Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 2

Weak La Niña

The NOAA just released a statement predicting weak La Niña conditions this year. That will only exacerbate what's already predicted to be a very active season. - Cuivienen 02:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Masters said that the models show the La Nina going away by the peak of the season, so maybe we'll get lucky.....right, lucky, haha. :p --AySz88^-^ 03:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Wonder if it'll mean earlier tropical storms. Fableheroesguild 05:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

A May system, even a weak May hurricane, isn't unlikely. - Cuivienen 12:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Supposedly La Nina lowers shear in the North Atlantic. So it won't help with the low water temperatures of the early season, but come March or May it'll mean a higher chance of development. — jdorje (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only person extremely nervous about this coming season? Last year, La Niña was inactive but we still had 6 more storms than had ever been seen before in 150 years of record keeping. Now that La Niña is active, could we see more storms than 2005? (*shudder*) -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 03:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I almost want to increase my prediction of 16/9/6. If I increase it, it will be a significant increase. CrazyC83 04:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I am much less concerned with La Niña than with the prospect for high sea surface temperatures (SSTs). I forsee another record season myself, but that is because I see that whole Atlantic south of 30°N as being very warm this coming year. La Niña is only an enhancing factor. The SSTs are what really powers these storms. --EMS | Talk 16:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I say there will be one or two storms before june--Roman5854 17:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a red hot spot in the anomaly maps just south of New Orleans and it extends a bit towards the Texas boarder: SST Anomaly Map for March 4th

There is plenty of blue near the equator in the Pacific. That may reduce shear.

The persistence of cold water off the East Coast might reduce the strength of an early season storm if it were to end up there.

Temperatures from the following chart may show that the yearly Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) cycles at a higher amplitude as the average global temperatures rise after a "low" at 1975:

File:Ace storm atlantic.jpg

The period of the ACE cycle is about 5 years on average. If it was up for 2003, 2004, and 2005, then we may be due for a lower year in 2006, but the anomaly maps suggest otherwise.

The late storms last season suggest that some condition might still exist which may favor an early storm.

The later part of the season may have to deal with a cooling Atlantic from delayed effects of La Nina in the Atlantic. I still don't have a good picture of how the ENSO cycles work yet as the maps I viewed only go back to 1996. Marksda 08:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation may have hidden global warming from 1950 to 1975:

File:Amo fla fig.JPG

If we can have twice as many major hurricanes with the modest increase of only 0.3 degrees celcius every 45 years, then what will happen if the Atlantic SSTs increase by 3 degrees celcius due to global warming? Marksda 03:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You are certainly raising a lot of issues here. I do agree with your overall assessment that the lingering warm waters in the Atlantic are a harbinger of another hyperactive season coming, and that La Niña will be an enhancing factor. You are also correct that very active seasons are usually followed by a much less active one, but 2005 seemed be active in spite of some characteristics that were suppressing. (For instance, the Atlantic SSTs were not all that warm last year, except in the Carribean and western Atlantic. There also were periods of strong shear in which tropical cyclones did not form in August and September.) It looks to me like 2006 will be a year for Cape Verde stroms, many of which will head north early. As for a cooling: I saw that happen in 1996, but am loathe to forecast the same this time around until late in the year at the earliest. (OTOH, it will happen sooner or later.) --EMS | Talk 15:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

One thing that is bothering me is that while most active seasons seem to be preceded by warm SST anomalies and inactive seasons by cool anomalies, 2002 looked like 2006 looks today (around March 7th) but 2002 was inactive. So I don't know if I should be confident about predicting an active hurricane season in 2006. The risk is clearly here, but I worry about crying wolf. Another thing is that the latest predictions for ENSO suggest that we may be pulling out of the La Nina in about 6 months. Marksda 07:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

One safe bet is that over the next 10 years we should have about twice the average number of major hurricanes due to the AMO. Over the next decade the ACE numbers may be double their average recorded from the last century. Soon we may have to build waterproof homes on the Gulf Coast with reenforced concrete. Marksda 07:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

- All i know is that this season will definitely be above average. All we can do is prepare and wait for the predictions. Anyways, today on Jeff Masters blog he talked about la nina and how it can last through October so go here to read http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/show.html --HurricaneRo 00:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What about El Niño?

Are there also going to be weak conditions this year? Memicho 16:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The section right above this message notes that there'll probably be a weak La Nina or neutral conditions. (La Nina is the opposite of El Nino.) --AySz88^-^ 19:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, didn't Know know that. Thanks for the information. Memicho 23:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

"Plain English"

The user 87.122.56.188 changed some wording on the page in the following fashion (Changed version listed second):

• One system, Tropical Storm Zeta from the 2005 season, continued through early January.
• One storm, Tropical Storm Zeta from the 2005 season, continued through early January.

So I reverted it back. Not only is it redundant but doesn't seem encyclopedic. - Bladeswin 21:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)