Most active hurricane season ever?

[Tim Vasquez]

Does anyone have statistics on the hurricane season?

The consensus I have from the media (and it's not very consistent) is that Rita is the 9th hurricane and the 17th named storm.

They also say the record on named storms is 21 in 1933 and either 18 or 19 in 1995. I didn't see anything on hurricane records.

Unfortunately I have too much going on to research this but it would be interesting to figure out where we stand.

Tim

 

[Jay Cazel]

I posted this in the Wether Lab thread under "only 5 names to go"a few days ago.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/afp/20050808...hurricanes.html

 

[B Ozanne]

Does anybody know if there have ever been two Cat 5's in one season?

 

[Sam Sagnella]

Twice. 1960 and 1961.

 

[Shane Adams]

Originally posted by Sam Sagnella
Twice. 1960 and 1961.

Thrice actually...1960, 1961, 2005

 

[cdcollura]

Good day,

I have now noticed in many reports that the term "we have a RARE category-5 hurricane" is now just "we have a category-5 hurricane" ... Scary to admit it but it appears the term RARE is not so anymore as we are in the advent of stronger hurricanes.

For example, in a 30 year period, from 1965 to 1995, there were only 4 category five hurricanes: Allen, Andrew, Camille, and Gilbert. From only 2003 to 2005, there were 4 category five hurricanes: Isabel, Ivan, Katrina, and Rita. Another thing to consider, hurricanes Dennis and Emily, both in 2005, might have briefly reached category-five but remain unofficial. The same thing for Charley in 2004.

Nevertheless, four officially declared category-5 storms in the past 3 years when it took 30 years to get that same number in the past really raises concern!

 

[B Ozanne]

Nevertheless, four officially declared category-5 storms in the past 3 years when it took 30 years to get that same number in the past really raises concern!

There is no doubt that there has been an increase in the number of cat 5's, but is it possible that we have also gotten better at idenitfying them?

There are more aircraft entering each storm and derived data from satellites is also improving.

 

[Glen Romine]

In case you've missed it, there are a lot of articles swirling around in many of the publications regarding this apparent trend in stronger hurricanes. There is an ~ 50-70 year cycle in Atlantic sea surface temperatures (known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation). We are currently entering a maximum, and have been since 1995, which a check of hurricane frequency shows a strong correlation. The last time we were in a maximum, we didn't have the level of technology that we enjoy today to track all of these systems (most notably no satellites), so it is difficult to say how more or less frequent the extreme hurricanes are today. Hurricane activity for any one year is also buffered by other large-scale ocean temperature patterns with smaller time scales overlain - such as ENSO and NAO. The most intense hurricanes from the 1930's were largely 'sampled' after landfall (aside from unfortunate encounters by ships) - and we likely missed the true intensity of some of these early 20th century storms. Maybe we are entering an unprecedented period of hurricane activity and intensity, or maybe not. The jury is still out on this one from the scientific front, because we don't have the same quality of data for the past maximum as we have for this one.

Glen

 

[Andrew Khan]

It is a very big concern to me, and it shows that more than just Hurricanes will become severe, so often. Maybe next chase season, we will see a lot of F5's, I mean they are rare, but so are CAT 5's, until just recently. I still think, that over time of harming/destroying our atmospheric structure, it will one day, come back to haunt us..

 

[B Ozanne]

Originally posted by Andrew Khan
It is a very big concern to me, and it shows that more than just Hurricanes will become severe, so often. Maybe next chase season, we will see a lot of F5's, I mean they are rare, but so are CAT 5's, until just recently. I still think, that over time of harming/destroying our atmospheric structure, it will one day, come back to haunt us..

Again, the same theory applies. Maybe there will be more F5's, but only because there are more people out spotting them and better radar data to identify them.

There is something called a population bias in storm reports. When the new Denver Airpot was built they quickly realized it was in the most hail prone area of the country. The fact is that there are other places that get more hail in the US, but nobody is there to observe it.

 

[Andrew Khan]

Yes, that is another part of the theory, lol. Where is the Denver Airport to be Proned to hail?

 

[Jay Cazel]

Originally posted by cdcollura
Good day,

I have now noticed in many reports that the term \"we have a RARE category-5 hurricane\" is now just \"we have a category-5 hurricane\" ... Scary to admit it but it appears the term RARE is not so anymore as we are in the advent of stronger hurricanes.

For example, in a 30 year period, from 1965 to 1995, there were only 4 category five hurricanes: Allen, Andrew, Camille, and Gilbert. From only 2003 to 2005, there were 4 category five hurricanes: Isabel, Ivan, Katrina, and Rita. Another thing to consider, hurricanes Dennis and Emily, both in 2005, might have briefly reached category-five but remain unofficial. The same thing for Charley in 2004.

Nevertheless, four officially declared category-5 storms in the past 3 years when it took 30 years to get that same number in the past really raises concern!

When did Andrew make Cat 5?? Granted it was a high end Cat 4, but I can't find anything about Andrew ever becoming a Cat 5 hurricane. The only thing I can find says it was Cat 4 storm.
http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/andrew92.html

 

[B Ozanne]

When did Andrew make Cat 5?? Granted it was a high end Cat 4, but I can't find anything about Andrew ever becoming a Cat 5 hurricane. The only thing I can find says it was Cat 4 storm.

After re-analyzing the data Andrew is now considered by most to have made landfall as a cat 5. Maybe somebody has more details, but I believe the NHC or a NWS office recorded either a cat 5 gust or cat 5 sustained winds before the anemometer blew away.

 

[Jeff Snyder]

In their re-analysis of Hurricane Andrew's maximum sustained surface-wind speeds, the NOAA/National Hurricane Center Best Track Committee, a team of hurricane experts, concluded winds were 165 mph - 20 mph faster than earlier estimated B as the storm made landfall. Herbert Saffir, a structural engineer who co-designed the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale, joined the committee as an observer and reviewed the team's results.

The upgrade makes Andrew only the third Category 5 (wind speeds greater than 155 mph) hurricane on record to strike the continental United States. The other two Category 5 storms were the \"Florida Keys 1935 Hurricane\", and Hurricane Camille in 1969.

--> http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/NOAA_pr_8-21-02.html

 

[Pat Lawrence]

I read an interesting article from Dr. Lyons regarding how limited the size of tropical systems had been with the increased activity...up to Katrina of course! Most had been rather tiny, spatially, up to that point.

Regarding record numbers....who can say for sure? As with most things regarding weather data, only a limited amount of time is covered. The same numbers may have been seen many times in the past, as you know. There may have been many more in fairly recent times that didn't have the luxury of being spotted by satellite....

I have the feeling the tropics are doing what they have done many times in the past....Even the pressure readings are a bit flaky...did Camille get flown into as often as Katrina or Rita? Nope...yet both Katrina and Rita have lower pressures recorded. Camille may have been 10 or 20 millibars lower than Rita at one point in time...who knows for sure? Even the second lowest reading on record for the Atlantic basin was based on a fellow hanging onto a tree with barometer in hand wondering all the while whether or not he had died and gone to he**. Tropical records leave a bit to be desired at this point in their maturity!

Pat