GARY PADGETT'S MONTHLY GLOBAL TROPICAL CYCLONE SUMMARY 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 centers. 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. 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 duplicated/proven." 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 observe." 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 them." 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 gust." 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 above. 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. ************************************************************************* CORRECTION TO APRIL FEATURE OF THE MONTH 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 noted. 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, follows. HURRICANE ADRIAN (TC-01E) 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 Honduras.) 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 Guatemala. 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. (3) (4) and May 2005 summary (5) This particular tidbit of data was adapted from some figures graciously compiled by Gary Padgett and sent to me. (6) (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 summary 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 ************************************************************************* NORTHWEST AUSTRALIA/SOUTHEAST INDIAN OCEAN (AUW) - From 90E to 135E Activity for May: No tropical cyclones ************************************************************************* NORTHEAST AUSTRALIA/CORAL SEA (AUE) - From 135E to 160E 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: TROPICAL CYCLONE REPORTS AVAILABLE 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. PREPARED BY Gary Padgett E-mail: garyp@alaweb.com Phone: 334-222-5327 Kevin Boyle (Eastern Atlantic, Western Northwest Pacific, South China Sea) E-mail: newchapelobservatory@btinternet.com John Wallace (Assistance with Eastern North Pacific) E-mail: dosidicus@aol.com Huang Chunliang (Assistance with Western Northwest Pacific, South China Sea) E-mail: huangchunliang@hotmail.com Simon Clarke (Northeast Australia/Coral Sea, South Pacific) E-mail: saclarke@iprimus.com.au ************************************************************************* ************************************************************************* Posted: 06.26.05 / Typhoon2000.ph, Typhoon2000.com