http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/F...06/apr2006.pdf

It's gonna awful in Florida too. Check this out.

div style="width:300px;text-align:center;"a
href="http://www.groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1144257476288.wmv"img
src="http://www.groundhog.tv/apps/editor/clippings/1144257476288.jpg"
width="120" height="90" border="0"/br/img border="0"
src="http://www.groundhog.tv/images/viewer/vpPlaySmall.gif"/a/abr/It's
gonna be a long season/div

wxguru wrote:
http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/F...06/apr2006.pdf

wrote:
It's gonna awful in Florida too. Check this out.

div style="width:300px;text-align:center;"a
href="http://www.groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1144257476288.wmv"img
src="http://www.groundhog.tv/apps/editor/clippings/1144257476288.jpg"
width="120" height="90" border="0"/br/img border="0"
src="http://www.groundhog.tv/images/viewer/vpPlaySmall.gif"/a/abr/It's
gonna be a long season/div

wxguru wrote:
http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/F...06/apr2006.pdf

Do any of these links happen to work? Or can you post without the
htlmnop?

Weatherlawyer wrote:

Do any of these links happen to work? Or can you post without the htlmnop?

OK I got a couple to open but not good links. then I got back to the
window that held a tiny arrow to find it had developed into a small
piccie:

17 Named storms
9 Hurricanes
5 Intense ones.

So is that 31 cyclones or 17 near hurricanes and 14 full blown, or 9
hurricanes over half of which will be supercyclones?

There was some data released recently showing that the overall number
of cyclones had not increased greatly but that weather patterns
although similar in nature were generally more intense these days. I
can't remember where I saw it or if I posted the link.

Anyone remember it?

In the meantime Australian cyclones are not finished with the western
(or is it the eastern?) tip of the continent darnundah:
http://www.solar.ifa.hawaii.edu/Trop...wld.latest.gif
http://satellite.ehabich.info/hurricane-watch.htm

On 5 Apr 2006 20:37:11 -0700,
Weatherlawyer , in
.com wrote:

+ 17 Named storms
+ 9 Hurricanes
+ 5 Intense ones.
+
+ So is that 31 cyclones or 17 near hurricanes and 14 full blown, or 9
+ hurricanes over half of which will be supercyclones?

Seventeen. Remember that named storms are closed warm-core systems
that reach 17 m/s (34 kt, 39 MPH, or 62 km/h). Or greater. The way
to read the numbers:

17 named storms, of which 9 will be hurricanes (33 m/s, 64 kt, 74 MPH,
118 km/h), of which 5 will be intense (Category 3 or better, minimum
of 50 m/s, 96 kt, 111 MPH, 178 km/h).

I'll borrow the Joint Typhoon Warning Center's definition of "super"
as in "super-typhoon", which is the equivalent of a strong Cat 4 or
better. Perhaps all 5 will meet that definition. But perhaps none will,
either.

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/A3.html

--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
isn't looking good, either.
I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.

I R A Darth Aggie wrote:
On 5 Apr 2006 20:37:11 -0700,
Weatherlawyer , in
.com wrote:


+ 17 Named storms
+ 9 Hurricanes
+ 5 Intense ones.
+
+ So is that 31 cyclones or 17 near hurricanes and 14 full blown, or 9
+ hurricanes over half of which will be supercyclones?


Seventeen. Remember that named storms are closed warm-core systems
that reach 17 m/s (34 kt, 39 MPH, or 62 km/h). Or greater. The way
to read the numbers:

17 named storms, of which 9 will be hurricanes (33 m/s, 64 kt, 74 MPH,
118 km/h), of which 5 will be intense (Category 3 or better, minimum
of 50 m/s, 96 kt, 111 MPH, 178 km/h).

I'll borrow the Joint Typhoon Warning Center's definition of "super"
as in "super-typhoon", which is the equivalent of a strong Cat 4 or
better. Perhaps all 5 will meet that definition. But perhaps none will,
either.

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/A3.html


With all the chatter about La Nina, also, I would think
the east coast would be fairly safe this year, given the
likelihood of an east coast ridge as part of La Nina, but
that the Gulf of Mexico would be under the gun again.

Of course, it just takes one ridge collapse and an
opportunistic storm (pardon the anthropomorphizing) and
there goes my prediction.

Anyway, this is all consistent with the developing drought
on the east coast. If rains start falling in the next
couple months, and drought dissipates, disregard my
long-term forecast.

Do I recollect correctly that Accu-Wx has suggested
the east coast is in danger this year?

scott

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 11:02:31 -0500,
Scott L , in
wrote:

+ With all the chatter about La Nina, also, I would think
+ the east coast would be fairly safe this year, given the
+ likelihood of an east coast ridge as part of La Nina, but
+ that the Gulf of Mexico would be under the gun again.

Yep, that's what I've heard from those in the know, particularly the
central Gulf.

+ Do I recollect correctly that Accu-Wx has suggested
+ the east coast is in danger this year?

Dunno. I mostly don't listen to them, not after their involvement with
the lawsuit against the NWS in the infamous "lobster boat sunk in a
nor'easter let's sue the government" case.

--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
isn't looking good, either.
I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.

I R A Darth Aggie wrote:
On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 11:02:31 -0500,
Scott L , in
wrote:


+ With all the chatter about La Nina, also, I would think
+ the east coast would be fairly safe this year, given the
+ likelihood of an east coast ridge as part of La Nina, but
+ that the Gulf of Mexico would be under the gun again.


Yep, that's what I've heard from those in the know, particularly the
central Gulf.


+ Do I recollect correctly that Accu-Wx has suggested
+ the east coast is in danger this year?


Dunno. I mostly don't listen to them, not after their involvement with
the lawsuit against the NWS in the infamous "lobster boat sunk in a
nor'easter let's sue the government" case.

Were they the plaintiffs' expert witness? I seem to
recall Fred Sanders as an expert for the government.
I recall the judgement against the Govt for failing
to maintain the buoy (or, more accurately, failing
to notify that the buoy was not being maintained),
but I don't recall if it was ever appealed.

scott (Wow -- that was 20 years ago ! )

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 12:52:00 -0500,
Scott L , in
wrote:
+ I R A Darth Aggie wrote:

[about Accu-weather]

+ Dunno. I mostly don't listen to them, not after their involvement with
+ the lawsuit against the NWS in the infamous "lobster boat sunk in a
+ nor'easter let's sue the government" case.

+ Were they the plaintiffs' expert witness?

Yes. It was Accu-weather's opinion that had the buoy been functioning
properly, NWS would have been able to correctly forecast a nor'easter
about to undergo explosive cyclogenesis. In 1985.

+ I seem to
+ recall Fred Sanders as an expert for the government.
+ I recall the judgement against the Govt for failing
+ to maintain the buoy (or, more accurately, failing
+ to notify that the buoy was not being maintained),
+ but I don't recall if it was ever appealed.

Yeah, it was, and the government won on appeal. Given that I was
taught basic synoptic analysis just prior to that, it was fresh in my
mind that one looks at "buoy data with extreme care".

+ scott (Wow -- that was 20 years ago ! )

Yeah, I know. I got my BS degree 22 years ago!

--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
isn't looking good, either.
I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.