Researchers predict below-average 2014 Atlantic hurricane season

Aug 01, 2014

(Phys.org) —Colorado State University researchers continue to predict a below-average hurricane season for the Atlantic basin in 2014, citing exceptionally unfavorable hurricane formation conditions in the tropical Atlantic combined with the likely development of a weak to moderate El Niño event. The below-average prediction is largely due to strong vertical wind shear, dry mid-level air and cool sea surface temperature anomalies in the tropical Atlantic and Caribbean.

The CSU Tropical Meteorology Project team is calling for a total of 10 named storms during the Atlantic , June 1 to Nov. 30. Of those, researchers expect four to become hurricanes and one to reach major strength (Saffir/Simpson category 3-4-5) with sustained winds of 111 miles per hour or greater.

Hurricane Arthur formed in early July, so an additional nine named storms and three hurricanes are predicted for the remainder of the hurricane season.

The team bases its forecasts on over 60 years of historical data that include Atlantic sea surface temperatures, sea level pressures, levels (the change in wind direction and speed with height in the atmosphere), El Niño (warming of waters in the central and eastern tropical Pacific), and other factors.

"So far, the 2014 season is exhibiting characteristics similar to the 1957, 1986, 1993, 2002, and 2009 hurricane seasons, all of which had below-normal hurricane activity," said Phil Klotzbach, lead author of the report.

"The tropical Atlantic remains anomalously cool, and vertical shear throughout the basin remains at above-average levels. In addition, the chances of a weak to moderate El Niño event during the peak of the hurricane season remain elevated," Klotzbach added. "Historical data indicate fewer storms form in these conditions."

The team predicts that 2014 will be about 70 percent of the average season. By comparison, 2013's tropical cyclone activity was about 45 percent of the average season.

Three decades of forecasts

This is the 31st year CSU researchers have issued the Atlantic basin season hurricane forecast since William Gray launched the report in 1984.

The CSU forecast is intended to provide a best estimate of activity to be experienced during the upcoming season, not an exact measure.

Gray cautioned coastal residents to take the proper hurricane precautionary measures each year, regardless of the amount of activity being forecast.

"It takes only one landfall event near you to make this an active season," he said.

The report also includes the probability of major hurricanes making U.S. landfall during the remainder of the hurricane season:

  • 38 percent for the entire U.S. coastline (average for the last century is 52 percent)
  • 21 percent for the U.S. East Coast including the Florida peninsula (average for the last century is 31 percent)
  • 21 percent for the Gulf Coast from the Florida panhandle westward to Brownsville (average for the last century is 30 percent)
  • 30 percent for the Caribbean (average for the last century is 42 percent).

The forecast team also tracks the likelihood of tropical storm-force, hurricane-force and major hurricane-force winds occurring at specific locations along the coastal United States, the Caribbean and Central America through its Landfall Probability website, www.e-transit.org/hurricane.

The site provides information for all coastal states as well as 11 regions and 205 individual counties along the U.S. coastline from Brownsville, Texas, to Eastport, Maine.

Landfall probabilities for regions and counties are adjusted based on the current climate and its projected effects on the upcoming hurricane season.

Klotzbach and Gray update the site regularly with assistance from the GeoGraphics Laboratory at Bridgewater State University in Massachusetts.

Funding for this year's report has been provided by Interstate Restoration, Ironshore Insurance, and personal resources.

Atlantic Basin Hurricane Forecast for 2014
-Released July 31, 2014-

Tropical Cyclone Parameters Extended Range

  • Named Storms (12) 10
  • Named Storm Days (60.1) 40
  • Hurricanes (6.5) 4
  • Hurricane Days (21.3) 15
  • Major Hurricanes (2.0) 1
  • Major Hurricane Days (3.9) 3
  • Accumulated Cyclone Energy (92) 65
  • Net Tropical Cyclone Activity (103%) 70

*Numbers in ( ) represent medians based on 1981-2010 data.

Explore further: Be prepared for hurricanes, despite calm forecast, NOAA warns

More information: The complete 2014 forecast is available online: www.news.colostate.edu/content… ocuments/aug2014.pdf

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

US forecasters see drop in 2012 Atlantic hurricanes

Apr 04, 2012

The number of 2012 Atlantic hurricanes will be below average this season due to a cooling of tropical waters and the potential development of El Nino conditions, US forecasters said Wednesday.

Recommended for you

Scientists make strides in tsunami warning since 2004

Dec 19, 2014

The 2004 tsunami led to greater global cooperation and improved techniques for detecting waves that could reach faraway shores, even though scientists still cannot predict when an earthquake will strike.

Trade winds ventilate the tropical oceans

Dec 19, 2014

Long-term observations indicate that the oxygen minimum zones in the tropical oceans have expanded in recent decades. The reason is still unknown. Now scientists at the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research ...

User comments : 39

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 01, 2014
Another nail in the AGW Cult's coffin of CO2 lies.
TegiriNenashi
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 01, 2014
Wait for gore effect: skeptics rejoicing on the apparent lack of hurricanes, and then the later arriving in droves later in the season.
Whydening Gyre
3.3 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2014
That's it. They jinxed it...
Now we're gonna have MORE...
cjn
4 / 5 (8) Aug 01, 2014
This would be a more impressive feat of prognostication if we weren't already 1/3 of the way through the season.
supamark23
3.4 / 5 (10) Aug 01, 2014
Another nail in the AGW Cult's coffin of CO2 lies.


Oh look, dumbfuck #1 ran his idiot mouth again and didn't bother reading the article. It isn't about air temps fuckstain.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 01, 2014
Oh look, it's supatard aka gobshite.
Perhaps you should take another look at your cult's prophesies of doom and gloom, where they bray of stronger and more hurricanes due to man-made CO2
supamark23
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2014
lol, internet tough guy NAMBLA member. what's the matter, no kids at the playground today?
The Alchemist
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 01, 2014
That's what my quaint anthropomorphic global change theory predicts, fewer hurricanes this year.
I cite a modest driver in terms of Equator-Polar cells.
Dr_toad
Aug 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 01, 2014
Whoa...the AGW Cult's peanut gallery are keeping that lone neuron they share, quite busy today.
erdave
1.3 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2014
That hurricane looks like a galaxy. Is there dark matter in those arms?
The Alchemist
4.5 / 5 (4) Aug 02, 2014
@antigoracle
Human being are on every continent, except Antarctica. They are changing the environment where ever that is: What do you think houses, roads, buildings are? Do you think they are DoinG nothing?
Further we release heat, water (and yes CO2) in huge proportions everyday. The heat is waste heat, which means it goes directly into the background, it has a tough time escaping.

How is it you can even conceive that mankind isn't changing the environs, when termites have a profound effect?
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (5) Aug 02, 2014
How is it you can even conceive that mankind isn't changing the environs, when termites have a profound effect?


So?
Humans, like termites, are a part nature and whatever humans do is just as natural as what termites do.
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (5) Aug 02, 2014
Human being are on every continent, except Antarctica. They are changing the environment where ever that is: What do you think houses, roads, buildings are? Do you think they are DoinG nothing?

So, when are you going to move into that cave and forage for food?
No, wait, you refer to humans as they not we, so I guess you are some other creature.
The Alchemist
5 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2014
Nice try @ryggeson & @antigoracle, but you filthy human beings are an intelligence that modifies its environs for reasons other than just waste and survival, and are therefore not "natural."
@anti I am with you about not living in caves, even so you can't say you're not affecting the climate. How can you not?
A good approach would be to take another look at the how. What are you doing, and what, theoretically, should those impacts be?
Vietvet
4.8 / 5 (5) Aug 03, 2014
Nice try @ryggeson & @antigoracle, but you filthy human beings are an intelligence that modifies its environs for reasons other than just waste and survival, and are therefore not "natural."
@anti I am with you about not living in caves, even so you can't say you're not affecting the climate. How can you not?
A good approach would be to take another look at the how. What are you doing, and what, theoretically, should those impacts be?
Are you really expecting anything intelligent from those two?
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Aug 03, 2014
How is it you can even conceive that mankind isn't changing the environs, when termites have a profound effect?

So?
Humans, like termites, are a part nature and whatever humans do is just as natural as what termites do.

You have stated this before ryggy and it is just as illogical and stupid now as then.

Termites have a natural balance in their environment in terms of population and the resources they consume. Never changes. Kept in check by evolutionary processes.

Humans are out of control. we consume and waste/pullute in ever bigger numbers. The population increases and more consumption >pollution/waste. We travel and pollute as we go.

I don't see termites burning fossil fuels and creating contrails as they forage.

NATURAL has it's true meaning in nature, working with nature. Terrmites do not destroy their environment and perish as a result - as we will if we continue down this road, egged on by selffish, ignorant denialists such as yourself. Blind to all, except their "tax dollars" FFS
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Aug 03, 2014
Runrig,
Ya know I luv n respect ya man, but technically - termites do eventually eat themselves out of house n home - and move on to the next dead pile of wood...

The Universe will keep us "in check", sooner or later...
It's simple hubris to think otherwise.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2014
Runrig, by your reasoning (if it can be called that) you live an unnatural life, so let me know when you are ready to give up that computer and go live in a cave. Until then, you are not only ignorant but also a hypocrite like your False Profit Al the Do As I Say NOT As I Do jet-setting, CO2 polluting farce.
The Alchemist
4.5 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2014
@runrig, I would like anti and rygg to answer my challenge to develop their own approach to conjecture how and in what way humans should be changing the world. I am not asking them to agree with us, just do the mental exercise.

But your statement rather inspired me,
This is how humanity will end:
Somewhere, in a boardroom known by a very few, someone will exclaim, "This is going to make us so much money!"

And that is the sound of the end of the world.
runrig
5 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2014
Runrig,
Ya know I luv n respect ya man, but technically - termites do eventually eat themselves out of house n home - and move on to the next dead pile of wood...

The Universe will keep us "in check", sooner or later...
It's simple hubris to think otherwise.

It will indeed - but if there were more termites consuming "piles of wood" than there were piles of wood - then termites wood reduce their population to match those resources. Same as predatory control of population and disease, pestilence, weather etc. All natural.
Humans have the opportunity to do that when science gives us the heads-up of a danger. It's an evolutionary advantage we have, due intelligence gained via evolution. Denied by many on here.
What humans are doing to the planet is in no way natural. Natural is for our intelligence to realise it and damn well stop.
runrig
5 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2014
@runrig, I would like anti and rygg to answer my challenge to develop their own approach to conjecture how and in what way humans should be changing the world. I am not asking them to agree with us, just do the mental exercise.

But your statement rather inspired me,
This is how humanity will end:
Somewhere, in a boardroom known by a very few, someone will exclaim, "This is going to make us so much money!"

And that is the sound of the end of the world.

gave you five for that ... this never used to happen, but I have marked you up several times recently.
Is some light a dawning?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Aug 03, 2014
What humans are doing to the planet is in no way natural.

Of course it is natural.
Unless you believe humans are not a part of nature?
If so, then you must think humans are outside of nature, like God?
runrig
5 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2014
What humans are doing to the planet is in no way natural.

Of course it is natural.
Unless you believe humans are not a part of nature?
If so, then you must think humans are outside of nature, like God?

I disagree ... for the reasons I have outlined.
End of.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2014
This is how humanity will end:
Somewhere, in a boardroom known by a very few, someone will exclaim, "This is going to make us so much money!"

And that is the sound of the end of the world.
--alchemist
I had no idea you were in that boardroom with Al and Ken.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (3) Aug 03, 2014
if there were more termites consuming "piles of wood" than there were piles of wood - then termites wood reduce their population to match those resources
--runrig
Replace wood with oil and termites with internal combustion engine.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 03, 2014
@runrig, I would like anti and rygg to answer my challenge to develop their own approach to conjecture how and in what way humans should be changing the world. I am not asking them to agree with us, just do the mental exercise.
@Alche
well, sorry... so much for the mental exercise and them using their brains.

It was a good try though... gave you 5 stars for it.

Keep up the good work on that front!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Aug 03, 2014
in what way humans should be changing the world.

In ways that improve the liberty and prosperity of humans.
Anti-socialism has proven to benefit the liberty and prosperity of humans AND conserves resources.
Empirical data shows socialism decreases liberty and prosperity of humans and destroys resources.
Why are so many here socialists?
Vietvet
5 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2014
Why are so many here socialists?

Your most ignorant and delusional comment ---so far anyway.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2014
Why are so many here socialists?
@rygtard
1- personal conjecture not based upon empirical data
2- people here are as much socialist as you are pedophile: if you claim PROOF of anyone like Vietvet, myself, Thermo or Maggnus as being socialist, then the SAME EVIDENCE can be used against YOU and used to prove YOU are a pedophile.
3- empirical data DOES show that socialism is a bad thing... however, you are only proving MY point about your conspiratorial leanings and the need for you to be medicated and your internet privileges removed.

and your argument is MOSTLY against COMMUNISM, not so much against Socialism, as there are MANY countries that include socialistic medicine and a little more as part of their democratic constitution or representative republic constitution (of which you cannot comprehend even the slightest bit, apparently: perhaps this is due to your meds imbalance?)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Aug 03, 2014
"While many writers collected bits and pieces of information on these achievements, the journalist Peter Lund Simmonds (1814-1897) published a massive synthesis on the topic, first in 1862 and in a significantly revised form in 1873, which he titled Waste Products and Undeveloped Substances; or, Hints for Enterprise in Neglected Fields.1"
" Simmonds's books discussed the profitable re-use of virtually all types of industrial and other waste. A point he never tired of making was that not only had considerable wealth been extracted from formerly wasted residuals, but also that the environment was typically better off as a result. "
http://www.fee.or...an-style
Rockefeller created an efficient process to refine kerosene and creating a product his customers demanded. He also turned a byproduct, gasoline, into a profitable product that ended the horse caused pollution in cities.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (1) Aug 03, 2014
@runrig, I am afraid, that like Cher, I don't change much... just that the AGW environ is changing and my wild craziness, which, like it or not, is based on physical realities, the crazy theories, the Al Gorithms come and go, but heat of enthalpies, are here to stay. They simply can't be wrong.
My craziness is just coming into fashion, or more accurately, it is too late, so the truth doesn't matter.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Aug 04, 2014

It will indeed - but if there were more termites consuming "piles of wood" than there were piles of wood - then termites wood reduce their population to match those resources.

No. A lack of piles of wood would reduce their population...
A large portion would die.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2014
then termites wood reduce their population to match those resources

They would abort their babies or take birth control?
In the natural world, when termites or rabbits or run out of food they die.
Any living thing in the natural world that takes no actions to control its environment is subject to the whims of its environment and will live or die on those whims.
Human actions that improve the environment for humans are natural.
runrig
5 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2014
then termites wood reduce their population to match those resources

They would abort their babies or take birth control?
In the natural world, when termites or rabbits or run out of food they die.
Any living thing in the natural world that takes no actions to control its environment is subject to the whims of its environment and will live or die on those whims.
Human actions that improve the environment for humans are natural.


Thanks for agreeing with my point - exactly, naturally creatures may destroy themselves but CRUCIALLY not the entire biosphere. Which we have the power to do with technology.

This is anyway a straw man argument designed to justify us doing nothing, even when the best experts flag it up as a major danger. I'm not going down that rabbit hole with you.
runrig
5 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2014

It will indeed - but if there were more termites consuming "piles of wood" than there were piles of wood - then termites wood reduce their population to match those resources.

No. A lack of piles of wood would reduce their population...
A large portion would die.


?? What I thought I said !
runrig
5 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2014
if there were more termites consuming "piles of wood" than there were piles of wood - then termites wood reduce their population to match those resources
--runrig
Replace wood with oil and termites with internal combustion engine.

But we have a thinking brain to see that that avenue has problems down the line.
Termites do not.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2014
Thanks for agreeing with my point - exactly,

I did not agree-exactly.
I pointed out you implied termites would reduce their population as if it were a conscious choice, not the result of the forces of nature.
As the human population has dramatically increased the past few centuries, it's obvious we are not destroying what promotes humans.
AGWites and the Ehrlich disciples would have you believe humans are outside nature and destroying nature and humans must de-populate and return to a more 'natural' state.
But we are living in a natural state and when humans have the resources, obtained from a prosperous and free society, humans can continue to be prosperous and free AND do so more efficiently (less waste: pollution, etc.).
AGWites and other green socialists believe they know what is best for the lives of others and promote centrally planned, coercive means that destroy innovation and a free society.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2014

It will indeed - but if there were more termites consuming "piles of wood" than there were piles of wood - then termites wood reduce their population to match those resources.

No. A lack of piles of wood would reduce their population...
A large portion would die.

?? What I thought I said !

DOh! just got the "wood" word play part of your statement...
Initially, I took it as the termites would take it upon themselves to "thin the herd"...
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (1) Sep 16, 2014
ryggesogn2 shows his supreme ignorance yet AGAIN with
Humans, like termites, are a part nature and whatever humans do is just as natural as what termites do.
NO.

ryggesogn2 can't understand that humans don't follow (natural) termite behaviour at all;

- Don't mine Km deep to pull up 200 million year old fossil fuels do they ?
- Don't dump heat & waste from nuclear power plants.
- Don't dump 230,000 Liters equivalent of petrol per Second affecting climate.
- Don't manufacture useless goods to foist on their species consuming resources.
- Don't add to background radiation affecting colonies on the other side of the planet.

ryggesogn2 must be blind or dim-witted to blurt
.. it's obvious we are not destroying what promotes humans.
Eg. Such as 'love- canal', bhopal, Fukishima, Chernobyl, 3-mile island etc

You are showing ryggesogn2 your forte is cultivated ignorance & actually going to the trouble to inform us of your incompetence every chance you get, your blurts show you up !

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.