• Stormtrack's forum runs on Xenforo forum software, which will be undergoing a major update the evening of Wednesday, Feb 28th. The site may be down for a period while that update takes place.

Reasons why 2006 was so active.

MatthewCarman

What is a quite season? The US did infact get only 1 good landfall this year but so what? That makes it a quite season? Just because America did not get a active season does not mean 2006 was not active.

Reasons why this was not a quite season:

1. Australia had several hurricanes make landfall and a few were magor hurricanes! A few I think hit land as CAT 5's. (Monica and a few others? Cant remeber thier names) Next to that is the TS's that Australia got. I remember them getting quite a few.

2. Many Typhoons happend this year and several made hurricane status. A few did make landfall in asia if I remember right.

3. Atlantic season was pretty active. Even though most of the Hurricanes/TS went out to see how many years do we have one right after another like this year? Gordon,Florence,Hellena,Issac all moved over the same areas one right after another.

4. We had many TS's Including Chris and beryl. Ernesto was a hurricane and made landfall on the us coast of florida and then back into the corolinas if I remeber correctly as a strong TS. (mabey a hurricane?)

5. Eastern pacific season was very active! John and Kristy was out in the waters at the same time like sisters you could say. John was a very strong hurricane and made landfall northwest mexico I think. Lane came after John and was a hurricane I think that hit the same area.

6. Hurricane Ioke! This hurricane travled from the eastern pacific to Asia and back to alaska! It stayed a strong hurricane as it moved from the eastern pacific and moved towards Asia and then moved onto Alaska where it made it's way into the United states and started a BIG severe weather outbreak including tornado watches from ND to TX and a PDS watch for MN. Ioke was a record breaking storm I think.

7. Some years we hardley get anything in the Atlantic and look how many hurricanes we got this year. Just because we had so many landfalls in 2004/2005 does not make this a quite hurricane season. This has been very active for parts of the world.

So for all of you who are complaining you did not see any hurricanes and because of this the season has been quite you need to tak a look at the past 100 years and compare this year to the rest and then tell me if this was a average quite year. I rest my case.

I do not want another katrina to hit the US and feel the lord was watching over us this year. This season was I am sure average or above average and was anything but quite.
 
I think the word you are looking for is quiet not quite. As far as Americans are concerned it was a quiet season. We had three landfalling tropical storms in the US. Alberto, Beryl, and Ernesto.

I'm not sure exactly what you are complaining about, but I think it is perfectly fine to call this a quiet season. Unless you are a surfer or a mariner, all the hurricanes in the Atlantic had no effect on the States.
 
2006 was not an active season in all three basins, atlantic, east pacific and western pacific. So far the atlantic has had nine named tropical storms. If there are no more named this will be a below average atlantic season, normal is eleven including six hurricanes, we have seen five so far. The east pacific averages 16 for the whole season, so far 13. The west pacific averages 31, so far 19. The western pacific season goes well into December so there's time for several more.
 
I wonder how often the UK has been affected by two named storms, Gordon and Helene, and the US by only three ? I am also thankful that up to now no serious damage/ loss of life has been sustained in the Atlantic basin, especially after last year. I believe the early season forecast was for an average to above average season. With all the tenuous links between GW and hurricanes one wonders if there really is any truth in them.
By the way Bill, do you have any Guernsey connections??
Regards,
Paul Domaille
 
With all the tenuous links between GW and hurricanes one wonders if there really is any truth in them.

When you approach Global Warming from the standpoint of "I am a scientist, my theories cannot be proven, wheres my grant money?" it makes perfect sense. I am more worried about an asteroid hitting the planet.
Everyone enjoy the winter, itll be colder than usual, and thankfully the "GW" talk on TV will be done until next summer.
Believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see, less if its on television.
 
When you approach Global Warming from the standpoint of "I am a scientist, my theories cannot be proven, wheres my grant money?" it makes perfect sense. I am more worried about an asteroid hitting the planet.
Everyone enjoy the winter, itll be colder than usual, and thankfully the "GW" talk on TV will be done until next summer.
Believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see, less if its on television.

Who approaches global warming from that standpoint? The whole idea of research is to prove something and you do so through theories and data and models and expirements. Is it easier to attack the scientists then it is to attack the conclusions, data or observations?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Who approaches global warming from that standpoint? The whole idea of research is to prove something and you do so through theories and data and models and expirements. Is it easier to attack the scientists then it is to attack the conclusions, data or observations?

My point is...global warming just isnt provable, not at this time. There isnt enough recorded observations in history to account for more long term climatic ebbs and flows. It is very vain of mankind to thing we have such power over climate changes.
I guess Im just not convinced, I see what you are saying.
I just question the motivations of the people making the GW argument, most are not the qualified scientists.
 
My point is...global warming just isnt provable, not at this time. There isnt enough recorded observations in history to account for more long term climatic ebbs and flows. It is very vain of mankind to thing we have such power over climate changes.
I guess Im just not convinced, I see what you are saying.
I just question the motivations of the people making the GW argument, most are not the qualified scientists.

I don't think most that agree with Global Warming are English teachers either:)

Pat
 
Back
Top