Max Mayfield says that 2006 could be WORSE than 2005!!!!!

[Steve]

Oh and I was just pointing out O Town's comments were very sound. He said no one expected 2005 to not be serious, it was just coming off of 2004, most of us thought things wouldn't be quite so active in 2005 (concerning real threats). But it turned out with Rita, Katrina and Wilma, we had 3 storms that might have individually been benchmarks of the season had they not all occurred in the same year.

Steve

[MiamiensisWx]

Steve, can you answer my question? When you said that you do not suspect that 2006 will match 2005, do you mean that 2006 will have less storms?

[quandary]

I think that is what everyone was saying in the beginning of 2005, it couldn't be a repeat of 2004, but it got worse. So I wouldn't doubt it, I just hope not.

Well, the odds aren't there. 2004 was a bad year, but it's obvious that things could've gotten worse. A direct hit by a major hurricane on any major city would've beaten out the 42 billion from 2004. However, it would take a pretty perfect setup to beat 2005. Cat 4+ into Miami, Cat 4+ into Galveston/Houston, Cat 4+ into Tampa and high end Cat 2+ to NYC. That's about it, I think. Cat 5 to New Orleans wouldn't have as big an impact, even though that used to be one of the big danger zones.

So, about 2006, a major, even a cat 4-5 could make landfall anywhere along the coast, away from these major cities and we would not have an impact as big as Katrina, much less Katrina, Wilma and Rita together. So, sure 2006 could be as bad, but it is very unlikely to the point where I will say that it won't be now.

[MiamiensisWx]

Well, the odds aren't there. 2004 was a bad year, but it's obvious that things could've gotten worse. A direct hit by a major hurricane on any major city would've beaten out the 42 billion from 2004. However, it would take a pretty perfect setup to beat 2005. Cat 4+ into Miami, Cat 4+ into Galveston/Houston, Cat 4+ into Tampa and high end Cat 2+ to NYC. That's about it, I think. Cat 5 to New Orleans wouldn't have as big an impact, even though that used to be one of the big danger zones.

So, about 2006, a major, even a cat 4-5 could make landfall anywhere along the coast, away from these major cities and we would not have an impact as big as Katrina, much less Katrina, Wilma and Rita together. So, sure 2006 could be as bad, but it is very unlikely to the point where I will say that it won't be now.

I strongly disagree. You have some good points and may be right in terms of numbers of storms; however, anything is possible, especially in this active cycle.

Also, your statement that "even a cat 4-5 could make landfall anywhere along the coast, away from these major cities and we would not have an impact as big as Katrina, much less Katrina, Wilma and Rita together" is naive. It does have an impact, especially on the people who live between those major cities. Your response is a typical one of those who focus too much on major cities. So what if a storm dosn't hit a major city? Katrina did NOT hit New Orleans, and people who don't live in New Orleans (myself included) are fed up the the obsession with New Orleans. If friends lose their lives, it won't matter that a storm dosn't hit a major city. It's insignificant to those people.

I also strongly believe that, although there will be fewer storms than 2005, that we will have an active and destructive season. Besides, the U.S. is not the only place where storms can make landfall.

[O Town]

I agree, and well said.
BTW I like the new avatar CapeVerdeWave, very cool.

[MiamiensisWx]

Thanks, O Town! I agree, too!

[Steve]

>>Steve, can you answer my question? When you said that you do not suspect that 2006 will match 2005, do you mean that 2006 will have less storms?

I don't think it will have as many named storms. 2005 was an anomaly IMHO. Then again, I wouldn't bet more than $5.00 either way. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Steev

[KWT]

I'd be suprised if this season can match the number of systems that wer ein the 05 season, I feel this season will be more like 04 then 05 in terms of lots of very powerful system.

Was 05 a freak, I suspect it was in terms of numbers tohugh there is one aspect that is rather intresting, 3 cat-5's in one season, that follows on from another 2 seasons with 1 cat-5, it's almost got to the point where to get a cat-5 at least once in a season is the norm and I suspect this trend will continue this year.

Of course, in most people's miond I'm sure its the number and strength of landfalling storms rather then the number or max strength that determines a bad season or not.

[DESTRUCTION5]

There will never be another season like 2005...#'s wise...Not as long as were all alive..

[cajungal]

I think you mean this season, 1893:

another season like that would suck - two more for MS/LA/AL

If I have been alive back in 1893, the eyewall would of passed straight over me for one of those Hurricanes. One of the lines is going straight through Terrebonne Parish. The other one that hit Louisiana was the Cheniere Camanda Hurricane. Around 2,000 people perished from drowning. Mostly women and children. Cheniere Camanda was a fishing village near Grand Isle. I read the book and did not get through it without tears in my eyes. Houma-Thibodaux still have plenty of people living here due to Katrina. And these evacuees say if another storm threat this year to Louisiana, they are leaving and never coming back. And I don't blame them. There is only so much a person can take.

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

True. I always think of the Last Island Hurricane that hit the Coast of Lou. in 1856, I believe. I remember the line: "They were dancing on Last Island when the Hurricane came".


Sad

[GeneratorPower]

It appears there might be a lot of "typos" in that article. For starters, the first sentence:

"the number of hurricanes have been increasing since 1995 and will continue to do so for the next decade or two"

That could be taken to read that every year will have more hurricanes than the year before it.

I agree. I think the article doesn't represent the facts well. Reporters have a tendency to make lots of mistakes when they write about subjects they know nothing about.

[TSmith274]

Sorry for skipping to the end to post. This may have already been said. But, when Max Mayfield speaks of a more active year this year than 05... surely he's just referring to his numbers from last year only, right? He can't possibly think it will even match last yr in terms of numbers... or in terms of anything, really.

[spinfan4eva]

There will never be another season like 2005...#'s wise...Not as long as were all alive..

I have to agree. 2005 was a fluke and once in a lifetime event and hadn't happenned before in over 150 years. Things would have to be perfect again in every way to probably even reach the greek alphabet again. The only thing I have heard going for 2006 so far is La Nina and even that is questionable as to if it will still be present.

[dhweather]

There will never be another season like 2005...#'s wise...Not as long as were all alive..

I have to agree. 2005 was a fluke and once in a lifetime event and hadn't happenned before in over 150 years. Things would have to be perfect again in every way to probably even reach the greek alphabet again. The only thing I have heard going for 2006 so far is La Nina and even that is questionable as to if it will still be present.

I can't agree with it - overall, we have little recorded history on tropical weather. This may be the "norm" just as much as it may be a "fluke".

[wxman57]

Sorry for skipping to the end to post. This may have already been said. But, when Max Mayfield speaks of a more active year this year than 05... surely he's just referring to his numbers from last year only, right? He can't possibly think it will even match last yr in terms of numbers... or in terms of anything, really.

I believe that the reporter misunderstood. Max probably said that in a La Nina year, there are typically more named storms than in a NORMAL year. He didn't mean more storms than 2005. Last year was a very rare anomaly. I've heard it said that it's a 1 in 200 year occurrence. Probalby at least 10 fewer storms in 2006.

[Ivanhater]

We need to remember that it doesnt take many storms to be a destructive season, it only takes 1, remember 1992? so try not to get caught up in how many storms form

[Audrey2Katrina]

"Mayfield said New Orleans felt category three winds from the storm."

Doubtful he said that either, unless he was referring to gusts at the higher floors of high-rises.

Perhaps he was being technical and alluding to the fact that anything in Orleans Parish is actually "in" New Orleans... and the center of the storm actually did pass over extreme eastern Orleans parish.

Were he referring to any of the downtown areas, I'd have to agree with your assessment.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Katrina did NOT hit New Orleans, and people who don't live in New Orleans (myself included) are fed up the the obsession with New Orleans. If friends lose their lives, it won't matter that a storm dosn't hit a major city. It's insignificant to those people.

Yes and No. Katrina DID hit New Orleans "East", too many people, when they hear New Orleans, think "French Quarter"... it is a long city extending from the Jefferson Parish line all the way to practically the La. Miss. boundary. It is fortunate for that city that the storm veered eastward, as a further westward tack would have killed literally THOUSANDS more. (remember 100,000 + were rescued/evacuated AFTER the storm left the city 80% submerged.
On the primary focus being NO, I tend to agree--but it's like so many things that the media keep harping on when people might actually be interested on knowing about OTHER areas just a severely impacted.

And on the "lives lost" I couldn't agree with you more. If a mere TS kills a single person, then at least for that person and their family/loved ones, its scope of ferocity and horror surpasses anything else that they have heard about. Granted, a parochial view of things; but it IS human nature--and understandably so.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

True. I always think of the Last Island Hurricane that hit the Coast of Lou. in 1856, I believe. I remember the line: "They were dancing on Last Island when the Hurricane came".


Sad

The "Last Island Hurricane" was the one that got me started in studying these monsters. (No I do NOT recall it personally! but after Audrey I'd heard about it, and began reading up on it.) I'm not a hundred per cent certain; but I believe aside from the fact that it totally wiped out a resort community, complete with hotels etc. full of vacationers, the island was literally "cut in half" permanently by the surge, and the only living thing found (I imagine they meant in the land-vertebrate category) on the island when it was all over.... was a cow.

A2K