Tropical Cyclones
Main Index Home Page Stock Weather Photos Australian Severe Weather Forum Storm News and Storm Chasing Reports Tropical Cyclones / Hurricanes / Typhoons Weather Data and Links Wild Fires / Bushfires Weather Observation Techniques Weather Picture Catalogue Tornado Pictures and Reports Stock Video Footage and DVDs for sale
Monthly Global Tropical Cyclone Summary May 2005
[Summaries and Track Data] [Prepared by Gary Padgett]


                                 MAY, 2005

  (For general comments about the nature of these summaries, as well as
  information on how to download the tabular cyclone track files, see
  the Author's Note at the end of this summary.)


                               MAY HIGHLIGHTS

   --> Very quiet month--warnings issued for only two systems worldwide
   --> Northeast Pacific hurricane takes very unusual track toward
       Central America


                  ***** Feature of the Month for May *****

                          WIND REPORTING CRITERIA

     The is the final monthly feature synopsizing the results of a survey
  I sent to the members of a tropical cyclone discussion group during the
  summer (boreal) of 2003.  I have previously presented the results of the
  survey, usually taking two or three questions at the time, in several
  monthly features, beginning with May, 2004.  The survey consisted of ten
  multiple-choice questions dealing with various tropical or subtropical
  cyclone-related issues.  This final feature summarizes the responses to
  a question concerned with maximum wind reporting parameters.

     The persons responding to the survey are listed below.  A special
  thanks to each for taking the time to respond to the questions.

  Michael Bath - New South Wales, Australia
  Bruno Benjamin - Guadeloupe, French West Indies
  Eric Blake - TPC/NHC, Miami, Florida, USA
  Pete Bowyer - Canadian Hurricane Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
  Kevin Boyle - Newchapel Observatory, Stoke-on-Trent, UK
  Jeff Callaghan - BoM, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  Simon Clarke - Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  Tony Cristaldi - NWS Office, Melbourne, Florida, USA
  Roger Edson - University of Guam, USA
  Chris Fogarty - Canadian Hurricane Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
  James Franklin - TPC/NHC, Miami, Florida, USA
  Bruce Harper - Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  Julian Heming - UK Meteorological Office, UK
  Karl Hoarau - Cergy-Pontoise University, Paris, France
  Greg Holland - BoM, Australia
  Mark Kersemakers - BoM, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
  Mark Lander - University of Guam, USA
  Chris Landsea - AOML/HRD, Miami, Florida, USA
  Gary Padgett - Alabama, USA
  Michael V. Padua - Naga City, Philippines
  Michael Pitt - US Navy
  David Roberts - TPC/NHC, Miami, Florida, USA
  David Roth - NOAA/HPC, Maryland, USA
  Matthew Saxby - Queanbeyan, New South Wales, Australia
  Carl Smith - Queensland, Australia
  Phil Smith - Hong Kong, China
  John Wallace - San Antonio, Texas, USA
  Ray Zehr - Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colorado, USA

     For each of the survey questions, the format will be as follows:

     (1) the question as it appeared in the original survey

     (2) summary of the responses to each of the possible choices

     (3) some of the comments from various respondents

  Following this I will attempt to present an analysis of the issues
  plus interject my opinions on the subject.

     This is the final in this series of monthly features reporting on the
  results of the 2003 survey.    Covered in this feature is the eighth
  question, which dealt with the different methods or reporting the maximum
  winds in tropical cyclones (i.e., various time averaging periods, peak
  gusts, etc) utilized by the world's many tropical cyclone warning

     There were 28 persons who responded to the survey questions.  For
  some questions, certain persons did not specify an answer, so the total
  number of votes might not always add up to 28.  Also, in some cases the
  respondent was undecided between two of the choices.  In those cases I
  assigned 1/2 vote to each of the two choices.  A word about the comments
  included below:  this article is extremely long as it is, and I could
  not possibly include all the comments which the various respondents
  made.  I have selected certain ones which seem to cover the various 
  issues well, as well as a few which cast a different slant on the 

                   Question # 8 - Wind Reporting Criteria

  (1) The question was: considering operational warnings (both public
      advices and marine warnings) and also tropical cyclone classification
      issues, what do you think is the best parameter(s) to describe the
      intensity (i.e., current maximum winds) of tropical cyclones?

      (A) 1-minute average sustained wind
      (B) 10-minute average sustained wind
      (C) Peak gusts (usually 3-second gusts)
      (D) 1-minute average MSW plus peak gusts
      (E) 10-minute average MSW plus peak gusts
      (F) 5-minute average sustained wind
      (G) Other

  (2) Summary of Responses

      (A) 1-min avg MSW:                     4.0 votes -  14%
      (B) 10-min avg MSW:                    2.0 votes -   7%
      (C) Peak gusts:                        0.5 votes -   2%
      (D) 1-min avg MSW plus peak gusts:    13.5 votes -  49%
      (E) 10-min avg MSW plus peak gusts:    4.0 votes -  14%
      (F) 5-min avg MSW:                     0.0 votes -   0%
      (G) Other:                             4.0 votes -  14%

  (3) Some Comments

  Bruce Harper (E):  "Definitely E, but drop the use of the word
  'sustained' as it can be misleading."

  Carl Smith (E):  "10-min avg plus peak gusts gives the most realistic
  warning of conditions--gusts can last some minutes with significant
  'lulls' of some minutes between the gusts in strong cyclones, especially
  in the most dangerous quadrant as a cyclone is approaching (at least in
  my Australian experience)."

  Chris Fogarty (D):  "I feel strongly about D.  I think the 1-minute is
  standard--let's keep that, but the peak wind is also very important--it
  represents a possible damaging gust threshold."

  Dave Roberts (A):  "Would like to see WMO square this away."

  David Roth (G):  "It is total nonsense to issue maximum sustained winds
  in criteria that do not match what is used in the region's METARs and/or
  ship/buoy reports, regardless of how small of a difference may be, and
  wind reports need to be standardized worldwide.  As far as I know, NO
  ONE reports 1-min sustained winds anymore in the U. S., so for the U. S.
  at least it should be changed to either 2-min or 10-min, which is used
  in buoys and used to be used in the obs at least into the 1940s.  After
  all, aren't we supposed to be scientists?  Scientists in other fields
  normally work with uniform/universal standards so results can be easily

  Greg Holland (E):  "It being that the rest of the world does 10-min,
  I go for that, but there is no chance of a change, so we just have to
  live with this (and all the confusion that it causes).  Definitely should
  be mean wind plus gust, and I prefer 1 sec as it is less ambiguous to

  James Franklin (A):  "I wish this issue would just go away.  People here
  (Atlantic) are used to the 1-min wind.  There is no advantage that I can
  see that outweighs the re-education if we were to change to a 10-min wind
  or something else.  Let each part of the world do what works best for

  Chris Landsea (A):  "You forgot G--central pressure ;).  James is right
  about this one.  It's completely arbitrary how one defines them since
  it's quite straightforward to go from gusts to 1-min to 10-min maximum
  winds.  Yes, ideally it would be best for everyone around the world to
  use the same system, but it's not a big issue with me."

  Jeff Callaghan (B):  "The gusts readings these days in OZ from electronic
  AWS report much lower gusts than do the old Dynes anemographs.  The gust
  factors with the Almos AWS appear to be around 1.2 over water compared
  with around 1.4 for the Dynes.  They are quite different technology and
  it is not unreasonable that they would be different; however, all the
  old wind engineering stats are based on Dynes-type anemometer data."

  John Wallace (D):  "I see nothing wrong with the current NHC system, and
  frankly the more sinister a strong storm looks with a 1-min MSW, the more
  likely residents may take it seriously."

  Julian Heming (D):  "I can't see warning centres using 10-minute average
  ever switching to 1-minute average and vice versa, but I think my
  preference is the 1-minute average."

  Mark Lander (D):  "I recently talked with an engineer at the University
  of Hawaii, and he told me that the ASCE standard for design practices in
  the U. S. was going to become the peak gusts, rather than a time-averaged
  wind.  Since gust ratios change so much from land to sea, and for all
  sorts of different land exposure categories, the only sensible metric for
  wind speed would be the shortest possible time interval, or the 3-sec

  Matthew Saxby (C or D):  "I think the Australian idea of going off gusts
  very sensible, as it is they that cause the damage.  My favouring the
  1-min wind is based on a political reality, namely that American warnings
  all use it and have quite literally become a de facto global standard,
  regardless of what the WMO says.  Besides, I think the 10-minute MSW's
  can be misleadingly low."

  Michael V. Padua (D):  "It's more precise rather than to wait for
  10-minutes.  And people will be prepared more.  Example:  here in the
  Philippines, when PAGASA issued warnigns on Typhoon Rosing, its wind
  speed was only 205 km/hr (111 kts), while JTWC had it at 288 km/hr
  (156 kts).  With these situations, people living along the coast will
  not mind PAGASA's warning due to the fact that during the 1950s to
  1980s the old PAGASA forecasters used (I think) 1-min--they were inline
  with the U. S. Navy.  I remember one STY Toyang (1983) wherein their
  maximum winds were at 275 km/hr (150 kts)."

  Pete Bowyer (G):  "Whatever is used, it should agree with the values that
  the forecasters are putting in the marine forecasts.  Right now we're
  comparing apples and oranges."

  Phil Smith (D):  "A gust can do a lot of damage.  Because I use JTWC and
  similar products a lot, I tend to get used to the 1-minute average
  sustained wind method for deciding the classification.  Sometimes this
  appears to be "better"; sometimes the 10-minute average sustained wind
  method appears to be "better" at determining when a system becomes a TS.
  I chose "D" because it also takes into account the peak gusts, which may
  often be the factor most reponsible for damage to people and property.  I
  think I want to say that the method which gives the best possible warning
  to the general public is the method I would like to see in place."

  Simon Clarke (G):  "A combination of D & E.  Peak gusts are extremely
  important, so A & B would not be appropriate."

  Tony Cristaldi (D):  "D, though I'm sure I'll be at odds with the "other
  side". :-)"

  (4) Analysis and Gary's Opinion

     First of all, I'll state that I chose Option D (1-min avg MSW plus
  peak gusts).   I've been used to the 1-min avg concept all my life, but
  do feel that peak gusts should be mentioned in that the sudden bursts
  of wind do account for much of the wind-related damage in tropical
  cyclones.  However, I'm also comfortable with the Australian procedure
  of using a 10-min avg MSW in the marine warnings and peak gusts in the
  public advices.  No one wind measurement parameter can give a completely
  adequate picture of the destructive winds inside a tropical cyclone.
     I plan in a couple of future monthly features to discuss this issue
  more fully, so for now I'll just comment on some of the comments given

     It seems like most respondents put an emphasis on peak gusts, although
  most still want either of the 'sustained' wind parameters given also.
  Perhaps using the peak gusts is the way to go, but there are some issues
  here.  For starters, should the 3-sec or 1-sec gust be the standard?
  (Again, the problem of differing time periods raises its ugly head.)
  From what I've been told, the reason for the 3-sec gust was simply that
  the older rotating cup anemometers had an inertial lag which on the
  average required about three seconds to overcome.  But some of the newer
  types of gust measurement devices can respond in one second or less.

     Another issue to consider with using peak gusts as THE primary wind
  reporting parameter in tropical cyclones is how to deal with situations
  like Tropical Storm Gordon in November, 1994.   At one point the system
  was a fairly weak 40-kt sheared tropical storm located in the western
  Caribbean Sea.  As Gordon tracked eastward between Jamaica and eastern
  Cuba, the Guantanamo Naval Base recorded peak gusts to 104 kts in a
  thunderstorm microburst along with a peak 1-min avg wind of 60 kts,
  but these winds were not considered representative of the average
  intensity of the system.  (This information from the official storm
  report by Richard Pasch, archived on TPC/NHC's website.)  Certainly 
  no one would want to classify Gordon as a hurricane based on that report,
  much less a major hurricane, but an objective methodology for weeding out
  such localized extremes of wind would need to be devised.

     I do agree with Bruce Harper that the use of the term 'sustained wind'
  to describe the wind averaged over some period of time can be misleading.
  Most people in the general public and media interpret that as implying
  a relatively steady wind.  The wind velocity in many tropical cyclones is
  anything but steady.   Storm chaser Mike Theiss had this to say about
  some of his hurricane-chase experiences (slightly edited):

     "As far as my personal experiences, they are different.  Charley was
  really streaky or gusty.  It went from 90 mph to 130 mph in a matter of
  a few seconds, and then the 130 mph wind might last for 5-6 seconds, then
  back down to 80 mph.  The super intense blast lasted for about 40 seconds
  and I really think it was one of those mesovortices which Andrew had a
  bunch of.  I think in the small, rapidly deepening storms you get more of
  these quick gusts and less of a constant speed.   In Hurricane Frances it
  was a really steady blow, and when the eyewall came the winds increased
  slowly.  I didn't notice any of those really quick high speed gusts in
  Frances.  Also, in Frances I saw a lot of lightning, which is weird
  because you would think you would only see that in a rapidly deepening
  storm, and Frances was a bit on the ragged side when it came in.  It
  definitely was not power flashes--it was lightning because I saw it
  over the water.  Now in Ivan I did notice a lot of this really streaky
  wind, not as obvious as Charley, but definitely some 10-second blasts
  that were probably 35 kts higher than the average."

     One final potential problem with using gusts as a wind reporting
  criterion is this:  many persons have commented, both in articles I've
  read and in e-mails, that the excess of the peak gusts over the time-
  averaged wind varies considerably from cyclone to cyclone, and Mike
  Theiss' observations from the 2004 Atlantic hurricanes he experienced
  seem to validate this assertion.   Thus, rapidly deepening cyclones with
  intense convection may have extreme gusts which exceed the MSW by a
  considerable amount (e.g., Charley), while the peak gusts in steady-state
  or weakening cyclones with less vigorous convection may not greatly
  exceed the MSW (e.g., Frances).  Yet, as far as I know, the peak gusts
  reported in the forecast/advisories issued by TPC/NHC and CPHC, the
  warnings from JTWC, and the public advices from BoM are all obtained by
  simply applying a constant gust factor to the estimated maximum
  sustained wind (around 1.25 for a 1-min avg MSW or 1.4 for a 10-min
  avg MSW).   Furthermore, there is also an issue which Mark Lander
  alluded to above, namely that the peak gust to sustained wind factors
  differ from land to over water, and also vary with differing types of
  terrain, and with altitude.

     As stated above, this is the final monthly summary reporting the
  answers to my 2003 survey, but there will be a couple of future features
  further discussing the wind reporting parameter issue.



     In the monthly feature for April, 2005, I indicated that the highest
  classification officially used by RSMC New Delhi was Very Severe
  Cyclonic Storm for any cyclonic storm exceeding hurricane intensity.
  Geoffrey Garden of the Darwin TCWC notified me that, according to the
  2002 Annual Review of the WMO/ESCAP Panel on Tropical Cyclones, a
  Very Severe Cyclonic Storm now has a MSW range of 64-119 kts.  For
  storms with the estimated MSW 120 kts or greater, the classification
  Super Cyclonic Storm is now officially applied.  (Thanks to Geoffrey
  for pointing this out to me.)


                             ACTIVITY BY BASINS

  ATLANTIC (ATL) - North Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico

  Activity for May: No tropical cyclones

                     Atlantic Tropical Activity for May

     The month of May lies outside the official 1 June-30 November Atlantic
  hurricane season, but tropical cyclones have appeared from time to time
  during the month.  Since 1950 five systems of tropical storm or hurricane
  intensity have developed in May, the last being Tropical Storm Arlene in
  early May, 1981.   Three hurricanes are known to have developed in May
  since 1886:  one in 1889, Hurricane Able in 1951, and Hurricane Alma in
  1970.   No tropical depressions formed in May, 2005, but a tropical
  disturbance in the western Caribbean did require the issuance of a
  Special Tropical Disturbance Statement by NHC on 24 May.  A weak area
  of low pressure just southeast of Jamaica was producing scattered showers
  and thunderstorms over portions of the central Caribbean Sea and
  Hispaniola with the potential for heavy rainfall over the island of
  Hispaniola during the next couple of days.  However, no further state-
  ments were issued on the system.


  NORTHEAST PACIFIC (NEP) - North Pacific Ocean East of Longitude 180

  Activity for May:  1 hurricane

                         Sources of Information

     Most of the information presented below was obtained from the
  various tropical cyclone products issued by the Tropical Prediction
  Center/National Hurricane Center (TPC/NHC) in Miami, Florida (or the
  Central Pacific Hurricane Center (CPHC) in Honolulu, Hawaii, for
  locations west of longitude 140W):  discussions, public advisories,
  forecast/advisories, tropical weather outlooks, special tropical
  disturbance statements, etc.  Some additional information may have
  been gleaned from the monthly summaries prepared by the hurricane
  specialists and available on TPC/NHC's website.  All references to
  sustained winds imply a 1-minute averaging period unless otherwise

                Northeast Pacific Tropical Activity for May

     The official Eastern North Pacific hurricane season begins on 15 May
  each year, and in recent years the trend has been for the first named
  cyclone of the season to form during the latter half of the month.
  The formation of Hurricane Adrian on 17 May marks the sixth consecutive
  year in which a tropical storm or hurricane has formed during May.  Since
  1971 the previous record for consecutive Mays giving birth to tropical
  storms was four years: 1981-1984, with May of 1984 producing two named
  storms.  Over the period 1971-2004, the annual average for May tropical
  cyclone activity has been a tropical storm every other year and a
  hurricane about once every four years.   So Adrian's formation in late
  May was in keeping with the trend of recent years.  What made the storm
  so unusual was its northeasterly track towards a landfall in Central
  America, very rare at any time of year and unprecedented for so early
  in the season.   A report on Hurricane Adrian, authored by John Wallace,

                            HURRICANE ADRIAN
                              17 - 20 May

  A. Storm Origins

     Like most Northeast Pacific tropical cyclones, Adrian's origin can be
  traced back to an African tropical wave.  The pre-Adrian wave crossed
  Central America on 15 May (1), thereafter spawning a disturbance that
  steadily organized over the succeeding two days, warranting its upgrade
  to Tropical Depression One-E at 2100 UTC on 17 May when located about
  400 nm west-southwest of the coastlines of Guatemala and El Salvador.
  A deep southwest to northeast-oriented trough to its north steered the
  tropical cyclone on a northeasterly track, one it was to maintain
  throughout its life.

  B. Synoptic History

     The depression was upgraded to Tropical Storm Adrian on the next
  advisory at 0300 UTC on the 18th.  Adrian strengthened unevenly, but
  steadily, for the next day and half.    A special advisory upgraded
  Adrian to hurricane strength at 1800 UTC on 19 May, a status confirmed
  by data from a relatively rare Eastern Pacific hurricane reconnaissance
  mission which found a CP of 983 mb and a 75-kt MSW.  At the time of its
  peak intensity Adrian was located about 80 nm southwest of San Salvador,
  El Salvador.

     Adrian weakened extraordinarily rapidly after its peak, making land-
  fall as only a tropical depression in the Gulfo de Fonseca region of
  Honduras around 0600 UTC on 20 May. (2)     Its circulation quickly
  disintegrated over the mountainous terrain of Central America, and the
  last advisory was issued at 1500 UTC on 20 May.  Strong shear to its
  northeast and the disruption of its circulation by land precluded any
  possible regeneration over the western Caribbean Sea.  (Editor's Note:
  Operationally Adrian was classified as a hurricane which made landfall
  in El Salvador, although the discussion bulletin at the time indicated
  that it was quite possible the system would be downgraded to a tropical 
  storm in post-analysis.   However, a careful analysis of satellite and 
  surface data, including ship observations received after the event, 
  indicate that Adrian weakened rapidly offshore and the LLCC moved east-
  ward, making landfall as noted above as a tropical depression in 

     A graphic displaying the track of Hurricane Adrian may be found at
  the following link:>

  C. Damage and Casualties

     There appear to be no casualties directly related to the storm, but
  some indirect casualties are evident; for instance, a People's Daily
  press release states that two Guatemalan ditch diggers were killed in a
  collapse caused by rain before Adrian hit, along with a Salvadoran pilot
  who lost control of his plane in strong winds ahead of the storm. (3)
  Most sources, however, concur that there were no casualties or
  significant damage directly associated with the storm. (4)

  D. Climatological Discussion

     Adrian will be more remembered for its unusual climatological and
  track context than anything else.   May hurricanes are uncommon in the
  Northeast Pacific with an average of about one every four years. (5)
  However, Adrian's track is truly noteworthy; it is exceptional for a
  tropical cyclone to make landfall southeast of the Gulf of Tehuantepec,
  let alone as early as May.    The last storm to approach the Central
  American coast was Andres (1997), though it officially dissipated
  before making landfall and was a June system.   The last tropical
  cyclone on record which actually struck Central America from the Pacific
  was the precursor depression to Hurricane Paul (1982).  In October,
  1968, Tropical Storm Simone made landfall along the Pacific coast of

     The media quoted that Adrian was the fifth tropical cyclone to make
  landfall over Guatemala or El Salvador. (6)     This figure probably
  either includes depressions that never became tropical storms, or storms
  that crossed Central America and regenerated in the Pacific.   In any
  event, this storm set a record with its early date. (7)

  E. References

  (1) Source:  May 2005 Summary,>

  (2) Ibid.


      and May 2005 summary

  (5) This particular tidbit of data was adapted from some figures
      graciously compiled by Gary Padgett and sent to me.


  (7) Ibid.

  (Report written by John Wallace)


  NORTHWEST PACIFIC (NWP) - North Pacific Ocean West of Longitude 180

  Activity for May:  1 tropical depression **
                     1 tropical storm ++

  ** - not treated as a tropical depression by JTWC

  ++ - system formed at end of month and will be covered in the June

                          Sources of Information

     Most of the information presented below is based upon tropical
  cyclone warnings and significant tropical weather outlooks issued
  by the Joint Typhoon Warning Center of the U. S. Air Force and
  Navy (JTWC), located at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.   In the companion
  tropical cyclone tracks file, I normally annotate track coordinates
  from some of the various Asian warning centers when their center
  positions differ from JTWC's by usually 40-50 nm or more.   All
  references to sustained winds imply a 1-minute averaging period
  unless otherwise noted.

     Michael V. Padua of Naga City in the Philippines, owner of the
  Typhoon 2000 website, normally sends me cyclone tracks based upon
  warnings issued by the Japanese Meteorological Agency (JMA) and the
  Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical & Astronomical Services
  Administration (PAGASA).  Also, Huang Chunliang of Fuzhou City, China,
  sends data taken from synoptic observations around the Northwest
  Pacific basin.  A very special thanks to Michael and Chunliang for
  the assistance they so reliably provide.

     In the title line for each storm I have referenced all the cyclone
  names/numbers I have available:   JTWC's depression number, the 
  JMA-assigned name (if any), JMA's tropical storm numeric designator,
  and PAGASA's name for systems forming in or passing through their
  area of warning responsibility.

                 Northwest Pacific Tropical Activity for May

     The month of May was exceptionally quiet in the Northwest Pacific
  basin.  Warnings were issued by various TCWCs on two systems during the
  month.  A rather ill-defined system formed on 15 May just east of the
  southernmost Philippine island of Mindanao.  Christened Crising by
  PAGASA, the depression remained quasi-stationary for 2 or 3 days before
  weakening on the 17th.  JTWC did not classify Crising as a tropical
  depression--besides PAGASA, JMA and the Central Weather Bureau of Taiwan
  were the other warning agencies treating Crising as a depression.
  Maximum winds estimated by JMA and PAGASA were 30 kts.  A graphic
  displaying the track of Tropical Depression Crising may be found at the
  following link:>

     On the 30th another tropical depression formed and was numbered TD-04
  by JTWC.   The system was upgraded to a tropical storm on 31 May, and on
  1 June JMA upgraded the system and named it Nesat.  Nesat (known in the
  Philippines at Dante) went on to become a very impressive typhoon which
  almost reached the super typhoon threshold of 130 kts.  A report on
  Typhoon Nesat, which is currently being written by Kevin Boyle, will be
  included in the June summary.


  NORTH INDIAN OCEAN (NIO) - Bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea

  Activity for May:  No tropical cyclones


  SOUTHWEST INDIAN OCEAN (SWI) - South Indian Ocean West of Longitude 90E

  Activity for May:  No tropical cyclones



  Activity for May:  No tropical cyclones



  Activity for May:  No tropical cyclones

                        Northeast Australia/Coral Sea
                         Tropical Activity for April

     The Brisbane TCWC issued gale warnings on 3 and 4 May for a LOW which
  formed near 24S/162E and remained quasi-stationary.  This short-lived
  LOW developed equatorwards of a strong HIGH as an upper-level trough
  moved deep into the tropics.  QuikScat data revealed a good circulation
  with gales present where the LOW was impinging on the large HIGH.  This
  LOW was not a tropical LOW, although it perhaps had some hybrid-like
  characteristics.    (Thanks to Jeff Callaghan for sending me some
  information on this system.)


  SOUTH PACIFIC (SPA) - South Pacific Ocean East of Longitude 160E

  Activity for May:  No tropical cyclones


                              EXTRA FEATURE

     In order to shorten the amount of typing in preparing the narrative
  material, I have been in the habit of freely using abbreviations and
  acronyms.   I have tried to define most of these with the first usage
  in a given summary, but I may have missed one now and then.  Most of
  these are probably understood by a majority of readers but perhaps a
  few aren't clear to some.  To remedy this I developed a Glossary of
  Abbreviations and Acronyms which I first included in the August, 1998
  summary.  I don't normally include the Glossary in most months in
  order to help keep them from being too long.  If anyone would like to
  receive a copy of the Glossary, please e-mail me and I'll be happy
  to send them a copy.


  AUTHOR'S NOTE:  This summary should be considered a very preliminary 
  overview of the tropical cyclones that occur in each month. The cyclone
  tracks (provided separately) will generally be based upon operational
  warnings issued by the various tropical cyclone warning centers.  The
  information contained therein may differ somewhat from the tracking and
  intensity information obtained from a "best-track" file which is based
  on a detailed post-seasonal analysis of all available data. Information
  on where to find official "best-track" files from the various warning
  centers will be passed along from time to time.

    The track files are not being sent via e-mail.  They can be retrieved
  from the archive sites listed below.  (Note: I do have a limited e-mail
  distribution list for the track files.    If anyone wishes to receive
  these via e-mail, please send me a message.)

    Both the summaries and the track files are standard text files
  created in DOS editor.  Download to disk and use a viewer such as
  Notepad or DOS editor to view the files.

     The first summary in this series covered the month of October,
  1997.   Back issues can be obtained from the following websites
  (courtesy of Michael Bath, Michael V. Padua, Michael Pitt, Chris
  Landsea, and John Diebolt):>>>>>

     Another website where much information about tropical cyclones may
  be found is the website for the UK Meteorological Office.  Their site
  contains a lot of statistical information about tropical cyclones
  globally on a monthly basis.  The URL is:>


     JTWC now has available on its website the Annual Tropical Cyclone
  Report (ATCR) for 2004 (2003-2004 season for the Southern Hemisphere).
  ATCRs for earlier years are available also.

     The URL is:>

     Also, TPC/NHC has available on its webpage nice "technicolor"
  tracking charts for the 2004 Atlantic and Eastern North Pacific
  tropical cyclones; also, storm reports for all the 2004 Atlantic
  and Eastern North Pacific cyclones are now available, as well as
  track charts and reports on storms from earlier years. 

     The URL is:>

     A special thanks to Michael Bath of McLeans Ridges, New South Wales,
  Australia, for assisting me with proofreading the summaries.


  Gary Padgett
  E-mail:  [email protected]
  Phone:  334-222-5327

  Kevin Boyle  (Eastern Atlantic, Western Northwest Pacific, South
                China Sea)
  E-mail:  newchapelob[email protected]

  John Wallace (Assistance with Eastern North Pacific)
  E-mail:  [email protected]

  Huang Chunliang  (Assistance with Western Northwest Pacific, South
                    China Sea)
  E-mail:  [email protected]

  Simon Clarke  (Northeast Australia/Coral Sea, South Pacific)
  E-mail:  [email protected]


Document: summ0505.htm
Updated: 25th June, 2005

[Australian Severe Weather index] [Copyright Notice] [Email Contacts] [Search This Site]