Bill Gray's latest hurricane season forecast

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 3:15 PM GMT on May 31, 2006

Share this Blog
0
+

The latest 2006 Atlantic hurricane season forecast from the forecast team at Colorado State University (CSU) was issued today. Phil Klotzbach and Dr. Bill Gray's forecast is unchanged from their earlier April 4 and December 6 forecasts, predicting 17 named storms (10 is average), nine hurricanes (six is average), and five intense hurricanes (2.3 is average). This is the highest level of activity they have forecast in their 23 years of making these predictions. They put the odds of a major (Category 3-4-5) hurricane crossing the U.S. coast at 82% (average for last century is 52%). The U.S. East Coast (including Florida) has a 69% chance of a major hurricane strike (31% is average), and the Gulf Coast, 38% (30% is average). In addition, there is an above-average risk of major hurricanes in the Caribbean.

The CSU team identified four years that had similar weather patterns in May compared to this year, and all four of these years had much above levels of hurricane activity: 2004 (six major hurricanes, three of which made landfall in the U.S.), 2001 (no hurricanes made landfall in the U.S., but there were two major hurricanes); 1996 (six major hurricanes, one of which hit the U.S.--Fran); and 1961 (seven major hurricanes, one of which hit the U.S.--Carla).

What the other hurricane forecasting groups are predicting for 2006:
NOAA forecast issued May 22, 2006:

13-16 named storms
8-10 hurricanes
4-6 intense hurricanes

Cuba's National Weather Institute prediction from May 2, 2006:

15 named storms
9 hurricanes

Tropical Storm Risk, Inc. May 5, 2006 forecast:

15 named storms
8 hurricanes

The CSU forecasters cite three main reasons to expect a very busy season:

1) Weaker trade winds than usual have led to anomalous warming of the tropical Atlantic since the early part of April. Sea surface temperatures remain much warmer than average, and are expected to be much warmer than average during the August-October peak of hurricane season.

2) No El Niño is expected to be present during August-October 2006. When the tropical Atlantic is warm, and no El Niño is present, Atlantic basin hurricane activity is greatly enhanced.

3) We continue to be in the positive phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), the decades-long cycle of natural hurricane activity.

The next forecast from the CSU group will be issued August 3.

Tomorrow--June 1--marks the beginning of hurricane season. I'll have a look at what we can expect for the month of June.

Jeff Masters




Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 248 - 198

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5Blog Index

248. FormOneStorm
6:10 AM GMT on June 02, 2006
Hello Stellar!

Basically, I used statistical method to create this prediction. This data (what I posted here) was only a part of calculus. I used last cycle of tropical weather data (in Atlantic region) which occurred between last decade of 20th and the start of 21st century.

You can see that prediction is based on statistical model and not on meteorological or other methods.
247. SavannahStorm
2:19 PM GMT on June 01, 2006
The GFS, Nogaps, and UKMET all are now in agreement with a cyclone generating over south Georgia/north Florida June 4 or 5th and moving out over the Gulfstream. While they indicate a cold-core storm right now, shear is dropping and the GulfStream has 80 degree temps in that area right now.
Member Since: September 22, 2005 Posts: 18 Comments: 2343
246. rwdobson
2:18 PM GMT on June 01, 2006
Also, Sciencecop, it is disingenous at best to compare a 140-year period, your "old era", to a 10 year period, your "new era". you are basically defining your eras in such a way to guarantee that your conclusion will appear to be supported by the numbers. what basis did you use for defining the two eras as you did?
Member Since: June 12, 2002 Posts: 0 Comments: 1589
245. rwdobson
2:14 PM GMT on June 01, 2006
Science cop, maybe you should turn your police powers on yourself.

May 2006 was an exceptionally light year for tornados in the US. Only 142, less than half of the three-year average. We are in no danger of shattering any tornado records.
Member Since: June 12, 2002 Posts: 0 Comments: 1589
244. AZuRe033
1:54 PM GMT on June 01, 2006
ScienceCop,

What a very long post. My first reaction is: What debate am I exactly trying to win? And, what exactly have I exagerated?

And here's the irony...I am "greatly exagerating," but in you very own post you use phrases like "the old records are not complete," "excepted best knowledge," "if you can find a better record," and "busiest season ever in our record-keeping period." Thank you for providing examples of my point. The fact is, we do not know and research is being done all the time to try and give us a better picture of a world that is over 4 billion years old. The more accurate and complete that picture is, the better our conclusions will become.

And this quote really gave me a chuckle: "The evidence is conclusive."

What is conclusive? I have explaining to do, but you don't? I say "we don't know" and you say "we do and it's conclusive." Interesting..

And as a matter of point, saying that someone doesn't know how to build the computer they are typing on is a very silly statement. You know next to nothing, if at all, about most of the people who post on this blog..so I'll tell you what, the next time your computer goes down, just give me a call and I'll come running with my multi-meter and soldering iron in tow to fix it for you. At least it will save you some money in paying someone else to fix it for you....

Regards,

Az
242. fredwx
1:47 PM GMT on June 01, 2006
There is an upper level low near 29N97W and a weak surface trough along the Texas Coast. This is not likely to develop into anything.
Member Since: June 8, 2005 Posts: 221 Comments: 261
241. Hellsniper223
1:45 PM GMT on June 01, 2006
What does sheer look like over the Carribean right now?
Member Since: March 28, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 16
240. StellarCyclone
1:43 PM GMT on June 01, 2006
Welcome StormOne!

How did you arrive at your numbers mathematically?

Thanks for your thoughts!
239. newt3d
1:43 PM GMT on June 01, 2006
Mixed bag of comments:

That blob off of Columbia looks nice and symmetric. If it stays together another day or so I might be interested.

The East Pacific has an area with a lot of rotation, but very disorganized convection. Is that the place the GFS has something developing?

And, what is that thing over east Texas? Looks like one nasty stalled front / ULL that's pulling insane amounts of moisture from the western Gulf. Is it forecast to move anywhere any time soon?
Member Since: October 6, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 90
238. Hellsniper223
1:24 PM GMT on June 01, 2006
Yeah, anyone see the blob coming off of columbia? Think it could be anything? I mean it appears to be caught in a trough, think that could drag it over water?
Member Since: March 28, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 16
237. WSI
1:22 PM GMT on June 01, 2006
So is everyone satisfied that the system off Texas is indeed not going to turn tropical? :)
236. Hellsniper223
1:10 PM GMT on June 01, 2006
The 2005 Atlantic Hurricane season didn't end untill around January 5th... Ya'll ready for the 2006 Atlantic Hurricane season only 5 months later?
Member Since: March 28, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 16
235. WSI
12:35 PM GMT on June 01, 2006
FormOneStorm,

I assume you are new, as I have not seen your name here before. Welcome!

Don't worry about your grammar or spelling, its great. Nice figures you posted there.

Vince was quite a storm wasn't it? It defied a lot of odds. My guess (and its just that, a guess) is that Vince was an isolated storm event... just one part of the wild 2005 season.

234. fredwx
12:30 PM GMT on June 01, 2006
The current trend for increased tropical Cyclone activity is likely due to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.

The Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO) is a long cycle of changes in the sea surface temperature of the North Atlantic Ocean. During times of warm AMO there is in increase in the number of major hurricanes which is not good news for Florida. Since about 1995 the AMO has switched from cool to warm so we will likely continue to see more major hurricanes for some time.

During the last warm cycle which lasted about 40 years (1926-1965) there were 18 major hurricanes that hit Florida. That's about 1 every other year (0.45/yr)while during the 30 year cool phase from 1966-1995 there were only 3 or about 1 every 10 years (.10/yr). That' 4.5 times as many during the warm cycle vs the cool cycle




Major Florida Hurricanes 1926-1965

Major Florida Hurricanes 1966-1995

Member Since: June 8, 2005 Posts: 221 Comments: 261
233. tigerbait
12:21 PM GMT on June 01, 2006
ScienceCop, a question on your heat engine analogy: I believe that heat engines rely on temperature difference, not "temperature". Even if there is more heat present in tropical waters, it takes a temperature contrast to convert that heat into wind. Is that correct?

I believe I've heard that the global warming models predict greater warming in the polar regions than in the tropics. It seems like that would tend to lessen the temperature contrast.

I think it is rational to say that a longer season (due to warmer waters) will increase annual storm frequency, and perhaps it is rational to say that a lower temperature contrast (from global warming) will lower wind shear, and thus more/stronger storms, but I struggle to understand how more fuel (warm water) alone will result in greater frequency/intensity.

Thanks


232. FormOneStorm
11:02 AM GMT on June 01, 2006
Hello everyone!

I enjoyed this blog so far.

As a mathematician my calculations are giving me these results for 2006 season.

In June there is 75% that tropical storm will be formed. In July there is 100% possibility of one, and 67% of two storms to be formed. In August there is 100% of 3, 75% of 4 and only 33% of 5 storms to be formed. In September there is near to 88% of probability that 5 storms will occur, and 50% of 6. In October there is 100% possibility that 3 storms will form in Atlantic-Caribbean region, and only 33% of 4 storms to be formed. In November there is 95% possibility of one storm, and in December there is only 45% of possibility that tropical storms can occur.

In total my mathematical models are suggesting that there will be at least 16 tropical storms in Atlantic-Caribbean region during season 2006. During period August-October at least 3 to 4 hurricanes will landfall US.

By the way, what do you think about last year’s hurricane Vince which made landfall (for the first time in history) in Europe (town of Huelva in Spain)? I know that he entered Europe as tropical depression and not as a storm, but still this was amazing! Is this isolated incident or what?

Thank you all.

FormOne

P.S. I am sorry for my English. That's 'cause it's not my native language.
231. ScienceCop
9:05 AM GMT on June 01, 2006



Posted By: AZuRe033 at 2:24 AM GMT on June 01, 2006.
This whole calling for people at NOAA and the NHC has really upset me. Especially the Katrina people who should be calling for their own corrupt government leaders to step down instead of reputable scientists who worked their butts off for most of 2005 and saved countless numbers of lives due to their hard work and dedication.

I am also a little tired of the overhyping of hurricane intensities. Can anyone tell me what the deadliest hurricane on record in the Atlantic was? The Great Hurricane of 1780...no brainer on this site I'm sure :) , but can anyone tell me what it's maximum wind speed or pressure was?? What about all the other hurricanes that we actually have on record? No?? So how can we honestly say that 2005 was the busiest season EVER and that it was caused by human induced Global Warming?

As a side note, the BBC had an interesting article about new climate research being done in the Artic with new core samples they were able to take. Very interesting and relates to global warming.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5034026.stm

I found the last paragraph to be particularly interesting..

"Today's warming of the Arctic can, in all likelihood, be attributed to mankind's impact on the planet, but as our data suggest, natural processes operating in the past have also resulted in a significant warming and cooling of the Arctic."


You have greatly exaggerated to try to win a debating point, instead of applying science to come to the truth, chips fall wherever they may.

The old records are not complete, but they are not so incomplete after 1851. The records and how we know them is posted at http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/ and you can go there and read the researchers notes, look at scanned old newspapers, etc.

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/easyhurdat_5102.html is a long 5+ megabytes file. It has the current version of accepted best knowledge from 1851 onwards.

Good people worked hard -- professionals in every sense of the word. It is shameful to insult the work they sent decades on to gain political points or to promote a point of view based on economic strategies which benefit one segment over another.

If you can show a BETTER RECORD, then do so. Otherwise, this is the record we accept until a better one comes along. You can't please everybody and there are quibblers who don't like the official rating of Katrina's landfall wind speeds in the official record. That just happened with the best instrumentation the human race has ever assembled watching every minute of it.

There's no such thing as "overhyping of hurricane intensities". If anything, people are sadly misinformed about the deadly dangers of every size hurricane. With population thickening in harm's way, too many people are complacent about the damage a hurricane can do to them and the regional economy where it strikes. The proper attitude and wariness has not yet been instilled in the public, even after the 2005 Hurricane Season.

"So how can we honestly say that 2005 was the busiest season EVER and that it was caused by human induced Global Warming?"


2005 was the busiest season EVER in our record-keeping period. As hurricanes are heat engines, one has to explain where the heat came from at any earlier time to create strong and frequent storms? What's your answer? Where did the mystery heat come from, and why don't we have any records of that? You have to explain why there would be severe storm seasons closer to an ice age when the Earth had been freezing and largely covered with ice. How does that work? And you have to explain how heat gets out of the Earth today around the Greenhouse Gases we know are here now but were never here at these levels over the past 450,000 years at least. What's your explanation for the mystery of escaping heat?

The evidence is conclusive. Human beings have burned an ancient fossil ecosystem long buried deep in the earth and turned the carbons into gases. They have been added to the air, and nature is not cleaning the mess as fast as it is created. WE can measure the increase. We know things about atomic isotopes which fingerprint the greenhouse gases as ancient origin.

You have some exlaining to do, so begin.

The BBC quote talks about 55,000,000 years ago, when the Earth was still quivering from the asteroid impact 10,000,000 years earlier. The devastation from the Alveraz Asteroid sterilized North America, and it took 3,000,000 years before that scab really began to heal. Ecology is itself more complex than meteorology or climatology. Life can, and does, and did, change the Earth profoundly. The fact that you can breath the air is because life changed the atmosphere.

55,000,000 years ago is a long time away from here. It's much harder to get answers, and these drilling cores are parts of the steps of getting answers. One thing you can be certain of is the world was vastly different then, and none of your exeriences today can equip you for guessing about then. Today we have records that go back 1,000s of years -- you can read Julius Caesar's own words still from 2,000 years ago. We know a lot more about today than we ever can about long ago. Accept that and live with it.

A few scraps of premature data leaking out of core labs is not adequate data to bet your life on or bet your neighbor's life on. The PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE states: You may gamble with your own life (play russian roulette, go skydiving, or bull fighting) but you are not allowed to gamble with anybody else's life. You have to accept that rule because it is compulsory -- if you gamble with other's lives you pay the price for losing by forfeiture of your own life. You may be executed under the law for mass homocide.

Life is not a political game of winner take all. You must live sociably in society or else get out. That applies to all extremes of the political spectrum. If you gamble with people's lives when the scientists whom we pay to warn us of dangers impending, I on your jury will vote with the majority for your execution by lethal injection if people die because of anything you did, wrote, or said, which prevented them from getting the warning intact and unfudged by political spin. Scientists, and nobody else, have been given the job of warning society of serious threats. We need to examine their evidence, not cherry pick it to support a preconceived political or economic position.

I have presented evidence that there is paid science hoaxers working in organized fashion to deceive the body politic. This evidence was passed through Federal Courts of Law and passed Due Process already. Like the STEM CELL FRAUD in South Korea, any scientist found to be engaged in science hoaxing is to be cast out of society as refuse not fit to live amongst us. It is easy enough for you to examine this courtroom evidence because the judge ordered all 40,000,000 pages posted online. As you start to sift through the evidence and dump in the SEPPtic tank those toxic felon predators no better than any other organized crime mafioso, you are not left with many scientists left disagreeing that human-caused greenhouse gases are a deadly danger which requires active attention and remediation.

Look on my blog for samples of evidence of science crimes. And learn the names of those who have been found by court process to be professional career criminals who happen to have PhD after their names. Those science-fraudsters are outcasts for life, no redemption is possible.

Science needs to be respected by people typing on computers they can't build, sending their words over fiber optics and satellite relays they can't understand. Science is not a punching bag for political bullies and organized crime. In the end everybody will see that forensics and criminal justice are SCIENCES TOO. No big fish and no little fish will swim out of the net -- you can bet your life that fact is true.

It's a serious CRIME to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, because people may panic and some may die. Scientists know that and are cautious and conservative in their statements. It is far more serious to yell "NO FIRE" when there is one, and every person who dies because they were defrauded by false statements is held against the villian for making such fraudulent statements.

In Law, the getaway driver is equally guilty to the triggerman if a death occurs during commission of a crime. There are 1,500 deaths in New Orleans, so far. Don't be the "getaway driver" for organized crime frauds leading to a false lowering of the threat level. The danger is much higher than the public yet knows.

Facts related to that are also posted on my blog, but here's a short sample: 2006 is in the running for the most tornadoes EVER recorded in out history.

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/torn/monthlytornstats.html
Last update midnight May 25, 2006

Score then for month of May 2006 = 138
2006 Year-to-Date = 748

http://www.stormreportmap.com/
reports 3 tornadoes May 26th
reports 2 tornadoes May 27th
reports 1 tornadoes May 28th
reports 3 tornadoes May 29th
reports ? tornadoes May 30th
reports 8 tornadoes May 31st

May 30th will not display. Data unknown.
3+2+1+3+ +8 = 19 plus unknown since page last updated.

748 + 19 = 767 Tornadoes in 2006 first 150 days.
(Maybe more when May 30th data turns up.)

http://ecosyn.us/1/Tornadoes.html

1986 total for year (765) now surpassed.

Next records to fall is 1981 (782 tornadoes in 12-months)
and 1978 (789 tornamoes in 12-month year).

At the current rate extended to 12 months,
expect about 1,866 tornadoes for 2006, a new record!
230. ScienceCop
6:50 AM GMT on June 01, 2006
1995-2005 NEW-ERA of Hurricane Peak Strengths and total storm activity per year
Location of Source Data:
http://tinyurl.com/7q4xp 1851-2002
Wikipedia 2003-2005
For brevity sake, abbreviations are used:
TS = Tropical Storm
C1 = Hurricane Category 1, C2 = Hurricane Category 2
C3, C4, C5 = Major Hurricanes Category 3, 4 & 5 respectively.


1995 : TS=8, C1=4, C2=2, C3=2, C4=3, C5=0
1996 : TS=4, C1=3, C2=0, C3=4, C4=2, C5=0
1997 : TS=5, C1=1, C2=0, C3=1, C4=0, C5=0
1998 : TS=4, C1=3, C2=4, C3=1, C4=1, C5=1
1999 : TS=4, C1=0, C2=3, C3=0, C4=5, C5=0
2000 : TS=7, C1=5, C2=0, C3=1, C4=2, C5=0
2001 : TS=6, C1=5, C2=0, C3=2, C4=2, C5=0
2002 : TS=8, C1=1, C2=1, C3=1, C4=1, C5=0
2003 : TS=9, C1=3, C2=1, C3=2, C4=0, C5=1
2004 : TS=5, C1=1, C2=1, C3=2, C4=3, C5=1
2005 : TS=13, C1=7, C2=1, C3=2, C4=1, C5=4
======================================

TS = 8+4+5+4+4+7+6+8+9+5+13 = 73 TS
C1 = 4+3+1+3+0+5+5+1+3+1+7 = 33 C1
C2 = 2+0+0+4+3+0+0+1+1+1+1 = 13 C2
C3 = 2+4+1+1+0+1+2+1+2+2+2 = 18 C3
C4 = 3+2+0+1+5+2+0+1+0+3+1 = 18 C4
C5 = 0+0+0+1+0+0+0+0+1+1+4 = 7 C5

Total Cyclones = 73+33+13+18+18+7 = 162
164 / 11 years = 14.9 cyclones per year.
======================================

----- OLD-ERA 1851-1994 -----
465 / 144 = 3.2 TS per year average.
274 / 144 = 1.9 C1 per year average.
195 / 144 = 1.35 C2 per year average.
151 / 144 = 1.05 C3 per year average.
73 / 144 = 0.51 C4 per year average.
21 / 144 = 0.15 per year average.
1179 / 144 = 8.19 cyclones per year average.

----- NEW-ERA 1995-2006 -----
73 / 11 = 6.64 TS per year average.
33 / 11 = 3.0 C1 per year average.
13 / 11 = 1.8 C2 per year average.
18 / 11 = 1.64 C3 per year average.
18 / 11 = 1.64 C4 per year average.
7 / 11 = 0.63 C5 per year average.
162 / 11 years = 14.7 cyclones per year.
======================================

Percentages difference between OLD-ERA and NEW-ERA
107.5% MORE Tropical Storms
57.9% MORE Hurricanes of Category 1
33.3% MORE Hurricanes of Category 2
56.2% MORE Hurricanes of Category 3
221.6% MORE Hurricanes of Category 4
320.0% MORE Hurricanes of Category 5
79.5% MORE Total Atlantic Basin Cyclones 1995-2005 than from 1851-1994

BEFORE 1995 the average was (named) 8 storms per year. Since 1995 we have gotten accustomed to thinking in terms 15 per year as normal.

WE have also gotten used to thinking of 12oo tornadoes per year as normal -- this year may break 1,866 if the trend continues at the current pace for the next seven months.


http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/torn/monthlytornstats.html
Last update midnight May 25, 2006

Score then for month of May 2006 = 138
2006 Year-to-Date = 748

http://www.stormreportmap.com/
reports 3 tornadoes May 26th
reports 2 tornadoes May 27th
reports 1 tornadoes May 28th
reports 3 tornadoes May 29th
reports ? tornadoes May 30th
reports 8 tornadoes May 31st

May 30th will not display. Data unknown.
3+2+1+3+ +8 = 19 plus unknown since page last updated.

748 + 19 = 767 Tornadoes in 2006 first 150 days.
(Maybe more when May 30th data turns up.)

http://ecosyn.us/1/Tornadoes.html

1986 total for year (765) now surpassed.

Next records to fall is 1981 (782 tornadoes in 12-months)
and 1978 (789 tornamoes in 12-month year).

At the current rate extended to 12 months,
expect about 1,866 tornadoes for 2006, a new record!
229. acduke
6:48 AM GMT on June 01, 2006
I heard Joe Bastard(i) talking about the LST off of Northern Indiana approaching the lower 80s, with shear expected to lower to 10kt soon. Seeing how it's been 72 million years since Chicago was hit by a Hurricane, he believes it's long overdue. Cat 3, Chicago, August 27. Thank you Accuweather!
228. Alec
6:25 AM GMT on June 01, 2006
LOL..Inyo
I predict:
45 hurricanes
21 major
4 hypercanes
and all will be fish storms!(I wish...LOL)
227. Inyo
6:22 AM GMT on June 01, 2006
I predict 32 hurricanes in the atlantic
2 of them will be catergory 12.

in the next 3 years a hurricane will hit los angeles.

Member Since: September 3, 2002 Posts: 42 Comments: 873
226. HillsboroughBay
6:09 AM GMT on June 01, 2006
^
225. SpyRI
5:07 AM GMT on June 01, 2006
Re: the tropical arctic research story, Go URI!!!
I'm Rhode Island born
and I'm Rhode Island bred
and when I die
I'll be Rhode Island dead!
So go go Rhode Island island
Go go Rhode Island island,
Go Go Rhode Island,
Go URI!!!
224. arcturus
5:02 AM GMT on June 01, 2006
See a similar article was recently posted.

I new about the Texas flooding but saw no news coverage of it. Big rain event coming back into the northeast I hope they won't have to give coverage of that.

223. acduke
5:01 AM GMT on June 01, 2006
12am CDT...the season begins!
222. arcturus
4:39 AM GMT on June 01, 2006
Article saying the arctic was tropical 55 million years ago. Wish I had a time machine to check out those hurricanes.

Link


221. Skyepony (Mod)
3:29 AM GMT on June 01, 2006
TX flood article

Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 175 Comments: 38212
220. Skyepony (Mod)
3:25 AM GMT on June 01, 2006
I went to go find a decent article on the flooding & ran across this-

It's more on the upcoming papers that back up Emanual's work of increasing hurricane strength & ↑SST.

In a statement accompanying the release of the study, Huber said the results were important because the overall measure of cyclone activity, whether through more intense storms or more frequent storms, had doubled with a one-quarter-degree increase in average global temperature.


Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 175 Comments: 38212
219. sayhuh
3:10 AM GMT on June 01, 2006
swlaaggie, I am suprised I haven't seen any national coverage on this..or did I miss it? Seems like flooding in that area would still be of National interest.
218. AZuRe033
3:08 AM GMT on June 01, 2006
Another interesting article relating to weather and spinning statistics..

Link

Az
217. FLMaverick
3:08 AM GMT on June 01, 2006
Hello everyone. I monitored and posted to this blog last year. Looking forward to some interesting conversation during the next 6 months.
216. ProgressivePulse
3:00 AM GMT on June 01, 2006
WV Image is beginning to look like the tropics again. Everyone all geared up?
Member Since: August 19, 2005 Posts: 5 Comments: 5450
215. snowboy
2:47 AM GMT on June 01, 2006
hey AZ, good post - the last paragraph is indeed interesting and reflects the uncertainty in the science as well as the tremendous variation in temperatures we've seen over the geologic history of the planet. Here it is for those too lazy to follow the link:

"Today's warming of the Arctic can, in all likelihood, be attributed to mankind's impact on the planet, but as our data suggest, natural processes operating in the past have also resulted in a significant warming and cooling of the Arctic."
Member Since: September 21, 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 2547
214. Skyepony (Mod)
2:41 AM GMT on June 01, 2006
This isn't gonna last for long. It's the Western Atlantic Water Vapor loop. The loop gets staticy as the image is rocked out of kilter for a moment. Satalite took a little hit?
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 175 Comments: 38212
213. AZuRe033
2:40 AM GMT on June 01, 2006
This whole calling for people at NOAA and the NHC has really upset me. Especially the Katrina people who should be calling for their own corrupt government leaders to step down instead of reputable scientists who worked their butts off for most of 2005 and saved countless numbers of lives due to their hard work and dedication.

I am also a little tired of the overhyping of hurricane intensities. Can anyone tell me what the deadliest hurricane on record in the Atlantic was? The Great Hurricane of 1780...no brainer on this site I'm sure :) , but can anyone tell me what it's maximum wind speed or pressure was?? What about all the other hurricanes that we actually have on record? No?? So how can we honestly say that 2005 was the busiest season EVER and that it was caused by human induced Global Warming?

As a side note, the BBC had an interesting article about new climate research being done in the Artic with new core samples they were able to take. Very interesting and relates to global warming.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5034026.stm

I found the last paragraph to be particularly interesting..

Cheers..

AZ
212. swlaaggie
2:31 AM GMT on June 01, 2006
Sayhah,

Yea, I posted that Lake Charles NWS forecast. It did, indeed, rain 16 inches as stated in Jefferson County. There were cars door deep in water along I-10. We even got a few inches in Lake Charles but nothing like that. We received way more last night than on Monday. They come in like feeder bands.
Member Since: April 26, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1032
211. Maverick
2:24 AM GMT on June 01, 2006
My prediction:

16 named storms
11 hurricanes
5 major hurricanes
210. weatherhunter
1:43 AM GMT on June 01, 2006
Well it can help Such as the gulf loop helped Rita Katina
209. sayhuh
1:43 AM GMT on June 01, 2006
Just a curiousity...posted earlier was the NWS statement for Lake Charles. The piece that was interesting in it for me was the following statement

AREA FORECAST DISCUSSION
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE LAKE CHARLES LA
1019 AM CDT WED MAY 31 2006

.DISCUSSION...
LATEST SFC ANALYSIS CONTINUES TO SHOW THE TX COASTAL TROF. THIS WX
FEATURE IS WEAKLY CLOSED AT 850MB...AND COMPLETELY CLOSED FROM
700MB ON UP...JUST ABOUT VERTICALLY STACKED. THIS IS PROVIDING A
VERY DEEP LAYER MOISTURE SOURCE INTO TX AND SW LA. THIS WILL
CONTINUE TO FORM CONVERGENT BANDS OF SHRA/TSRA OVER MOST OF SE
TX...WITH THE MAIN EMPHASIS STAYING JUST TO THE WEST OF BPT.
HOWEVER...A LITTLE DRIFT TO THE NE WILL PLACE A VERY HEAVY PRECIP
AXIS OVER JEFFERSON COUNTY...WHICH RECEIVED UP TO 16 INCHES
MONDAY.


BELIEVE PREVIOUS FORECAST IS ON TRACK WITH LEAVING 60% FOR SE
TX...30-40% FOR THE REMAINDER OF LA PORTION OF CWA.

Am I reading it right to understand 16 inches of rain fell on Monday? That seems kinda signifcant to me if I understand this correctly...wouldn't that be a test on the already "weakened but kinda fixed" levee system in the area? Seems like it should be an honorable mention besides a non descript trough notation in the NHC statement. Just me...
208. sts100launch
1:24 AM GMT on June 01, 2006
for all those up tight about the 90.3 @ VCAF1 go to the NOAA bouy site look this one up then check the surrounding bouys and the temps range from 79.8 to 87.3 so calm down. 1 bouy do not a hurricane make.
Member Since: September 28, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 6
207. weatherwhatweather
12:55 AM GMT on June 01, 2006
It's true, China is not a signatory to the Kyoto treaty, but not because it is an 'emerging nation', whatever that means. China is not a member because if it were it would restrict the New York based international corporations which produce more consumerist junk there than the mind can comprehend.
206. Tazmanian
12:46 AM GMT on June 01, 2006
AndrewTjandra welcome you may wantto start up blog

i am taz or you can call me david
Member Since: May 21, 2006 Posts: 5091 Comments: 115244
205. AndrewTjandra
12:42 AM GMT on June 01, 2006
hi everyone , this is my first ever posting for wunderground , hurricane seasons coming up and it'll be thrilling just to wait for new storms to show up...
204. flynns
12:29 AM GMT on June 01, 2006
weatherwhatweather:

Then China's really in for it :P
203. weatherwhatweather
12:06 AM GMT on June 01, 2006
The 1:1 correlation between emissions and global temp increases IS the proof.
202. weatherwhatweather
12:03 AM GMT on June 01, 2006
thundero1..the increase in cyclone activity has not been confined to the Atlantic basin.
201. Skyepony (Mod)
12:00 AM GMT on June 01, 2006
The season is here.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 175 Comments: 38212
200. turtlehurricane
11:49 PM GMT on May 31, 2006
actually at the nhc they dont even deal with global warming and at NOAA they know there is no way to prove the correlation.
Member Since: July 22, 2005 Posts: 227 Comments: 469
199. thunder01
11:47 PM GMT on May 31, 2006
I really don't understand why people seem to think NOAA and the NHC are hiding something. There is absolutely no way to determine whether the current very short-term upswing in tropical cyclone activity (only in the Atlantic Basin, I might add) is directly or even indirectly tied to global warming. It is certainly a possibility, but it's equally (or perhaps even more) likely that it is part of a natural cycle, or even a product of random chance. Global warming is occurring...and will have a significant and possibly devastating impact...but we don't know the time scale on which these changes will take place. It is impossible to attribute individual extreme weather events (or even short-term trends) to a relatively large-scale phenonena. Demonstrations like this one are actually counterproductive--it vindicates the skeptics and dissuades the uncertain. I haven't seen Al Gore's recent documentary, but I have a sinking feeling that it may have been over-dramatizied to appeal to the masses...a dumbed-down version of the truth. Has anyone seen it?
198. Tazmanian
11:22 PM GMT on May 31, 2006
Posted By: MichaelSTL at 3:27 PM PDT on May 31, 2006.
What would happen if a hurricane passed over water that is this hot

you do notwant to no ok her it is can you say cat 5
Member Since: May 21, 2006 Posts: 5091 Comments: 115244

Viewing: 248 - 198

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.