Hoggle wrote:
If we talk about named storms:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/ns04.jpg
The average is 9.7, and the previous record was in 1995, at 19 (there
were 18 in 1969)

"STORM NOT NAMED is #13 of the year 1933" is actually "named" as "STORM
#13" because that's what it was and that's what people call it to
differentiate between #12 & #14. Grow up.

You are perpetuating an "appearance of controversy in the science" by
meaningless quibbles. This allows journalists to start every article
about global warming with a phrase: "not all scientists" agree, when
the disagreements are quibbles over names or numbers of storms of
yesteryear.

Knock it off or be unmasked as a Oil Industry shill planted in the
crowd to buffalo journalists into publishing this common fraud.


http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E10.html
provides a breakdown of averages and least/most years.

Naming was not used consistently before WWII, but the record for
tropical storms in the Atlantic is held by 1933 (21) and therefore this
season will either match or exceed that record, when it is completed.

Why quote an ald website. Latest research, October 20th, 2005 shows:
1933 : TS=11, C1=2, C2=3, C3=3, C4=2
2005 : TS=9, C1=6, C3=1, C4=2, C5=3

Plus one pre-Tropical Depression #25 located at 55W, 13N right this
very minute. Pre-Tropical Depression #25 will be officially given a
number before dinner and will get a name sometime before midnight
October 22nd. Whether it goes on to Hurricane status is doubtful, 10%
chance, due to the backwash turbulence from Wilma. Wilma has also
considerably roiled the waters, mixing deeper cooler water with hotter
water and spilled cooling rain over much of the forward path of
pre-Tropical Depression #25, so intensification heat-fueling
opportunities are spoiled.