http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/grap...tml?5day?large
Tropical Depression TWENTY-SEVEN

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh...l/140258.shtml
TROPICAL DEPRESSION TWENTY-SEVEN ADVISORY NUMBER 1
NWS TPC/NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
10 PM EST SUN NOV 13 2005

....THE TWENTY-SEVENTH TROPICAL DEPRESSION OF THE 2005 ATLANTIC
SEASON DEVELOPS OVER THE SOUTHEASTERN CARIBBEAN SEA...

.... MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS ARE NEAR 35 MPH... 55 KM/HR...WITH HIGHER
GUSTS. SOME SLOW STRENGTHENING IS FORECAST DURING THE NEXT 24 HOURS
....AND THE DEPRESSION COULD BECOME A TROPICAL STORM ON MONDAY. WINDS
MAY GUST TO TROPICAL STORM-FORCE OVER THE HIGHER TERRAIN OF THE
WINDWARD ISLANDS TONIGHT AND EARLY MONDAY MORNING.


http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh...l/140259.shtml
TROPICAL DEPRESSION TWENTY-SEVEN DISCUSSION NUMBER 1
NWS TPC/NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
10 PM EST SUN NOV 13 2005

UPPER-LEVEL WESTERLY SHEAR OF 20-25 KT IS EXPECTED TO CONTINUE
ACROSS THE CYCLONE FOR THE NEXT 36-48 HOURS... WHICH SHOULD INHIBIT
ANY RAPID DEVELOPMENT DURING THAT TIME. AFTERWARDS... THE SHEAR IS
EXPECTED TO DECREASE TO LESS THAN 10 KT... AT WHICH TIME MORE
SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT COULD OCCUR. THE SHIPS MODEL BRINGS THE
INTENSITY UP TO 66 KT IN 108 HOURS... WHEREAS THE GFDL MAKES THE
CYCLONE A 112-KT MAJOR HURRICANE AT THE SAME TIME. IT SHOULD BE
POINTED OUT THAT THE SHIPS INTENSITY MODEL FORECAST WAS BASED ON
THE MEDIUM BAM MODEL FORECAST TRACK... WHICH TAKES THE STORM
SOUTHWESTWARD ACROSS COLOMBIA WHERE UPPER-LEVEL WINDS ARE EXPECTED
TO BE MUCH STRONGER THAN THEY ARE OVER THE CENTRAL CARIBBEAN SEA.
IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT THIS SYSTEM COULD END UP STRONGER THAN
INDICATED AFTER 72 HOURS... GIVEN THE MUCH LOWER VERTICAL WIND
SHEAR THAT THE GLOBAL MODELS ARE FORECASTING TO BE IN PLACE OVER
THE 96- AND 120-HOUR OFFICIAL FORECAST POSITIONS.

--------
It is noted for the record that only 2 of the 26 previous numbered
tropical depressions this season failed to go onwards to become named
storms. This depression is only 1 mph below named strength.

Addendum...

Jeff Masters Weather Underground Blog:
http://www.weatherunderground.com/bl...ters/show.html

Posted By: JeffMasters at 4:39 AM GMT on November 14, 2005
After suffering through the made-for-TV movie "Category 7: End of the
World" about meteorologically impossible storms that nearly destroy the
world, I came back to the all-too-real world of the Hurricane Season of
2005, which I would have thought was a near impossibility had you told
me before the season started what would transpire. Twenty-seven
tropical cyclones? Unreal!

Tropical Depression 27 is very unimpressive tonight. Wind shear is
still rather high right now, at 10 - 15 knots, and these hostile winds
are keeping the area of deep convection around the storm small. The
shear may even act to tear the storm apart Monday or Tuesday. TD 27
does have the potential to grow into a hurricane, and possibly a major
hurricane, if it can survive the next two days and make it into the
central Caribbean where the waters will be warmer and the wind shear
lighter. I'll be back in the morning with a full analysis.

Jeff Masters

Even if you account for the slow growth of the number
of storms per year in the Atlantic Basin, this year, with
27 storms, is better than a 1 in 10,000 event in the 155
year long record. This year's season is not over with yet,
and may go into extra innings. Something very 'special'
is going on in the Atlantic Basin.

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
oups.com...
Even if you account for the slow growth of the number
of storms per year in the Atlantic Basin, this year, with
27 storms, is better than a 1 in 10,000 event in the 155
year long record.


Your record is incomplete.

And you know it . . .


This year's season is not over with yet,
and may go into extra innings. Something very 'special'
is going on in the Atlantic Basin.

Jik Bombo wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
oups.com...
Even if you account for the slow growth of the number
of storms per year in the Atlantic Basin, this year, with
27 storms, is better than a 1 in 10,000 event in the 155
year long record.


Your record is incomplete.

And you know it . . .

ALL RECORDS ARE INCOMPLETE. They are all we have to go on. Their
incompleteness never disturbed you when they predicted good climate,
now accept them as you did then.

Argue the facts of what incompleteness you feel is important and where
we might look for records that never got into the official records. Or
shut up Bu****e Liar for Oil Companies killing people through toxic
exhausts.

The data I used are the best available to me.
The data are from the NOAA web page given at this URL:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/...arandStorm.htm
The number of storms were counted on the yearly
maps provided.

If you have better data for Atlantic Basin huricane numbers,
Mr. Bombast, please post them here. Realize that your
data would have to significantly differ from those i used
in order to change the 1 in 10,000 event calculation.
The data I used are below:

Year Storms
1851 6
1852 5
1853 8
1854 4
1855 5
1856 6
1857 4
1858 6
1859 8
1860 7
1861 8
1862 6
1863 9
1864 5
1865 7
1866 7
1867 9
1868 4
1869 10
1870 11
1871 8
1872 5
1873 5
1874 7
1875 6
1876 5
1877 8
1878 12
1879 8
1880 11
1881 7
1882 6
1883 4
1884 4
1885 8
1886 12
1887 19
1888 9
1889 9
1890 4
1891 11
1892 9
1893 12
1894 7
1895 6
1896 7
1897 6
1898 11
1899 9
1900 7
1901 12
1902 5
1903 10
1904 5
1905 5
1906 11
1907 5
1908 10
1909 11
1910 5
1911 6
1912 7
1913 6
1914 1
1915 5
1916 14
1917 3
1918 5
1919 3
1920 4
1921 6
1922 4
1923 7
1924 8
1925 2
1926 11
1927 7
1928 6
1929 3
1930 2
1931 9
1932 11
1933 21
1934 11
1935 6
1936 16
1937 9
1938 8
1939 5
1940 8
1941 6
1942 10
1943 10
1944 11
1945 11
1946 6
1947 9
1948 9
1949 13
1950 13
1951 10
1952 7
1953 14
1954 11
1955 12
1956 8
1957 8
1958 10
1959 11
1960 7
1961 11
1962 5
1963 9
1964 12
1965 6
1966 11
1967 8
1968 8
1969 15
1970 10
1971 13
1972 7
1973 8
1974 11
1975 9
1976 10
1977 6
1978 12
1979 9
1980 11
1981 12
1982 6
1983 4
1984 13
1985 11
1986 6
1987 7
1988 12
1989 11
1990 14
1991 8
1992 7
1993 8
1994 7
1995 19
1996 13
1997 8
1998 14
1999 12
2000 15
2001 15
2002 12
2003 16
2004 15
2005 27

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
oups.com...
The data I used are the best available to me.
The data are from the NOAA web page given at this URL:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/...arandStorm.htm
The number of storms were counted on the yearly
maps provided.

If you have better data for Atlantic Basin huricane numbers,
Mr. Bombast, please post them here. Realize that your
data would have to significantly differ from those i used
in order to change the 1 in 10,000 event calculation.
The data I used are below:

Was your data collected under the same condition and in the same manner all
the way back to 1851?

No?

Then address the implications of that revelation.



Year Storms
1851 6
1852 5
1853 8
1854 4
1855 5
1856 6
1857 4
1858 6
1859 8
1860 7
1861 8
1862 6
1863 9
1864 5
1865 7
1866 7
1867 9
1868 4
1869 10
1870 11
1871 8
1872 5
1873 5
1874 7
1875 6
1876 5
1877 8
1878 12
1879 8
1880 11
1881 7
1882 6
1883 4
1884 4
1885 8
1886 12
1887 19
1888 9
1889 9
1890 4
1891 11
1892 9
1893 12
1894 7
1895 6
1896 7
1897 6
1898 11
1899 9
1900 7
1901 12
1902 5
1903 10
1904 5
1905 5
1906 11
1907 5
1908 10
1909 11
1910 5
1911 6
1912 7
1913 6
1914 1
1915 5
1916 14
1917 3
1918 5
1919 3
1920 4
1921 6
1922 4
1923 7
1924 8
1925 2
1926 11
1927 7
1928 6
1929 3
1930 2
1931 9
1932 11
1933 21
1934 11
1935 6
1936 16
1937 9
1938 8
1939 5
1940 8
1941 6
1942 10
1943 10
1944 11
1945 11
1946 6
1947 9
1948 9
1949 13
1950 13
1951 10
1952 7
1953 14
1954 11
1955 12
1956 8
1957 8
1958 10
1959 11
1960 7
1961 11
1962 5
1963 9
1964 12
1965 6
1966 11
1967 8
1968 8
1969 15
1970 10
1971 13
1972 7
1973 8
1974 11
1975 9
1976 10
1977 6
1978 12
1979 9
1980 11
1981 12
1982 6
1983 4
1984 13
1985 11
1986 6
1987 7
1988 12
1989 11
1990 14
1991 8
1992 7
1993 8
1994 7
1995 19
1996 13
1997 8
1998 14
1999 12
2000 15
2001 15
2002 12
2003 16
2004 15
2005 27

Jik Bombo wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
oups.com...

The data I used are the best available to me.
The data are from the NOAA web page given at this URL:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/...arandStorm.htm
The number of storms were counted on the yearly
maps provided.

If you have better data for Atlantic Basin huricane numbers,
Mr. Bombast, please post them here. Realize that your
data would have to significantly differ from those i used
in order to change the 1 in 10,000 event calculation.
The data I used are below:


Was your data collected under the same condition and in the same manner all
the way back to 1851?

No?

Then address the implications of that revelation.


I believe that discussion has already occurred.


Scott

"Scott" wrote in message
...
Jik Bombo wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
oups.com...

The data I used are the best available to me.
The data are from the NOAA web page given at this URL:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/...arandStorm.htm
The number of storms were counted on the yearly
maps provided.

If you have better data for Atlantic Basin huricane numbers,
Mr. Bombast, please post them here. Realize that your
data would have to significantly differ from those i used
in order to change the 1 in 10,000 event calculation.
The data I used are below:


Was your data collected under the same condition and in the same manner
all the way back to 1851?

No?

Then address the implications of that revelation.


I believe that discussion has already occurred.

And yet Roger continues to use incomplete datasets.

That's the coin of the realm with AGW.

It doesn't matter that the data is incomplete, it supports the theory.



Scott

Jik Bombo wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message
...

Jik Bombo wrote:

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
egroups.com...


The data I used are the best available to me.
The data are from the NOAA web page given at this URL:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/...arandStorm.htm
The number of storms were counted on the yearly
maps provided.

If you have better data for Atlantic Basin huricane numbers,
Mr. Bombast, please post them here. Realize that your
data would have to significantly differ from those i used
in order to change the 1 in 10,000 event calculation.
The data I used are below:


Was your data collected under the same condition and in the same manner
all the way back to 1851?

No?

Then address the implications of that revelation.


I believe that discussion has already occurred.


And yet Roger continues to use incomplete datasets.

That's the coin of the realm with AGW.

It doesn't matter that the data is incomplete, it supports the theory.


The meteorological dataset that is totally complete
does not exist.


Scott