How rare are May tropical storms?
NEW ORLEANS (WGNO) — Hurricane season for the Atlantic Basin starts Sunday, June 1, hurricane season in the Eastern Pacific has already begun. We are already awaiting the formation of the Eastern Pacific's first named storm of the season, Alvin.
This storm is located a few hundred miles off the coast of southern Mexico, and is expected to better organize over the next 24 to 48 hours as a tropical depression or potentially a tropical storm by the end of the week.
The Eastern Pacific hurricane season started May 15, more than two weeks earlier than the Atlantic's because of warmer waters and favorable upper-level winds in the middle of the month.
Since this tropical activity is occurring so early in the year, many of us are asking, 'Is this normal?'.
Normal, not exactly, but it isn't uncommon to see tropical activity before June 1. About every five years or so we get tropical storms or even a hurricane develop ahead of schedule.
Keep in mind, humans set the date parameters for hurricane season, not Mother Nature. If conditions are right, storms will form.
Our most recent pre-season storms in the Atlantic Basin were:
Tropical Storm Ana – April 20, 2003
Tropical Storm Arlene – May 6, 1981
Tropical Storm Ana – May 8, 2015
Subtropical Storm Andrea – May 7, 2007
Tropical Storm Alberto – May 19, 2012
The Eastern Pacific and the Atlantic Basis use separate lists of names for storms. Our first named storm in the Atlantic Basin will be Andrea. Which ironically, was the name of a pre-season storm back in 2007.Schumer rips Trump plan to privatize Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac
FUELED Wellness + Nutrition | High-protein BBQ chips that satisfy
How rare are May tropical storms?
Sip & Dip at the Audubon Zoo starts Friday
King Charles III delivers rare speech to Canada's Parliament
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court just gave 500,000 immigrants some truly awful news
The Supreme Court handed down a very brief order on Friday, which effectively permits the Trump administration to strip half a million immigrants of their right to remain in the United States. The case is Noem v. Doe. Although the full Court did not explain why it reached this decision, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson penned a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. As Jackson explains, the case involves 'nearly half a million Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan noncitizens' who are in the United States 'after fleeing their home countries.' The Department of Homeland Security previously granted these immigrants 'parole' status, which allows them to live in the United States for up to two years, and sometimes to work in this country lawfully. Shortly after Trump entered office, DHS issued a blanket order stripping these immigrants of their parole status, putting them at risk for removal. But, a federal district court blocked that order — ruling that DHS must decide whether each individual immigrant should lose their status on a case-by-case basis, rather than through an en masse order. Realistically, this district court order was unlikely to remain in effect indefinitely. In its brief to the justices, the Trump administration makes a strong argument that its decision to terminate these immigrants' status is legal, or, at least, that the courts cannot second-guess that decision. Among other things, the brief points to a federal law which provides that 'no court shall have jurisdiction to review' certain immigration-related decisions by the secretary of Homeland Security. And it argues that the secretary has the power to grant or deny parole because federal law gives them 'discretion' over who receives parole. Notably, Jackson's dissent does not question that the Trump administration is likely to prevail once this case is fully litigated. Instead, she argues that her Court's decision to effectively strip these immigrants of their status is premature. 'Even if the Government is likely to win on the merits,' Jackson writes, 'in our legal system, success takes time and the stay standards require more than anticipated victory.' The primary disagreement between Jackson and her colleagues in the majority concerns the Court's aggressive use of its 'shadow docket' to benefit Trump and other conservative litigants. The shadow docket is a mix of emergency motions and other expedited matters that the justices decide without full briefing and oral argument. The Court typically only spends days or maybe a few weeks weighing whether to grant shadow docket relief, while it spends months or longer deciding cases on its ordinary docket. Since Jackson joined the Court in 2022, she's become the Court's most vocal internal critic of its frequent use of the shadow docket. As Jackson correctly notes in her Doe dissent, the Supreme Court has long said that a party seeking a shadow docket order blocking a lower court's decision must do more than demonstrate that they are likely to prevail. That party must also show that 'irreparable harm will befall them should we deny the stay.' When these two factors do not strongly tilt toward one party, the Court is also supposed to ask whether 'the equities and public interest' favor the party seeking a stay. Jackson criticizes her colleagues in the majority for abandoning these requirements. As she argues, the Trump administration has not shown an 'urgent need to effectuate blanket…parole terminations now.' She also argues that DHS 'does not identify any specific national-security threat or foreign-policy problem that will result' if these immigrants remain in the country for a few more months. And, even under the lower court's order, the government 'retains the ability to terminate…parole on a case-by-case basis should such a particular need arise.' Although the Court has never formally repudiated the requirement that parties seeking to stay a lower court order must prove irreparable harm, it often hands down shadow docket decisions that don't explicitly consider this requirement. Concurring in Labrador v. Poe (2024), Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued that, in many shadow docket cases, 'this Court has little choice but to decide the emergency application by assessing likelihood of success on the merits.' So Kavanaugh, at least, has stated openly that there are some cases where he will rule solely based on which side he thinks should win, regardless of whether that side has proven irreparable harm. Kavanaugh's concurring opinion was joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. In the short term, the Doe decision could lead to many immigrants losing their protections. Long term, the most significant aspect of the decision involves an internal dispute about how fast the Court may move when it disagrees with a lower court decision. No justice contested that the Trump administration is eventually likely to prevail in this case. But Jackson called for her Court to continue to apply procedural constraints that a majority of her colleagues appear to have abandoned. The upshot of this abandonment is that right-leaning litigants like Trump are likely to receive relief very quickly from the justices, because most of the justices are Republicans, while left-leaning litigants will remain bound by lower court orders.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
PBS suing Trump administration over defunding, three days after NPR filed similar case
PBS filed suit Friday against President Donald Trump and other administration officials to block his order stripping federal funding from the 330-station public television system, three days after NPR did the same for its radio network. In its lawsuit, PBS relies on similar arguments, saying Trump was overstepping his authority and engaging in 'viewpoint discrimination' because of his claim that PBS' news coverage is biased against conservatives. 'PBS disputes those charged assertions in the strongest possible terms,' lawyer Z.W. Julius Chen wrote in the suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington. 'But regardless of any policy disagreements over the role of public television, our Constitution and laws forbid the President from serving as the arbiter of the content of PBS's programming, including by attempting to defund PBS.' It was the latest of many legal actions taken against the administration for its moves, including several by media organizations impacted by Trump's orders. Northern Minnesota PBS station joins in the lawsuit PBS was joined as a plaintiff by one of its stations, Lakeland PBS, which serves rural areas in northern and central Minnesota. Trump's order is an 'existential threat' to the station, the lawsuit said. A PBS spokesman said that 'after careful deliberation, PBS reached the conclusion that it was necessary to take legal action to safeguard public television's editorial independence, and to protect the autonomy of PBS member stations.' Through an executive order earlier this month, Trump told the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and federal agencies to stop funding the two systems. Through the corporation alone, PBS is receiving $325 million this year, most of which goes directly to individual stations. PBS, which makes much of the programming used by the stations, said it gets 22% of its revenue directly from the feds. Sixty-one percent of PBS' budget is funded through individual station dues, and the stations raise the bulk of that money through the government. Interrupting 'a rich tapestry of programming' Trump's order 'would have profound impacts on the ability of PBS and PBS member stations to provide a rich tapestry of programming to all Americans,' Chen wrote. PBS said the U.S. Department of Education has canceled a $78 million grant to the system for educational programming, used to make children's shows like 'Sesame Street,' 'Clifford the Big Red Dog' and 'Reading Rainbow.' For Minnesota residents, the order threatens the 'Lakeland Learns' education program and 'Lakeland News,' described in the lawsuit as the only television program in the region providing local news, weather and sports. Besides Trump, the lawsuit names other administration officials as defendants, including Education Secretary Linda McMahon, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. PBS says its technology is used as a backup for the nationwide wireless emergency alert system. The administration has fought with several media organizations. Government-run news services like Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty are struggling for their lives, The Associated Press has battled with the White House over press access and the Federal Communications Commission is investigating television news divisions. ___ David Bauder writes about the intersection of media and entertainment for the AP. Follow him at and
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Dept. of Homeland Security puts R.I. on notice as a ‘sanctuary jurisdiction.' It's unclear why.
The Trump administration has put the state of Rhode Island on notice. Now a formal notification of its 'noncompliance' with federal immigration policy is forthcoming, says the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Photo by Alexander Castro/Rhode Island Current) Exactly what court order the Trump administration is using to base its declaration that Rhode Island is defying federal immigration policy remains a mystery. But the head of the state's chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has a theory. The state as well as Providence and Central Falls are on a list of 500 'sanctuary jurisdictions' that may lose federal funding released Thursday night by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The list was compiled based on factors like noncompliance with federal law enforcement, information-sharing restrictions, and giving legal protections to undocumented immigrants, the department's website stated. The website also states that Rhode Island made the list because of a 'Court Order Requiring State Sanctuary Requirements.' Rhode Island Current reached out to Homeland Security for specific details and received a statement reiterating the designation factors on the department's website. Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU of Rhode Island, hypothesized that the federal government may be citing a 2014 federal court order that ruled police officers in Rhode Island cannot hold a person in custody based upon an U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer alone for more than 48 hours. 'It's a very basic Fourth Amendment law,' Brown said in an interview. 'And it appears the Trump administration is upset that the Constitution prevents them from doing what they want to do.' The Department of Homeland Security's list was published as part of an executive order issued by President Donald Trump April 28 mandating federal officials identify and publicly highlight jurisdictions that 'refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.' 'These sanctuary city politicians are endangering Americans and our law enforcement in order to protect violent criminal illegal aliens,' Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in a statement Thursday. 'We are exposing these sanctuary politicians who harbor criminal illegal aliens and defy federal law.' The announcement from the Department of Homeland Security states each jurisdiction on the list will receive a formal notification of its 'noncompliance' with federal policy and must immediately review and revise its policies to align with the Trump administration. Gov. Dan McKee's office has not received any notification as of Friday, said spokesperson Olivia DaRocha. Officials in Central Falls and Providence said their cities have not received any notice either. 'As we have always stated, Rhode Island cooperates with ICE on the lawful detention of criminals in accordance with a binding federal court ruling,' DaRocha said in an emailed statement, referring to the 2014 court order. Providence Mayor Brett Smiley said in a statement that he has no plans to change the city's existing policy regarding immigration. Police officers are prohibited from asking about someone's immigration status and from holding a subject 'based exclusively' on an administrative detainer, nor are they allowed to arrest suspected undocumented individuals unless federal immigration officers provide a criminal warrant signed by a judge. 'The Providence Police are not and will not be immigration officers and are better able to keep our community safe with this policy,' Smiley said. 'Providence remains committed to being a safe and welcoming city for all.' Smiley added that the city remains fully compliant with federal law and does not violate any federal regulations. Central Falls in 2019 enacted its own ordinance that prohibits local police officers from questioning people about their immigration status without probable cause, bar any compliance with detainer requests made without a warrant, and ensure municipal services are available to all residents regardless of their citizenship. Central Falls Mayor Maria Rivera in a statement said her city stands by its values and community. 'Our ordinance is legal and makes our city safer –– building a stronger foundation for public trust in our local police department,' Rivera said. 'Together with the city of Providence, we won this fight before during the first Trump Administration.' Rivera was referring to a 2018 lawsuit against the U.S. Justice Department over requirements that recipients of a federal criminal-justice grant, known as the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant, cooperate with authorities in the enforcement of federal immigration law. U.S. District Court Judge Judge John J. McConnell Jr. ruled in favor of the cities in 2019, which was upheld by a federal appeals court in Boston in 2020. But the chairman of Rhode Island's Republican Party said the state's placement on the list was the result of 'deliberate, reckless choices' by the governor and city officials. 'Let's be clear, this isn't compassion, it's capitulation,' party chairman Joe Powers said in a statement. 'McKee is harboring those who break federal law while turning his back on those who enforce it.' 'President Trump is standing up to this nonsense,' he continued. Brown, however, maintains that there's not legitimate basis from the federal government that Rhode Island or any municipalities are violating federal law. 'They're not, they're upholding the law,' he said. Also making the list were Connecticut, and its cities of East Haven; Hamden; Hartford; New Haven; New London; and Windham. Massachusetts made the list along with 13 of its 14 counties with Hampden County excluded, and 12 cities: Amherst; Boston; Cambridge; Chelsea; Concord; Holyoke; Lawrence; Newton; Northampton; Orleans; Somerville; and Springfield. Vermont and its cities of Burlington; Montpelier; and Winooski were listed as was Maine's Cumberland and Hancock counties and the city of Portland and the New Hampshire cities of Hanover and Lebanon. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
