cape Verde and already a storm... yikes. --Patteroast 15:59, September 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * This one looks really scary. It could run into some problems if that upper level dry air doesn't move out. However, most of the global models forecast an upper level anticyclone to form over the system toward the end of the period. If that happens, this could get ugly really fast. I wouldn't count on that ridge to weaken enough to turn Igor out to sea. -- SkyFury 17:54, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

It's way too early to tell; this is exactly what Earl looked like, just formed a little farther west. However, Igor is not grabbing my attention... yet. Stay tuned. Ryan1000 20:50, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Igor will take a slightly more northeasterly track than Earl, sorta like Bill 09. YE <font color="#66666">Tropical <font color="#66666">Cyclone  22:45, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's only September and we have what last year ended with... My prediction is feasible. VERY feasible. <font color="#ff7f00" family="Nyala">atomic <font color="#0000ff" family="Nyala">77 <font color="#00FF00" family="Nyala">32 23:08, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I still say it's too soon to tell what Igor will do, but if I wait a week and come back, things could be very different, or it could just turn out to sea like Bill did. And Darren, the ACE of this year is just about 8 below 2007 as of now. You were right on the prediction you made for the ACE; 2010 will be hyperactive. However, numbers might not correspond. 1893 wasn't extremely active(though back in the 1800's, 13 storms was probrably exeptional), but the ACE of that year is in the top 10, largely due to the Charelston and Sea Islands hurricanes. Also, Igor is only heading west at 6 mph... I have a feeling that if that ridge stays strong, it could be a long-lived storm with an exeptionally high ACE. Ryan1000 23:46, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? Igor is getting me scratching my head right now. Since when do storms stall off of Cape Verde? This isn't quite what Fred did, but Igor just doesn't want to move. Can anyone explain this? This storm is downright weird to me. Ryan1000 11:11, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Igor appears to be weakening and drifting north, but the ridge to its north will keep it from doing so. Maybe the steering currents in this area are very weak. GFS turns it out to sea and brushes it off Newfoundland, but at cat. 2 predicted in 5 days, you never know. 2007Astro&#39;sHurricane 11:58, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * The scenario being portrayed by the GFS right now is really quite terrifying. Not only does it show Igor becoming a strong hurricane, it also shows another wave coming in behind it out of nowhere and just exploding. Meanwhile, it moves 92L NW through the Caribbean as a well-organized tropical storm ("Julia") headed for the Gulf of Mexico. And near the end of the week, it develops yet another storm off Africa. At the end, you can see the predicted trough eroding the ridge ahead of Igor and a new high pressure system moving off the east coast. This pattern would recurve Igor away from land. If this happened, it would appear likely that the new ridge would strengthen in the wake of Igor and force the hypothetical hurricane behind it ("Karl") westward, very possibly right into the Carolinas. And who knows what a hypothetical "Julia" would do once it cleared the Yucatan. All the models I have access to develop something substantial behind Igor in 60-72 hrs. Most make it just as big as Igor. -- SkyFury 20:05, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * What you're predicting is way to far out to be certain, but it is not a good thing to see. Also, Igor is just not moving. If the steering currents remain weak, it will just sit over the Cape Verdes and soak them up in several inches, possibly feet, of rain. I don't know if it'll pull a Beryl, but I have to wait to be sure. That's all I can say for now.Ryan1000 21:18, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said anything was certain. All I said was that the model forecasts look pretty scary right now. -- SkyFury 22:19, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * This storm is trending west after stalling, but down to a TD. Large burst of convection, likely to eventually become a major, and active Cape Verde Season continues. GFS model actually creates up to Nicole by September 25. 2007Astro&#39;sHurricane 23:41, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

I saw this coming. Epic fail. Igor, just as did your epic fail brother Gaston, you failed us. Since when do storms fail over Cape Verde? <font color="#ff7f00" family="Nyala">atomic <font color="#0000ff" family="Nyala">77 <font color="#00FF00" family="Nyala">32 00:25, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's not really helpful at all. The forecast still brings Igor to hurricane strength. --Patteroast 01:54, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Gaston's remnants were partly destroyed by land interaction with Puerto Rico, Hispanola and Jamaica, but it appears Cape Verde storms this year are prone to weakening or dissapating in the southeastern Main Development Region. In fact, Alex would have been a long-lived, Cape Verde-type hurricane had it been classified as a TD on June 14 when it formed. If Igor stays weak it could impact land, but it looks like it'll most likely head out to sea. 2007Astro&#39;sHurricane 11:54, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Igor's back up to tropical storm strength. --Patteroast 23:23, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... Igor is much better organized on the sattelite imagery right now. If Igor slows down like it did by the Cape Verdes earlier, then it might miss the same trough that recurved Earl, and hit the U.S. Stay tuned. Igor is showing signs of exploding in intensity, and this may not look so good... Ryan1000 02:08, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually think Igor has a better chance of missing the East coast than Earl. The storm, If I'm forecasting it correctly, it should miss the Leewards and maybe on a more Danielle-type path. I seriously think this storm would be a fish, although since the models have slightly shifted south, this is a low-confidence forecast. <font color="Blue">Darren 23 Edits 02:26, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * The latest advisory has Igor near hurricane strength and strengthening. --Patteroast 08:43, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Very close to a hurricane now, and it's had a well-defined eye for several hours. Quite a large storm, could become yet another cat. 4, and has a chance of affecting the Leewards or Canadian Maritimes. Unlikely to impact the US significantly unless it pulls an Ike, which by the way is a historical analog along with the 1938 Long Island express. Most models take it out to sea. This could become the strongest hurricane of the season. 2007Astro&#39;sHurricane 15:14, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * NHC has upped their forecast to a Cat 4, although it should be moving NW by then, missing the Leewards. <font color="Blue">Darren 23 Edits 20:52, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

AoI: Near Trinidad
Up on the NHC at 40%. GFS model sends it on a Dean/Alex-like track, and stalls it in the BoC. 2007Astro&#39;sHurricane 11:59, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

92L.INVEST
The models don't seem very confused with this one. The general consensus seems to be on a general northwest track. Most of them drive it into the islands of the Greater Antilles and consequently give it a hard time developing. But a lot of them seem to think it'll become better organized later in the period as moves away from Cuba into the northwest Caribbean, headed for the Gulf of Mexico. -- SkyFury 20:09, September 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * IMO, they're all pretty straightforward. I don't know if 92L's progress will be hindered enough for development, but this one bears watching for sure. This is the exact same area where Gustav formed. Keep your eyes out. Ryan1000 21:21, September 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Models go anywhere from the Bahamas and Florida to the Yucatan and northern Tamaulipas. SHIPS model combined with ensemble and model spread puts a cat. 3 hurricane in the Gulf. Possible future interaction with Gaston which would pull this storm farther north. 2007Astro&#39;sHurricane 23:43, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Still organizing. Up to 50% risk. --Patteroast 23:24, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * High risk! 60%. --Patteroast 12:53, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

93L.INVEST
Just coming off of Africa, already invested and at medium risk on NHC. 30%. --Patteroast 12:53, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * This thing looked like a tropical cyclone immediately after emerging off the coast. 2007Astro&#39;sHurricane 15:15, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * 50% now, but thankfully, this storm should recurve further east than all the storms we have had this year. I still do expect this storm to be TS Karl/Julia though. After this, we still have 2 waves, and one or both of them could develop. Watch out guys, the CSU forecast might be coming true. :| <font color="Blue">Darren 23 Edits 20:51, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * CSU forecast link please? <font color="#ff7f00" family="Nyala">atomic <font color="#0000ff" family="Nyala">77 <font color="#00FF00" family="Nyala">32 02:19, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * 90%. YE <font color="#66666">Tropical  <font color="#66666">Cyclone  03:43, September 12, 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... <font color="#ff7f00" family="Nyala">atomic <font color="#0000ff" family="Nyala">77 <font color="#00FF00" family="Nyala">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 - 20-30% - It did cause over a billion dollars in damage, but I don't think it will be retired because Hurricane Dolly also caused over a billion in damage in this same area and wasn't retired.


 * Bonnie - 0% - epic fail


 * Colin - 0% - same as Bonnie.


 * Danielle - 0% - A strong 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 and Bonnie.


 * Gaston - 0% - It's another fail.


 * Hermine - ??% - No damage avaliable, so I can't give this one a particular number right now.
 * Igor - ?? - just like Hermine. Igor hasn't affected any big land areas yet, but it is squirming around the Cape Verdes right now, and depending on how long it stays, it could do something pretty bad there. I'll just have to wait.

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 - jury's still out. Stay tuned. The great adage (BTFSOS) is not officially a bust yet.


 * Hermine - 8% - Certainly exhilarating, but not destructive. We'll see what happens inland with the remnant moisture, but so far so good.


 * 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)

Alex: 50%. 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: 20%. 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: At this point, it's looking like a 0%, but it could change. Hermine: 10%. Nowhere near Allison level bad, but damage may be the deciding factor. Igor: ??%. Still active. Jake52 08:19, September 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * 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 - 11%* - Existed as a Cape Verde storm briefly, degenerated, almost regenerated but now has a chance of re-forming in the Gulf.
 * 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 - 10%* - Cape Verde storm that stalled, weakened and could turn into a major hurricane, but only a slight chance of directly impacting land as a significant hurricane.
 * 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)

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)

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