Forum:2010 Atlantic hurricane season

November
Other than Tomas, which technically lasted into this month, nothing is out there right now. However, we just need two more storms to run the list. Then it's to the greeks...Then again, i'm not expecting more than Alpha or Beta at most. This doesn't mean we won't pass just those names, but keep an eye out there... Ryan1000 01:33, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

AoI: Way ESE of Bermuda
New wave at 10% on NHC. --Patteroast 18:48, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Up to 20%. Not that much of an increase, but an increase nonetheless. --Dil (chat) 02:57, November 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * And gone from NHC. :( --Dil (chat) 17:54, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

AoI: Eastern Caribbean
Another little one on NHC, 10%. --Patteroast 11:29, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

93L.INVEST
Still at only 10% per NHC, but invested now. --Patteroast 12:19, November 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably should just say that this is gone, and has been for a day. Yqt1001 15:29, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

AoI: Coming off South America
A mass of clouds is emerging from Venezuela/Columbia into the Caribbean. A lot of models agree on a system forming from this. May we just be about to witness our second ever "V" storm? Jake52 13:55, November 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Up to 20% on NHC and is also in an environment that's likely becoming favorable. One to watch for sure. Jake52 15:41, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

94L.INVEST
Up to 30% risk from NHC, now. --Patteroast 19:31, November 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * This thing may just be having a field day out there. It's found an oasis of bathtub warm water and low shear in the western Caribbean. This thing reminds me of all of the monsters recorded late in the season, but hopefully it won't be that bad. Once it leaves the Caribbean, it's going to be in a wasteland of shear, dry air, and frigid waters. Hopefully it won't get that strong before it hits anywhere. Ryan1000 13:15, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * And 94L(Future Virginie) is now at 40%. Darren 23 Edits 14:05, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

And back down to 30% at the 1AM EST advisory. Yqt1001 05:41, November 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, i'm not expecting that to last long... There is some shear behind (Virginie) right now, but that shear is soon going to abandon this storm, and we could see our 20th named storm in the next day or two. I personally am not expecting a U.S. landfall from 94L, due to the wasteland conditions in the GOM. Southern Cuba and Central America, however, must watch out for this one very carefully. Ryan1000 18:13, November 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm really surprised that no one has said that the odds of TC formation dropped to 20% yet... Yqt1001 23:45, November 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's running into some unfavorable conditions, so i'm not surprised as to why it's weakening... Even so, I still think it will get its act together at one point or another... I think it will organize itself into Virginie in the next 3 or 4 days, but the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season is rapidly dying away. Not so say we won't have any post-season surprises, but we have two more weeks until we can (oficially) call it a season. I'm expecting us to run the list, but if we get the Greeks, I think it'll be highly unlikely that we pass Alpha or Beta. A 2005 is far from out of the question. Nothing else can be said now. Ryan1000 13:56, November 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have facts to back that up or is that you saying that you want to see another named storm to get to Alpha faster? However odds are now "near 0%" for TC formation the next 48 hours.. Yqt1001 23:43, November 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just saying there was a chance we could have her by now, but perhaps Virginie will have to wait after all, either for later this year or for 2016. This season is pretty much over, but I think we could still have one more post-season or late November surprise, knowing the activity in the season. Ryan1000 11:32, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

Its back! After disappearing from the NHC for about a day, they have brought it back with a 20% chance of cyclone formation. Odds of formation to Virginie looking very very low, but there's a new disturbance forming which could bring the 20th named storm of the year. Yqt1001 20:13, November 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * How's it looking now, yqt1001? I think Virginie is coming onto us this wekend. Hopefully it won't be severe, if anything i'm expecting a strong tropical storm or hurricane going into Cuba. Again, there's yet another cold front over the southeast that will stop a U.S. landfall from this storm, too. The Carribean may need to keep an eye on this thing... How strong it gets depends on how long it stays there. Watch out. Ryan1000 03:07, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Eh, it failed again. The cold front is pulling the guts out of this thing right now. If it can hang on through this rough environment, it might still have a chance; however, we only have 11 more days until we can (oficially) call this a season. It may still have a chance to come back, but the chances of that happening now are very, very slim. Ryan1000 13:55, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * It did look like we were going to see a Virginie last night...too bad, I was looking forward to seeing Virginie. The models seem to favour it going towards Cuba very slowly, if it can hold out until the cold front is gone it might have more of a chance of becoming the 20th storm of the year. Great year nonetheless, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a December storm this year...so I will watching this year very closely until January 1st 2011 hoping for one last storm! Yqt1001 15:58, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Gone...again. Yqt1001 00:59, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * The bulk of convection is in the EPac now. It could develop there, but because the Pacific is such a wasteland right now, it most likely won't happen. There is an elongated tropical wave in the central Caribbean right now, however, and if that trough makes it to the western Caribbean, the two systems could merge, and we could see Virginie after all. We'll just have to wait and see, I guess... Ryan1000 15:39, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * It was long dead 3 days ago. No one mentioned it, but I guess I will bid a fine farewell to 2010. We have just one mone week until 2010 can be(oficially) called a season. Then, we will do another "retirements at a glance(part 2)" section and discuss about what happened this year and what it can be compared to with other inactive seasons. Why this year was one of the quietest ever for the SHem and Pacific, but why the Atlantic got to be so hyped up this season. Ryan1000 20:08, November 24, 2010 (UTC)

AoI: North of Panama
Hello! A new blob is up on NHC. --Patteroast 01:27, November 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Bah you beat me to it by a few minutes...anyways the storm is in favourable weather for now, most models still show it dissipating before it becomes anything. Yqt1001 01:42, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

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


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

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

Here is what I say


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

YE Tropical 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. Darren 23 Edits 22:02, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Mine:


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


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


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


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


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


 * Fiona - 0% - see Colin.


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


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

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


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


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


 * Colin - 0% - It tried.


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


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


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


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


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


 * To be continued


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

Here are my bets:

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

Bonnie - 1% - Minimal damage

Colin - 1% - Minimal damage

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

Earl - 15% - Damage not extremely severe.

Fiona - 1% - Minimal damage

Gaston 1% - Minimal damage

Hermine - 15% - Damage significant but not severe.

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

Julia - 2% - Minimal damage

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

Lisa - 0% - Fishspinner

Nicole - 15% - Damage significant but not severe

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


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

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


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


 * Alex 30 percent (Mexico might ask retirement)
 * Igor 60 percent (Canada might request retirement)
 * Karl 50 percent (Mexico might ask retirement)
 * all others: zero percent
 * None of them killed many people so the question is if they were destructive. Lots of dollar blown in the wind does not necessarily mean that the sorm was destructive. By the way, most damages in Canada were caused by post-tropical Igor so why actually it should be retired? --88.102.101.245 05:45, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, no. Igor was a hurricane when it made landfall, not a post-tropical storm, and the CHC(Canadian Hurricane Center) said Igor was described as Newfoundland's worst hurricane since 1935. A storm that rare probrably would deserve retirement, but I have to disagree with your overall predictions. Karl has the 90-100 percent chance here. Igor only did 100 or so million in damages to Canada, and only Canada can decide Igor's fate. Karl is a goner. Mexico will submit a 5.6 billion dollar storm for retirement, and it will become retired no matter what; it was the worst hurricane ever known to hit the city of Veracruz in recorded history. Alex is second in line; you can't really use Dolly as an excuse for Alex because Dolly was largely an agricultural event in south Texas, wheras Alex was a very destructive flood/wind event in Monterrey and Matamoros in Mexico; I mean, they'll probrably submit Alex as well as Karl. There isn't anyone else we can guess on as of now... Ryan1000 12:49, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Holy crap! Damage reports are finally out from Matthew. Did that thing really cause 2.4 billion?!

My predictions: So basically, the top odds go to Karl, Alex, Matthew, Igor, and Tomas. --HurricaneMaker99 22:16, October 31, 2010 (UTC) (updated 17:43, November 6, 2010 (UTC))
 * Alex: 75% - Costlier than Dolly and quite a bit deadlier too, not to mention in a (relatively) different area of landfall.
 * Bonnie: 0% - Just pathetic, even if it did make landfall in the US.
 * Colin: 0% - BOO
 * Danielle: 0% - Not exactly pathetic since it was a Cat. 4, but it was a fishspinner nonetheless.
 * Earl: 13% - Thank GOD this wasn't as bad as everyone thought it would be. Still, a smidge rough on the Caribbean; Earl isn't exactly the most likely name to be retired, but may I defer you to Klaus?
 * Fiona: 0% - Little weakling got sucker-punched by her big brother.
 * Gaston: 0% - Most fail storm of all time, period.
 * Hermine: 12% - Moderate damage, but probably not enough to warrant retirement.
 * Igor: 50% - Everyone hyped up Igor's threat to Bermuda; who could have known he'd be so much worse to Newfoundland?
 * Julia: 0% - Pretty much the exact same scenario as Danielle.
 * Karl: 100% - No duh.
 * Lisa: 0% - BOO
 * Matthew: 70% - WHAT THE . I think I just found a BF for Allison...
 * Nicole: 20% - Damage was pretty hefty, but storms have gone a lot farther without being retired, like Isabel, Juan AND Kate of 1985.
 * Otto: 5% - Even harder on the Caribbean than Earl was, but Otto never scared anybody to death. Besides, it was technically a fishspinner since its effects on the Caribbean were from the precursor wave.
 * Paula: 10% - Only preliminary though, we don't have a freaking clue until we finally receive damage reports.
 * Richard: 15% - Belize has seen a HELL of a lot worse (Iris, Hattie, 1931...)
 * Shary: 0% - BOO
 * Tomas: 45% - Haiti seems to have really lucked out on this one so far, and let's hope their luck continues. I haven't seen such a low death toll there since... well, ever. Then again, the rather significant damage to St. Lucia could earn Tomas retirement.


 * Yeah, I'd like to make an update, too.


 * Alex: 78% - With Alex's damage and deaths in Mexico, it appears to be one of the most likely canidates for retirement this year.


 * Bonnie: 1% - It did turn out to be an epic fail for the most part, but i'm nice enough to give her the 1% because she was the only U.S. landfalling tropical storm in the entire season.


 * Colin: 0% - Fail.


 * Danielle: 0% - Got us ramped up, but failed to do anything on land, so no.


 * Earl: 10% - He caused some damages in the lessers and scared the sh!t out of every state on the east coast from NC to Maine, but, as said many times before, it could have been much worse.


 * Fiona: 0% - Fail.
 * Gaston: 0% - Fail.
 * Hermine: 10% - Yeah, as if we haven't seen worse sh!t than this.
 * Igor: 65% - Knowing it was the largest Atlantic hurricane on record and Newfoundland's worst hit since 1935, we could see him going off of the list, like Canada requested Juan.
 * Julia: 1% - She never did anything to land other than bring a shower or two to Cape Verde, but the 1% is there due to her bizzare area of where she intensified. However, all in all, no.
 * Karl: 100% - Seeing Karl's damage and deaths in Veracruz, Karl has the best shot of retirement this year, and i'd be shocked if it doesn't happen.
 * Lisa: 1% - Again, the 1% is only there due to her bizzare track and area of intensification.
 * Matthew: 85% - Wow! I never thought Matthew would be this destructive. Allison, looks like you might just have a partner joining you in the TS retirement list.
 * Nicole: 15% - Yeah, right. Jamacia has seen a helluva lot worse than this storm, and the damage was caused by the precursor anyways.
 * Otto: 5% - caused some damage in the northern Lessers and got the party started for October, but i've seen much, much worse.
 * Paula: 5% - Scared us a bit in the Carribean, but all she did was soak up northern Cuba a bit, and damage was insevere, so no.
 * Richard: 5% - Yeah, right. Again, Belize has seen a whole lot worse than this thing.
 * Shary: 1% - Yet again, the 1% is only there because she unexpectedly became a hurricane, but yet again, no.
 * Tomas: 20% - Wow. Haiti really got off easy from this thing. Only 7 or so deaths as compared to hundreds means Tomas's chances of retirement are much slimmer than I earlier thought. However, he isn't completly out of the field yet... I'm expecting him to only do a couple hundred million in damages to Haiti or so, but his damage in St. Lucia could get France's attention for retirement... However, all in all, it could have been much, much worse.

Ryan1000 02:10, November 1, 2010 (UTC) Meh, I'm back, and here are my updated percentages for retirement:
 * Alex: 75% - One billion dollars in Mexico, this one's gone for sure!
 * Bonnie: 3% - Do I have to say why?
 * Colin: <1% - See above
 * Danielle: <1% - Never in a thousand years
 * Earl: 25% - Damages are very low
 * Fiona: 2% - See Bonnie
 * Gaston: <1% - Heck no
 * Hermine: 32% - Caused some damage and torrential rainfall in TX, but that's mostly it
 * Igor: 55% - Newfoundland will probably want to retire this one, but Canadian retirements are hard to predict
 * Julia: 3% - Gave Cape Verde some warnings, and that's it
 * Karl: 96% - Destructive hurricane, say bye bye to this one!
 * Lisa: 3% - See Julia
 * Matthew: 40% - I'm still doubting if the $2 billion was from Matthew
 * Nicole: 45% - Significant damage in Jamaica, but they may not request this to be retired
 * Otto: 18% - Some damage here or there, but probably not significant enough
 * Paula: 6% - Not that damaging
 * Richard: 20% - See Otto
 * Shary: <1% - What did this one do again? Oh yeah, almost nothing
 * Tomas: 65% - Probably the costliest storm in Saint Lucia history with $500 million, significant for a place that small, this one is sooo gone!


 * No one can know exactly how many canidates will have the boot from this year... I'm expecting at least 2, possibly 3 or 4, retired names. Definitely Karl. I don't truly know if that 2.6 billion was directly Matthew's fault, or if what Karl formerly did helped him, but if that damage is official, then either him or Alex(or better yet, both) should be retired. Igor is never going to be a "certain to be retired" name. I personally think that at best he should be at a 50/50 shot. 130 million in damage in Newfoundland and a few deaths could get it retired, but as mentioned earlier, only Canada can decide Igor's fate. It's all up to them for Igor. Mexico is all but certain to ask for Karl's retirement, and probrably will ask for Alex too. St. Lucia hasn't had a very good history of giving out retirements; Dean impacted many other areas outside of St. Lucia. I personally would only consider Tomas as a possible canidate; more likely than Igor, but I personally won't look forward to it happening. It was destructive, but as I mentioned earlier, why wasn't 1994's Debbie retired for 700 million in damage there(in 1994's dollars)? I so far would put my best bets to Alex, Karl, and Matthew, with Tomas and Igor also being retired should St. Lucia/Newfoundland request them. Everyone else, no. As I mentioned earlier, 2 to 3 names is what i'm thinking. Ryan1000 01:37, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not even close, it caused only $200 million, 300 something in current terms in damages. Hurricane Allen caused only about $200 million in today's terms. So, a little factchecking has said there haven't been any more damaging storms than Tomas and any notable enough St. Lucia storms have made more impact in other countries. I will bet against a Matthew retirement, well, because I believe Mexico won't retire it, and the initial reports are false (probably all of the damages were from Karl). I believe the order is Karl is a definite, Alex is a very probable, and Tomas is very likely, plus Igor may make it, per the rumors I heard this year, and hell, if Jamaica is crazy, Nicole! (per rumors). <font color="Blue">Darren 23 Edits 01:57, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, must have checked the wrong storm or haven't recently updated my knowledge on her. Even so, I don't think St. Lucia has had a good track record of retiring names; I mean, Canada didn't nominate their first one until 2003. Could St. Lucia nominate their first one in 2010? I personally don't think that is very likely to happen. I think Matthew will be retired, but only if that damage bill is correct; I have a feeling it's going to be like Ophelia in a certain way; an estimate well in the billions, but later knocked down to only a couple million. However, I have to disagree with you on what you mentioned on Nicole, Darren; Nicole rightfully shouldn't be a retired name, not only for the reason Jamacia has seen MUCH worse(Charlie 1951, Gilbert 1988, Dean 2007), but technically the precursor wave caused most of the damage anyways. Andrew's precursor wave in 1986 caused one of Jamacia's worst natural disasters, but because it wasn't named when it caused the damage, the name wasn't retired. Nicole should fall under the same category as Andrew. The impacts from precursor waves that later become hurricanes are not included in the named part of the storm's retirement, because it's like retiring the October 1999 storm that hit Mexico; it was never named, so they can't retire it. Same thing with Huricane Paul of 1982 PHS. 1,000 deaths from the precursor in Guatemala and El Salvador, but because it wasn't named when it caused the damages, it couldn't be retired. Karl and Alex are more than likely to be retired, and Igor's 130 million in damage could pull Canada's attention for retirement once more. Even so, November isn't even close to over, so we could still squeeze in one more canidate(Virginie or Walter) for retirement. Ryan1000 20:11, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, that (St. Lucia retirement)is very likely to happen. Look at the reaction of public officials for crying out loud. I know Jamaica's been through much worse, but I know people who consider that name a toss-up. Look at Nicole's media articles. They depict Nicole as this severe storm for Jamaica, and I do believe for a country that small, $200 million is a big amount, big enough for retirement, maybe, maybe not. There is more media attention for Nicole that even Matthew. That's why I believe the $2bn is a false number. People don't depict it as that damaging. I don't base my opinions on damages, I base them on public reaction, and I am sure Alex, Karl and Tomas are definitely gone, trust me. Igor is a very probable, and all the rest, including Matthew, are a toss up or a probably not. (BTW, there is also a big chance a user in Wikipedia screwed up the Matthew damages). <font color="Blue">Darren 23 Edits 04:18, November 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying you're wrong, Darren, but for Tomas, St. Lucia has no real benchmark for retired names, or at least ones that didn't affect other countries, a la Dean of '07. Has St. Lucia ever retired a Tomas-like storm? Not from what i've seen. Nicole also can't be considered obvious either, because it wasn't as bad as many other storms in the past for the island. Even so, Dean, Gilbert, and Charlie caused lots of damage elsewhere, too. Nicole didn't cause severe damage anywhere other than Jamacia. The three storms I mentioned above were monster category 4's or 5's demolishing entire cities in Mexico, ect. Nicole isn't in the same league as those storms, and I don't think it's obvious to be retired, but it certainly is in the list of possible canidates. Mathew's damage will probrably go the way of Ophelia. Ophelia was thought to do 1.6 billion, but later, only 70 million. Matthew will probrably do the same kind of thing. With the damage figures and videos i've seen, I am 99.9999 percent certain that the 2.6 billion is a signifigant overestimate. Igor was very bad to Canada, but Canadian retirements are hard to predict; 130 million is severe for Canada, but I wouldn't want to say it's obviously going to be; if Igor did 2.5 billion in damage or so to Canada, then it would be more than obvious. Everyone knows Klaus of 1990; minor storm, didn't appear so bad, but the public officials on Martinique were screaming before Klaus's impact there. That pulled the French government enough to retire the puny little storm. I definitely agre Karl and Alex are goners, and I'm thinking Tomas and Igor could be should they be submitted by St. Lucia and Canada, respectively. I'm calling on 2 retired names thus far, and possibly two more out of Igor, Nicole or Tomas. Retiring all 5 seems a little generous to me, and, IMO, at least one of them shouldn't be retired. The new invest (94L) has hit 30%. I have one more thing to say(4 days or so from now): say hello to Virginie(hopefully not a severe Virginie). Ryan1000 13:08, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a few things to say:
 * 1. (most important) Rarely should an event be given a 100% chance (for example, you don't know that Karl will be retired). Instead of 100%, I would say (like the NHC TWOs say) near 100%.
 * 1. (most important) Rarely should an event be given a 100% chance (for example, you don't know that Karl will be retired). Instead of 100%, I would say (like the NHC TWOs say) near 100%.


 * 2. (second most important) Don't name storms before they form (Virginie). The tropics can be weird sometimes.
 * 3. (much less important than the above two) In my mind, Colin was not an epic fail. I actually consider Colin more of a success than a failure (it came back to life, unlike Gaston).
 * 147.174.60.135 17:41, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, 147, no. Everyone here on the Wikia knows Karl will be retired. True, it wasn't as bad as many other "obvious" hurricanes in the past(Charley, Ivan, Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Ike), but 5.6 billion(for Mexico) is more than bad enough for retirement. I assure you Karl will be a retired name. Trust me, it's just gonna happen. Alex, Igor, and Tomas(and to a much lesser extent, Nicole) are also on the retirement list, but not to the same extent as Karl. Mother nature follows her own rules, yes, but 94L is, in my book, future Virginie. It hasn't completly died out yet, and it still has a chance to make a comeback. And storms like Colin, Fiona, and Gaston are epic fails. It doesn't matter if it managed to come back or not; an epic fail is a storm that never exeeds minimal TS intensity, never signifigantly threatens land, and dies without affecting land. Other epic fails other than the three this year include Ingrid, Jerry, Melissa, and Erick of 2007, and Karina, Josephine, Laura, and Nana of 2008. Ryan1000 15:53, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. Isn't it kind of presumptuous to say there is an absolute 100% chance Karl will be retired? Haven't you ever had an event in your life that you thought would undoubtedly happen but didn't? Also, these are humans that do the retiring, and humans can be unpredictable sometimes. There are a few storms that the WMO should have retired (Gordon '94 and Hanna '08) that it didn't. But don't get me wrong; I think there is a very good chance that it will be retired. I'm just saying that it's better to say that there is a near 100% chance that Karl will be retired (it allows for the slim chance of the unexpected).
 * 2. Whatever.
 * 3. I see that you and I have different definitions of what "epic fail" means.
 * (BTW, I am the same person, but on a different computer.) 147.174.61.240 14:39, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't understand, don't you? The reason why I know Karl has a 100% chance is because you're looking at the 5.6 billion in U.S. dollars. Screw the U.S. value. I'd prefer to translate the 5.6 billion USD to Mexico's dollars. Do that, and you have 70 billion right there. When it comes to Mexico hurricanes, I don't care about what the U.S. dollar value is; I only care about their dollars, because Mexico doesn't use the U.S. dollar, they use pesos, approximately 1/10 of our value, but it's the same general translation in impact. If a monster category 5 hurricane hit the U.S. and caused 70 billion in U.S. dollar damage, would you not give that storm a 100% chance because you'd think there's a chance it won't be retired? That's flat out unbeliveably ridiculous. It would be certain to happen, wouldn't it? And very sadly, Hispaniola is very vulnerable to flash floods and mudslides from hurricanes. It isn't unusual for hurricanes to not be retired there for 300 deaths or so(although I do agree that a 1,100 death toll storm not being retired there is an epic fail on the WMO's part) but knowing the WMO, in my mind I knew that Hanna would probrably be snubbed like Gordon was, and it just turned out to be. Hurricanes are retired by the WMO only if they caused a big enough impact on society as a whole, which would allow the name to be requested to be removed by a country or group of people, and subsequently, that would happen. Hurricane Karl was the 4th costliest hurricane in Mexico's history, behind only hurricanes Gilbert, Wilma, and Pauline(all of which got retired, JSYK). Karl was the first major hurricane known to hit the city of Veracruz directly at that intensity. Veracruz is Mexico's largest and oldest port city, and is more connected with it's history than any other port in the country. The city has never expirienced an intense major hurricane like Karl in recorded history because it is generally too far south for GOM hurricanes to hit there, but when Hurricane Karl came calling, their first major hurricane was very well their worst disaster in recorded history. If you somehow think there is a chance Karl won't be retired, fine. I won't tell you what to think of him; I'm just telling you, based on the damage videos i've seen, and the reaction of public officials in Mexico, it's just gonna happen IMO. Ryan1000 23:28, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting that in Jeff Masters' blog post giving an overview of the season's highlights, he says "However, two hurricanes from this year are virtually certain to get their names retired--Tomas and Igor--and two other storms that did billions of damage to Mexico, Karl and Alex, are likely to have their names retired, as well." I'm surprised to see that he considers Igor a shoe-in, but Karl as only 'likely'. --Patteroast 15:20, November 29, 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, except the EPAC and ATL are opposites! YE <font color="#66666">Tropical <font color="#66666">Cyclone  02:29, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Though the basins are alive, that isn't the point of the discussion. <font color="#ff7f00" family="Nyala">atomic <font color="#0000ff" family="Nyala">77 <font color="#00FF00" family="Nyala">32 02:57, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ryan, why don't I just come out and say something like "Earl's gonna plow into NYC as a Cat 4!" That'll guarantee it comes nowhere near the coast. -- SkyFury 04:53, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Eric, we can't assume what it'll do. I personally do not think New York will get a direct hit from Earl as of now, but it is not out of the question that it could hit eastern long Island or Rhode Island, ect. I'm just waiting. And Atomic, notability cannot be measured, but I view 1992 as "bad" not "active". I think that we as people should view storms that threaten land as more dangerous than those that don't affect land. Not to offend anyone by a meteorological standpoint, but it's what I think, overall, is true. Andrew was that kind of case. It wouldn't have been remembered for a long time to come had it not affected land. I think Earl will be something big to watch over the next few days. Also, I think you have noticed recently, the WPac is exploding right now. It's a good thing if storms don't affect land, but we are mainly worried about the storms that do threaten us, rather than the ones that don't. Ryan1000 11:18, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I was kidding. All of New England needs to be paying very close attention to this thing, but in the long run, I don't think NYC will be directly impacted. I doubt they'll be enjoying their weekend much, but I don't see any major impacts coming into the Five Boroughs. Cape Cod, eastern Long Island and Rhode Island may be a different story though. -- SkyFury 22:45, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, then all we can do is wait. Ryan1000 22:59, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, seems like I was right. For August, ATL was above average and is 50% above average for the year. Any bustcasters around? :P <font color="Blue">Darren 23 Edits 16:33, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. A few WU users. YE <font color="#66666">Tropical <font color="#66666">Cyclone  16:56, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Atlantic will be below average, but we still need twice the number of named storms and major hurricanes from where we are now to hit NOAA's minimum predictions they made on August 5th. However, I still think the WPac will be well below-average, and the recent hot streak they had there won't last very long. The East Pacific will probrably hit the average mark in numbers, but I don't think we will have lots of hurricanes and major hurricanes there. Ryan1000 20:27, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * If I am reading the ACE numbers right, the season is already at average for the year and is already above 2009, and IMO, there is a nearly 100% chance for an above average season in terms of ACE and storm amounts now. So, I'm still thinking that 16-8-4 is still possible if you think about it. <font color="Blue">Darren 23 Edits 22:19, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I still hold the 12-6-3 prediction I made earlier, Darren. The peak of the season is 3 days away and after that we have just 3 more weeks until October comes. As of now, I am not very interested. The new waves off of the coast of Africa are very disorganized and won't develop in the near future, and the NHC says Gaston now only has a 20% chance of redeveloping in the next few days. I do not consider that number as "Gaston will redevelop". It could do that in the Eastern Pacific, but I don't think we will have a 2004 or 2008 from where we are right now, not in numbers anyways, but the ACE could be very different. Ryan1000 15:41, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Think about it very carefully. 12-8=4. 4 isn't a whole lotta storms. In fact, it can be done in September if this season sped up. Igor (91L) has been forecast to form for a few days now off Africa, I think there are still a few forecasting Gaston redevelopment in ATL, and some IIRC are forecasting Julia. We have a great chance at >14 storms (very good chance, and I'll bet we'll go over 14), and since this is La Nina, this season should last to... December maybe. And to the Gaston forecast: it has a 20% chance to form in the next 48 hours, that doesn't mean it will not form alltogether. I also think since most storms so far are weak and not-long lasting, we will probably not see a 2004 in ACE numbers, but a 2008 is not out of the question (80 ACE units I think to the 2008 number). <font color="Blue">Darren 23 Edits 23:22, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Gaston wont regnerate. Since when do storms regenerate of DR. I am not sure if 91L will develop if it does it will likely be a fishspinner. Not all La Nina are hyperactive such as as 1991, 2007. Darren, you are just an ATL lover, but my prediction is 15-7-4. YE <font color="#66666">Tropical <font color="#66666">Cyclone  00:36, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, YE, 1991 was the start of an El Nino, and even so, Bob made 1991 somewhat exeptional. 1973 is a better example. Also, I'm still not predicting the numbers, but again, the ACE might still counteract that. Overall, I haven't found anything interesting so far this year in the Atlantic, exept for Alex a little bit. However, our new Atlantic storm, Igor, could change that in a heartbeat. Ryan1000 20:54, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

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


 * Uh, YE? Did you look at 2001? 2001 had an ACE of almost 100, which definitely isn't below average. Also, 2001 had over 7 billion in damage, so it was both notable and slightly hyperactive. Just say 1973. That year was a La Nina, but was terribly inactive in terms of ACE and notability. 2007 was not at the average, but it did have 3 rather exeptional storms. This year is a whole new ball game. Ryan1000 23:27, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Major hurricane number 3 is here, Julia is coming, maybe even Karl, and there still many more where that came from. Ryan, are you sure you don't want to change your forecast? <font color="Blue">Darren 23 Edits 21:01, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah. 'Bout that, yes, I say 15-8-4 instead of 12-6-3. I highly doubt we'll end up with my earlier prediction as of now. We will probrably turn out to be as active as 2004 or 2008 as of now, but I highly doubt we will suffer the impacts from those two seasons. We won't have a 2005-like season from where we are now, but 50 billion in damage seems somewhat unlikely, too, if all of these storms wheel around the Bermuda High and out to sea. Stay tuned.Ryan1000 21:13, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * We are ahead of 2008 and 2004 now and I change my prediction to 18-9-6 with an ACE of about 210% above median, and this could go further up.
 * I say we will probrably get a 2004 or 2008 season from now, but a 2005 is out of the question-- not by means of ACE, but numbers. I'll have to wait another two months until this season is done, by then i'll know for sure. Ryan1000 20:55, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * This has been a simply amazing season so far. I don't know why anybody thought this would be a bust. The atmospheric conditions were there, the sea temperatures were there, the steering patterns were there, the low shear was there, the increased instability was there, and even a late start usually indicates a bad season, just look at 2004 for example. Once climatology picked upm the season picked up, and it eat our expectations in the blink of an eye. 2007Astro&#39;sHurricane 15:18, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is what I and alot of other people here were saying :P. It wasn't gonna be a bust as everything was there for an explosion of activity which is what we saw. 3 back to back major hurricanes! 2 of them rapidly intensified where no major hurricanes have, and 1 was a very intense Cat 4 (I could argue that it was a Cat 5, but I'm not going to). Oh well, there is an outside chance we could go to R, S or tie 95 with a T storm. <font color="Blue">Darren 23 Edits 15:58, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * The only reason people were saying this season would be a bust back in July and August was because we didn't put up 2005-like numbers at that time. Truth is, we will not do that, but we will have an above-average season. I'm thinking we will get a large number of strong hurricanes during this season, like 1950 in terms of majors, but more category 4's than 1999 or 2005. We have yet to see a U.S. landfalling hurricane, and the only TS to hit us as of now was Bonnie back in late July. Not to say we won't see one, but if we do, it will be one of the latest first U.S. landfalling hurricanes on record. This season isn't done, and we have a long, long ways to go. Ryan1000 22:51, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I raise my prediction to 20-11-7. <font color="#ff7f00" family="Nyala">atomic <font color="#0000ff" family="Nyala">77 <font color="#00FF00" family="Nyala">32 03:30, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the NHC's monthly report for September came out, and the ACE turned out to be 178% of where it otherwise should have been for September, but the long-term ACE is only about 153% above-average. Are there still any people out there bustcasting about this year's season? I didn't think so. A quiet settting does not imply a quiet plot or ending. This year has been truly remarkable thus far. We have had 8 storms form in September of this year, which ties 2002 and 2007 for the most active ever recorded, and 10 storms "existed" in the month, an all-time record for the ATL. Also, some of 2010's names thus far are some of the earliest storms of the letter, like Matthew and Nicole. We are only one storm behind where 2004 peaked at, and two behind where 2008 ended, yet half as active as 2005 was. This year was never going to be a bust based on the conditions that were present for the season back in July and August, but we didn't have(and likely won't have) 50+ billion in damage, either. Even so, at the rate we are going, this might just turn out to be the second hurricane season in a row when the U.S. saw no hurricanes, but we did have some very close calls, and it definitely isn't too late for us to see one. October/November will have some storms, but who knows what they will be like. This season has two months left, and there is still plenty of potential for us, or somewhere else in the Atlantic, to see a monster hurricane. Stay tuned on the rest of 2010. Ryan1000 04:04, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, forecasters are still predicting 2010 could be active in October and November. If anything, I would say we would have 3-4 more storms, tops. I am not saying we won't get any strong storms in the last two months of the 2010 season, but in general, I wouldn't expect to see a category 4 hurricane hitting Tampa and causing 50 billion in damages or so. The Carribean must watch out, but because there are a lot of cold fronts dipping down into the southeast at this time of year, a U.S. landfall anywhere would be confined to southwestern Florida and likely nowhere else. This season isn't over yet, but, IMO, it is a sad excuse for a repeat of 2004, 2005, or 2008. Still, stay tuned. Ryan1000 00:09, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is definitely more like 1995 (except with fewer US landfalls) than the 21st-century frenzy years. My prediction, BTW: 21-13-6. The chances aren't nearly as great as they were before, but I still think Tomas becoming a major storm isn't quite out of the question yet. After him, we should have one final 'cane in Virginie or Walter. --HurricaneMaker99 14:09, November 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * HM99, I would define this year as 1990 2.0. There were virtually no U.S. landfalls, but there was a lot of damage elsewhere, particularly in Mexico this year just like 1990. Alex caused severe flooding in the inland city of Monterrey, Karl was the worst hurricane to hit the city of Veracruz in recent history, and Matthew caused 2.4 billion in damage to the same area hit by Karl just a little more than a week later. 1990 had Diana in the Tampico area. This year was very notable in terms of impact, but it is also the second succesive AH season without any U.S. landfalling hurricanes. Who knows what 2011 could have in store for us... This year shouldn't be forgotten. The bustcasters in July just had the last laugh when Matthew came along. No way for more than twelve storms? Come on, this year could flush out the list at this rate and/or hit the first two or three letters in the GA. This year was incredible. Worldwide, this was a fail season because the Pacific held us down too much, but by means of notability, it will be hard to forget 2010 for a long time to come. I personally thought this year would be quiet, but when it was apparent the season was exploding, I admitted to myself that I was 100% wrong, and went with the forecasts from CSU and NOAA. I never said we wouldn't get any notable storms this year, however, and in 2010's case, Karl was the main one, with a couple of other multi-billionares as well (Alex and Matthew). Ryan1000 22:06, November 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Somebody on WU showed me cold water next year. IT will be a neutral most likely, La Nina at the beginning and El Nino at the very very end. I say 13 storms in ATL and 14 in the EPAC. YE <font color="#66666">Tropical <font color="#66666">Cyclone  14:19, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

I wonder why anyone was surprised that we had a season like this. I knew this was gonna happen all along. All the signals were pointing to an extremely active season and voila! A hyperactive season. As I look back, I will remember 2010 as a clash of knowledge and bustcasting, no offense to anyone. And after September, wishcasting and recordcasting occured. 2010 gave many people lessons, that even a late starter could be very active. So for next year, as this amazing year comes to an official end in 23 days, I hope history will not repeat itself, and bustcasting, wishcasting etc. is replaced by good knowledgable forecasting (I am not saying conservative forecasting, YE). <font color="Blue">Darren 23 Edits 02:11, November 9, 2010 (UTC)


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

Forum:2010 Pacific hurricane season

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

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

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

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

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


 * Kelly is a girl's name! Why bring that up? I have many other recommendations, but I would wait until 2010 is over until we make a big list of these names... Ryan1000 11:38, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * I will not even say mine since we know how WMO is with new names (Seriously, Gonzalo, Isaias, Paulette, Nestor, Dorian, Rina, Don, and many more?) <font color="Blue">Darren 23 Edits 01:19, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am upset over their stupidity for replacement names, but then again, this season isn't over. We will have one or two storms thus far, but October and November are just around the corner, and both months can produce catastrophic hurricanes. We must wait until this season really ends. Ryan1000 01:41, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally like Isaias, Nestor and Dorian, but then again they had two opportunities to pick Dylan and skimped out on both of them. >:( --HurricaneMaker99 22:29, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

Here are some of my suggestions:

Alex:


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

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


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

Karl:


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

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


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


 * Nice list, though I would say the WMO prefers to use shorter of names. <font color="#000000">HurricaneSpin <font color="#654321">Talk to me  04:20, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * There's another thing. If they retire Alex and Igor they can't replace them with e.g. Aurelio and Ignacio because of tbey must make proportional use of English, French and Spanish names. It is therefor pretty certain that Axel would be replaced by Axel. For Igor I don't know: Igor replaced Ivan, so Ian would be a choice as well as any other I-name but maybe they will stick to Russian names for I... what about Ilya? For Karl maybe Knut, Kai, was there any Konrad yet? Maybe Kuno? Konstantin might be too long. --88.102.101.245 06:19, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there really such requirement? Personally, I think the WMO should branch out a little, and should perhaps include some Italian names, which is why I included several of them for the "A" names. Personally, I would choose Alfredo, Irving, and Kirby. 24.117.97.9 21:13, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO, Fred and Frederic aren't really as confusing as Isidoro and Isidore, or Ignazio and Ignacio. I personally would want Aaron, Ian, and Kurt as replacement names. There are may others out there, however, and the WMO will decide what to do. Ryan1000 22:03, October 13, 2010 (UTC


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

What about this? Kurt would definitely be my top pick for replacing Karl; a little Nirvana tribute, anyone? --HurricaneMaker99 20:42, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Matthew: Mark, Mickey, Manny, Maxwell, Moe, Monty, Mort, Maurice
 * Tomas: Teodoro, Theo, Taffy, Taylor, Terence, Toby, Trevor, Tucker, Truman

Bets are out: Will we have an Epsilon this year?
Since there are only Tomas, Virginie and Walter left, do we see Epsilon this season? How are the odds? --88.102.101.245 15:32, October 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * I highly doubt we will pass Beta, if we even get that far. The season is definitely dieing down, but I'll keep my fingers crossed and hope we get to Alpha! Yqt1001 17:54, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

I personally think we'll stop right on the edge of the list. We're wrapping up October with five storms for that month, so I'd say two storms (Virginie and Walter) would be logical for November this year. --HurricaneMaker99 20:49, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a question to ask the WMO - should they extend the Atlantic list now like they did with the Pacific list in the 1980's? This year and next year could both reach the Greek alphabet, but adding an "X","Y", and "Z" name would prevent that from happening in the future... It's a reccomendation, but not neccesary by all means. Ryan1000 20:11, November 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * My personal guess based only on gut feeling is that we'll get one more storm, Virginie. If not, I think we could either stop where we are at Tomas, or get to Walter. But I don't feel like we're going to see any Greeks this year. --Patteroast 10:22, November 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Either way this season will go down as the season with the lowest hurricane-to-BOREDOM ratio ever. Hurricane Season 2010 more like Hurricane Season 20-RECURVES!! Nice try "mother nature" but this season only demonstrates your incompetence. Yawn heh heh *snort* 178.63.148.43 14:19, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Dead 2010

 * Does it matter whether or not this season had a truckload of U.S. landfalls? No one can bustcast about 2010 anymore because the season's 6 days to done, and we well met the predictions of the season. It was on the high end of NOAA's 14-20 storm August forecast, above the middle of their pre-season 14-23 storm forecast, and 2010 was one storm and two hurricanes ahead of CSU's start-of season forecast. Besides, even if the U.S. didn't get hammered, Mexico most certainly did, as did Newfoundland, South Texas, Jamacia, and St. Lucia, although to a much lesser extent than Mexico. This year was, worldwide, one of the quietest in recent history. Matter of fact, thus far the SHem has had only 18 storms in 2010, one of their least active seasons on record. The NIO had 5, 2 of which were strong category 4's, so they were well in the average range - the WPac 14-8-4-1, the quietest on record in terms of NS's and typhoons; the EPac had 7-3-2-1, also the least active in NS's and hurricanes - but the Atlantic somehow was well above average. The number of storms in the 2010 AHS is more than what the entire WPac had in 2010! That's incredibly unusual, being only a second time on record, after 2005. In total numbers(thus far, but with only 37 days left, may be the final stats), the SHem's 18, plus the NIO's 5, plus the Pacific's 21, plus the Atlantic's 19... That's only 63 storms worldwide in this year. 63. Unbelievable. Just unbelievable. 1977 had 60, and in worldwide numbers, they were the least active season on record. 2010 did not beat that record low mark, but it very well did make for the lowest since. Ryan1000 20:27, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ryan, I was just noticing the same thing. The incredible, near-record activity in the Atlantic has masked record-shattering inactivity everywhere else. The East Pacific set a record low with just seven named storms. Just three of those were hurricanes, that's a record (although two of those were major hurricanes, including a Cat 5). The West Pacific needs a three-storm December to avoid setting their own record. At least one of those needs to be a typhoon to avoid setting another record. Their four major typhoons would tie 1977's record low. If you include Anita, the South Atlantic storm that formed in March, 20 storms have formed in the Atlantic this year. That's one fewer than the East and West Pacific combined. Those are normally the world's two most active basins. We've had just 66 storms worldwide so far this year (including the one that formed just this morning in the southern Indian Ocean)...and this is giving a few storms the benefit of the doubt. This time last year, we'd had 79 (finishing with 84). The 30-year average is 87. And that's not to mention the southern hemisphere. We've had just 35 hurricanes worldwide this year, and only that many thanks to the Atlantic's 12, tied for the second most on record. 1977's record is 28, but there were probably 2-3 more that were missed. We may struggle to get to 70 storms this year. Without the Atlantic's near-record year, 1977 wouldn't be nearly so safe. And I need a whole nother paragraph to talk about the Atlantic's incredible activity. Throw in the wild winter weather we had early this year, and it has been really wacky weather year. -- SkyFury 01:53, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * The only thing I can't find an explanation to is, how can the Atlantic basin go downright donkers when every other basin epically failed? The Southern hemisphere this year was less active than last year. 19 storms in the entire SHEM? That's equal to the entire Atlantic basin. The Atlantic basin wasn't able to save the worldwide dead in 2010, but the only reason 2009 was able to reach "near normal" standards was because last year the Pacific basin wasn't knocked out for 7/10 of the entire season. And I agree, if the Atlantic had turned up like 2009 this year, 1977's record would probrably be shattered. Even so, 2010 won't be forgotten by me, because even though there were no U.S. landfalls in 2010, it had 263 deaths attributed to it as well as 11.3 billion in damage. The EPac wasn't very active at all in 2010, but 2.14 billion and 561 deaths makes it the costliest season since 1997, deadliest since 1982, costlier and deadlier than every other EPac season thus far in the 21st century combined, and the deadliest tropical cyclone season worldwide in 2010(i'm doubting the 1,000 deaths in Haiti were from Tomas; they were related to the cholera outbreak, not directly from him). The WPac was record dead in 2010(and we need only one storm to tie 1998, not 3), but 300+ deaths and a couple billion in damage is impressive enough on it's own, let alone Megi being the strongest WPac storm since 1992's Gay, and strongest worldwide storm since Wilma in '05. The NIO had 2 powerful cat. 4's, and hundreds of deaths and nearly a billion in damages, so it was quite a year, too. Can you find an explanation as to why the Atlantic epically won but everyone else epically failed, Eric? If not, I will be pursuing that mystery for a long time to come. 2010 was even deader than last year, so to speak, but the only reason we didn't beat 1977 was because the Atlantic went downright nuts in 2010. If it didn't, 1977 would most certainly be beaten by this year. Ryan1000 11:56, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * The only thing I can't find an explanation to is, how can the Atlantic basin go downright donkers when every other basin epically failed? The Southern hemisphere this year was less active than last year. 19 storms in the entire SHEM? That's equal to the entire Atlantic basin. The Atlantic basin wasn't able to save the worldwide dead in 2010, but the only reason 2009 was able to reach "near normal" standards was because last year the Pacific basin wasn't knocked out for 7/10 of the entire season. And I agree, if the Atlantic had turned up like 2009 this year, 1977's record would probrably be shattered. Even so, 2010 won't be forgotten by me, because even though there were no U.S. landfalls in 2010, it had 263 deaths attributed to it as well as 11.3 billion in damage. The EPac wasn't very active at all in 2010, but 2.14 billion and 561 deaths makes it the costliest season since 1997, deadliest since 1982, costlier and deadlier than every other EPac season thus far in the 21st century combined, and the deadliest tropical cyclone season worldwide in 2010(i'm doubting the 1,000 deaths in Haiti were from Tomas; they were related to the cholera outbreak, not directly from him). The WPac was record dead in 2010(and we need only one storm to tie 1998, not 3), but 300+ deaths and a couple billion in damage is impressive enough on it's own, let alone Megi being the strongest WPac storm since 1992's Gay, and strongest worldwide storm since Wilma in '05. The NIO had 2 powerful cat. 4's, and hundreds of deaths and nearly a billion in damages, so it was quite a year, too. Can you find an explanation as to why the Atlantic epically won but everyone else epically failed, Eric? If not, I will be pursuing that mystery for a long time to come. 2010 was even deader than last year, so to speak, but the only reason we didn't beat 1977 was because the Atlantic went downright nuts in 2010. If it didn't, 1977 would most certainly be beaten by this year. Ryan1000 11:56, November 30, 2010 (UTC)