Should NHC Bump Borderline Cases to Hurricanes?

[hurricaneschwartz]

My latest tweets:

Glenn Schwartz‏@HurricaneNBC10

Isaac still "technically" a Trop. Storm. In the old days, this would clearly have been upgraded. "Pure science" like this is misleading

Glenn Schwartz‏@HurricaneNBC10

In hurricane coverage, public communication is as important as being scientifically precise. Virtually no one would have argued if upgraded

"Not just flight level winds impressive. Surface winds too. When I was at NHC, they would often exaggerate for effect. "Hurricane"gets action"

IF Isaac continues to strengthen this aftn, this decision, in retrospect, will be clearly wrong. Each NHC director has a different philosophy, and apparently the new philosophy is to be scientifically precise, regardless of the consequences. I can think of many occasions in the past where being precise would have been a BIG mistake.

Glenn

[BeauDodson]

It was interesting to see how the HRRR did or did not do last night. Never really paid it much attention in tropical situations. Will be a model to watch in the future, as well.

I am still perplexed (and I brought this up yesterday) by the physiological reactions to Isaac being called a strong tropical storm with winds near 70 mph - vs a hurricane with winds of 75 mph - or let's say 80. Do we believe that the public is so stuck on the difference that it makes a big difference in how they react? If so then this furthers my argument even further that we need to do away with the wind scale. The big story has been and has always been (at least the last day or two) the extremely heavy rainfall potential and storm surge. It is very unlikely that wind is going to kill someone - not saying it isn't possible - but shouldn't the big focus for the public be on the water aspect of these storms? Perhaps this is banter.

[donsutherland1]

My latest tweets:

Glenn Schwartz‏@HurricaneNBC10

Isaac still "technically" a Trop. Storm. In the old days, this would clearly have been upgraded. "Pure science" like this is misleading

Glenn Schwartz‏@HurricaneNBC10

In hurricane coverage, public communication is as important as being scientifically precise. Virtually no one would have argued if upgraded

"Not just flight level winds impressive. Surface winds too. When I was at NHC, they would often exaggerate for effect. "Hurricane"gets action"

IF Isaac continues to strengthen this aftn, this decision, in retrospect, will be clearly wrong. Each NHC director has a different philosophy, and apparently the new philosophy is to be scientifically precise, regardless of the consequences. I can think of many occasions in the past where being precise would have been a BIG mistake.

Glenn

Interesting insights.

Even as I have good confidence in the technical explanation offered by the NHC for the lack of an upgrade, I suspect that it might be better to err on the side of calling storms near hurricane strength (~70 mph maximum sustained winds with at least some evidence of stronger winds via reconnaissance) a hurricane. That would give added emphasis to the public safety message. The precise measurements related to the storm could be left to the end-of-season report. I don't think much would be lost given that such an approach would yield only modest revisions, but it might bolster public responsiveness to the approaching storm. If so, the trade-off would probably be worth it.

Anyway, that's just my thought.

[OceanStWx]

My latest tweets:

Glenn Schwartz‏@HurricaneNBC10

Isaac still "technically" a Trop. Storm. In the old days, this would clearly have been upgraded. "Pure science" like this is misleading

Glenn Schwartz‏@HurricaneNBC10

In hurricane coverage, public communication is as important as being scientifically precise. Virtually no one would have argued if upgraded

"Not just flight level winds impressive. Surface winds too. When I was at NHC, they would often exaggerate for effect. "Hurricane"gets action"

IF Isaac continues to strengthen this aftn, this decision, in retrospect, will be clearly wrong. Each NHC director has a different philosophy, and apparently the new philosophy is to be scientifically precise, regardless of the consequences. I can think of many occasions in the past where being precise would have been a BIG mistake.

Glenn

While this may be true, coastal LA has been under hurricane warnings since yesterday. With the current impact based forecasts still calling for hurricane conditions, the NHC can afford to be scientifically precise with the definition of the storm as it stands at the 15z update because forecasts are still calling for a hurricane. There is way too much focus on the exact term that comes before the name Isaac.

[HurricaneJosh]

My latest tweets:

Glenn Schwartz‏@HurricaneNBC10

Isaac still "technically" a Trop. Storm. In the old days, this would clearly have been upgraded. "Pure science" like this is misleading

Glenn Schwartz‏@HurricaneNBC10

In hurricane coverage, public communication is as important as being scientifically precise. Virtually no one would have argued if upgraded

"Not just flight level winds impressive. Surface winds too. When I was at NHC, they would often exaggerate for effect. "Hurricane"gets action"

IF Isaac continues to strengthen this aftn, this decision, in retrospect, will be clearly wrong. Each NHC director has a different philosophy, and apparently the new philosophy is to be scientifically precise, regardless of the consequences. I can think of many occasions in the past where being precise would have been a BIG mistake.

Glenn

I don't know. I appreciate the increased scientific precision over the years. The reality is that a lot of historic storms have been grossly overestimated-- now thy're trying to really represent storms accurately. I'm frustrated with this system, and I'm not saying the NHC always gets it right-- I've disagreed with them Re: other cyclones-- but I trust their instincts here.

Re: the greater consequences... As others have pointed out, the region has been under a Hurricane Warning for a while now, and there has been plenty of reaction to it. I'm down in Houma, and people are taking it seriously enough, I feel. And Hew Orleans is on as high alert as can be reasonably justified at this point. In some sense, crying wolf can be just as dangerous as under-warning.

[Voyager]

It was interesting to see how the HRRR did or did not do last night. Never really paid it much attention in tropical situations. Will be a model to watch in the future, as well.

I am still perplexed (and I brought this up yesterday) by the physiological reactions to Isaac being called a strong tropical storm with winds near 70 mph - vs a hurricane with winds of 75 mph - or let's say 80. Do we believe that the public is so stuck on the difference that it makes a big difference in how they react? If so then this furthers my argument even further that we need to do away with the wind scale. The big story has been and has always been (at least the last day or two) the extremely heavy rainfall potential and storm surge. It is very unlikely that wind is going to kill someone - not saying it isn't possible - but shouldn't the big focus for the public be on the water aspect of these storms? Perhaps this is banter.

I'm going to follow right along in your banter, but I think the public sees the wind threat more clearly. Wind is a "right now" visual and sensory perception. We see the violence of the wind as trees are uprooted, roofs blown off buildings, and debris flying everywhere. Floodwaters (other than surge) are a slower process that takes place over time...in many cases after the worst of the storm passes. To that end, I think the general public will almost always see and identify the winds as the most severe and potentially life threatening part of a hurricane.

[HurricaneJosh]

I totally disagree with the idea of doing away with the wind scale. While SE LA may be an exception, the bottom line is that a much larger percent of the population experiences the wind. And it's not just a matter of whether you might get killed by the wind-- it has to do with taking measures before the storm to reduce damage-- putting cars in garages, taking in loose objects, covering windows, and so on-- as well as altering behavior during the storm so that you're not injured.

To suggest that hurricanes are primarily water events, and that the wind shouldn't play a major role in the warnings, is a bit silly. Anyone who's been in the core of a real hurricane would disagree with this.

[hurricaneschwartz]

The problem is that some people DO react based on whether it's called a tropical storm or a hurricane. Studies have shown that some people will search for a reason NOT TO ACT. This is why NHC has been so concerned with other forecasts that contradict theirs.

This is especially confusing to me because:

1. The storm is so close to land, so lots of people are paying close attention

2. The storm surge and rainfall will clearly be that of a typical hurricane, not a TS.

Glenn

[Ian]

As a heavy consumer of products disseminated by our government's weather services, I prefer the scientifically precise approach. I would not appreciate any suspicion the Weather Service is playing me "for effect." I would not like the burden of having to filter for that consideration on my own. Neither would the public, which would in some measure begin to tune out if it came to suspect spin for effect.

Agreed. We already get enough false/inflated information from the media.. would rather see NHC stay above that.

[blueheronNC]

Here's a thought - maybe the threshold for "hurricane" needs to be dropped to 65 mph or above to coincide with the more scientific measurement techniques we have nowadays. A wonder how many classified "75 mph hurricanes" back before SFMR, relying more exclusively on statistical (as opposed to empirical) flt. level to surface wind reductions ,etc. would actually be 65 mph tropical storms nowadays. Yet, when the public experienced these "very strong tropical storms," in their mind those conditions correlated to cat 1 hurricanes because that's what they were called. So if we want the public to react based on their mental picture of what a cat 1 hurricane is, then maybe the threshold should be reduced accordingly. Put another way, remember how rare it was to get surface observations at landfall that 75-80 mph "hurricanes" were actually producing those winds? Well maybe it's because they weren't.

[BeauDodson]

I totally disagree with the idea of doing away with the wind scale. While SE LA may be an exception, the bottom line is that a much larger percent of the population experiences the wind. And it's not just a matter of whether you might get killed by the wind-- it has to do with taking measures before the storm to reduce damage-- putting cars in garages, taking in loose objects, covering windows, and so on-- as well as altering behavior during the storm so that you're not injured.

To suggest that hurricanes are primarily water events, and that the wind shouldn't play a major role in the warnings, is a bit silly. Anyone who's been in the core of a real hurricane would disagree with this.

I am not saying do away with the wind - I am saying that there is too much focus on the wind vs the water (ESPECIALLY in a maybe/maybe not a hurricane situation).

A lot of people die (majority) in the surge and flooding vs the wind. If the majority of people die in the water vs the wind then why is there more emphasis on the wind? Of course wind is important - especially in preparations for your property. I have been in more than one hurricane - and the wind is impressive. Obviously, though, from reactions on this board the difference between 70 mph wind and 75 is enough to cause outrage. My question was I wonder how the public views all of this language - a tropical storm vs a hurricane. If people dismiss a 70-mph tropical storm because it isn't called a hurricane then there needs to be a lot more education and more emphasis on the surge/flooding. I know I am not alone in my concerns about the way these systems are presented. The NHC has been under some fire concerning this topic. The responses in this thread prove my point exactly.

Obviously wind becomes a MUCH bigger story when we start getting about a certain MPH range.

Meteorologists are starting to focus more and more on the psychology of weather - I brought this subject up years ago and believed it would be the up and coming center of attention. Finally scientists are starting to realize that what matters is how the public reacts to warnings - forecasts are becoming more impact based. There is still quite a bit of education needed among the public sector in how to respond to these type of systems - there also needs to be education among forecasters in how they present these storms to the public.

When Is dozens of forecasters hung up on whether the NHC calls it a hurricane or does not call it a hurricane - then I become concerned that the emphasis has been misplaced - calling it a hurricane is a function of wind speed - a few mph's at that.

That was my point.

[Cory]

I would have no problem calling this a hurricane. As others have said, people do respond differently to a hurricane and a tropical storm, just as they do with a severe thunderstorm vs. tornado.

The NHC is a scientific organization, but it exists for the purpose of public safety. Nailing things down precisely as if this were just a scientific research experiment, and avoiding calling something stronger than it is just to be purely scientific, is missing the whole point of NHC forecasts. We need people to react properly and save their lives. Splitting hairs isn't helpful.

[BeauDodson]

I'm going to follow right along in your banter, but I think the public sees the wind threat more clearly. Wind is a "right now" visual and sensory perception. We see the violence of the wind as trees are uprooted, roofs blown off buildings, and debris flying everywhere. Floodwaters (other than surge) are a slower process that takes place over time...in many cases after the worst of the storm passes. To that end, I think the general public will almost always see and identify the winds as the most severe and potentially life threatening part of a hurricane.

And they would be wrong.

So the question becomes - is this a problem? Or - is this acceptable

This gets into the psychology of weather warnings - which is fascinating. I spend a lot of time reading up on this subject - there are also some great forums online that a few colleges run/groups. When dealing with the public and the warning process it is becoming clear that is a complex formula that actually brings people to the point where they take action. History of storms in their area - have they ever been personally impacted by severe weather - are they new to the region - goes on and on.

I am not disagreeing with anyone here - I don't believe any of us have the answers - just opinions and our own experience.

From USA Today and NHC

"The biggest single killer in hurricanes is storm surge," says Jamie Rhome, storm surge specialist at the National Hurricane Center in Miami. He adds that every coastal city along the Gulf or East Coast of the USA is at risk of storm surge.

"Most U.S. tropical cyclone deaths occur from drowning," says hurricane center deputy director Ed Rappaport. "Storm surge accounted for about half of the losses since 1970. Nearly all of those occurred in Katrina (2005), which was the latest example of an infrequent but catastrophic hurricane storm surge event that kills hundreds or even thousands of people."

Floods from excessive rainfall rank second in causing loss of life in hurricanes. "These floods occur much more often than the storm-surge events, but in general take fewer lives per event," Rappaport says.

[hurricaneschwartz]

So what is the main purpose of NHC? Is it to be a scientifically precise organization, or is it to save lives? If you somehow could put all prior NHC directors together, I assure you that the clear majority (or perhaps all prior heads) would have Isaac as a hurricane now. There is plenty of scientific evidence to support this upgrade. It's not like we're making this all up.

Pure science is for the researchers. When it comes to saving lives and communicating with the media and public, those priorities should win out.

Glenn

[OceanStWx]

I would have no problem calling this a hurricane. As others have said, people do respond differently to a hurricane and a tropical storm, just as they do with a severe thunderstorm vs. tornado.

The NHC is a scientific organization, but it exists for the purpose of public safety. Nailing things down precisely as if this were just a scientific research experiment, and avoiding calling something stronger than it is just to be purely scientific, is missing the whole point of NHC forecasts. We need people to react properly and save their lives. Splitting hairs isn't helpful.

The fact remains that tropical storm versus hurricane does not change the forecast that people are being given. They are being told to prepare for a hurricane. The public has been warned to expect a low end hurricane. This isn't a case of severe thunderstorm versus tornado warning, because they are in fact being warned for a hurricane.

[BeauDodson]

Josh, I agree with you that the scientific definition of a hurricane is important. I also agree that it is important to keep purity - as much as possible - in the system. If it is not a hurricane then don't call it a hurricane.

I also can't disagree, however, with those who say they should call Isaac a hurricane based on what is happening right now and based on how the public will react. It does become a slippery slope, though, as to when do you and when do you not do something like that. It is a tough decision. I would not want to be in that hot seat - making those calls.

[BeauDodson]

The fact remains that tropical storm versus hurricane does not change the forecast that people are being given. They are being told to prepare for a hurricane. The public has been warned to expect a low end hurricane. This isn't a case of severe thunderstorm versus tornado warning, because they are in fact being warned for a hurricane.

That is a good point. True - people are being told to prepare for a hurricane.

[BeauDodson]

Interesting to note that the storm is being given a 4.1 out of 6 on the storm surge/wave potential

[Cory]

The fact remains that tropical storm versus hurricane does not change the forecast that people are being given. They are being told to prepare for a hurricane. The public has been warned to expect a low end hurricane. This isn't a case of severe thunderstorm versus tornado warning, because they are in fact being warned for a hurricane.

Do people immediately run for a safe spot when they hear "tornado warning"? No, they don't. They look for sources of confirmation and judge the situation for themselves before they decide whether to react or not. They're in a hurricane warning but see that a tropical storm is coming, and question the hurricane warning.

[hurricaneschwartz]

The fact remains that tropical storm versus hurricane does not change the forecast that people are being given. They are being told to prepare for a hurricane. The public has been warned to expect a low end hurricane. This isn't a case of severe thunderstorm versus tornado warning, because they are in fact being warned for a hurricane.

I wish that were true, but it isn't. Southwest Florida was under a Hurricane Warning for Charlie in 2004, but the official track took it toward the Tampa area. It turned and hit SW FL...hard. And MANY people there were upset that they weren't "warned". And a lot were unprepared because of the forecast track and all the national talk about Tampa. Yes, NHC was right, TECHNICALLY, but ask the people of SW FL if they were.

Glenn

[heavy_wx]

IRENE HAS CHANGED LITTLE IN APPEARANCE IN SATELLITE IMAGERY...BUT

THE RADAR DEPICTION HAS DEGRADED OVER THE PAST FEW HOURS. AN AIR

FORCE RECONNAISSANCE AIRCRAFT INVESTIGATING THE HURRICANE THIS

EVENING HAS FOUND 700 MB FLIGHT-LEVEL WINDS OF 92 KT AND SFMR WINDS

OF 66 KT IN A SMALL AREA MORE THAN 100 NMI EAST OF THE CENTER.

BASED ON THIS INFORMATION...THE INTENSITY OF IRENE IS BEING

MAINTAINED AT 70 KT FOR THIS ADVISORY. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE

WIND FIELD GRAPHICS BASED ON THE FOUR-QUADRANT RADII WILL DEPICT AN

UNREALISTICALLY LARGE AREA OF HURRICANE-FORCE WINDS.

It is interesting that in the case of Irene, the NHC had an intensity of 70 kts, even though the max SFMR reading was 66 kts and the FL wind was 92 kts. With Isaac, the max SFMR reading was 63 kts and the max FL wind was 90 kts. This would seem to be enough to set the intensity of Isaac to 65 kts, given the data supporting Irene's intensity.

[hurricaneschwartz]

Do people immediately run for a safe spot when they hear "tornado warning"? No, they don't. They look for sources of confirmation and judge the situation for themselves before they decide whether to react or not. They're in a hurricane warning but see that a tropical storm is coming, and question the hurricane warning.

Absolutely!

Glenn

[HurricaneJosh]

So what is the main purpose of NHC? Is it to be a scientifically precise organization, or is it to save lives? If you somehow could put all prior NHC directors together, I assure you that the clear majority (or perhaps all prior heads) would have Isaac as a hurricane now. There is plenty of scientific evidence to support this upgrade. It's not like we're making this all up.

Pure science is for the researchers. When it comes to saving lives and communicating with the media and public, those priorities should win out.

Glenn

Given that their mission is to save lives, I should point out that there are long-term safety consequences to hyping and overrating cyclones that don't meet the criteria. People start to tune it all out after they've been in a few events called "hurricanes" that didn't really have the requisite winds.

Of course, hurricanes are water events, too-- but the fact that the water aspect is aggravated/augmented my the unique topography of SE LA doesn't mean the whole classification system should be changed. Most people who are affected by hurricanes don't live in LA bayous-- and the folks that do live down here strike me as very savvy to the unique vulnerabilities of this region.

[hurricaneschwartz]

IRENE HAS CHANGED LITTLE IN APPEARANCE IN SATELLITE IMAGERY...BUT

THE RADAR DEPICTION HAS DEGRADED OVER THE PAST FEW HOURS. AN AIR

FORCE RECONNAISSANCE AIRCRAFT INVESTIGATING THE HURRICANE THIS

EVENING HAS FOUND 700 MB FLIGHT-LEVEL WINDS OF 92 KT AND SFMR WINDS

OF 66 KT IN A SMALL AREA MORE THAN 100 NMI EAST OF THE CENTER.

BASED ON THIS INFORMATION...THE INTENSITY OF IRENE IS BEING

MAINTAINED AT 70 KT FOR THIS ADVISORY. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE

WIND FIELD GRAPHICS BASED ON THE FOUR-QUADRANT RADII WILL DEPICT AN

UNREALISTICALLY LARGE AREA OF HURRICANE-FORCE WINDS.

It is interesting that in the case of Irene, the NHC had an intensity of 70 kts, even though the max SFMR reading was 66 kts and the FL wind was 92 kts. With Isaac, the max SFMR reading was 63 kts and the max FL wind was 90 kts. This would seem to be enough to set the intensity of Isaac to 65 kts, given the data supporting Irene's intensity.

So what has changed since last year? A new NHC Director. I hope he doesn't end up learning the hard way.

Glenn

[OceanStWx]

Do people immediately run for a safe spot when they hear "tornado warning"? No, they don't. They look for sources of confirmation and judge the situation for themselves before they decide whether to react or not. They're in a hurricane warning but see that a tropical storm is coming, and question the hurricane warning.

Likewise, when Isaac tips someone's garbage can and they don't see the impact expected from a hurricane, they are more apt to not prepare and ignore the next hurricane.

The knife cuts both ways, and crying wolf can be just as damaging.

[hurricaneschwartz]

Given that their mission is to save lives, I should point out that there are long-term safety consequences to hyping and overrating cyclones that don't meet the criteria. People start to tune it all out after they've been in a few events called "hurricanes" that didn't really have the requisite winds.

Of course, hurricanes are water events, too-- but the fact that the water aspect is aggravated/augmented my the unique topography of SE LA doesn't mean the whole classification system should be changed. Most people who are affected by hurricanes don't live in LA bayous-- and the folks that do live down here strike me as very savvy to the unique vulnerabilities of this region.

In what world is raising a storm 5 mph, when there IS scientific evidence to support it, hype? Let's save that word for things like the FORBES headline yesterday that said Isaac "should" be similar to Katrina. Hype is irresponsible. Disagreeing on a borderline case is not.

Glenn

[BeauDodson]

Interesting topic of conversation.

[BeauDodson]

In what world is raising a storm 5 mph, when there IS scientific evidence to support it, hype? Let's save that word for things like the FORBES headline yesterday that said Isaac "should" be similar to Katrina. Hype is irresponsible. Disagreeing on a borderline case is not.

Glenn

Agree - it is a select group of people that are causing the problems when it comes to this topic (in the meteorological community)

The larger media outlets - national outlets - also are a problem. Local meteorologists seem to be less of a problem. James Spann talked about this subject hmm maybe last week or the week before.

Love WeatherBrains! Much of what we are talking about in this thread has been hashed out on some of his shows. This is a topic that is going to be around for awhile. The psychology of weather warnings.

[Cory]

Given that their mission is to save lives, I should point out that there are long-term safety consequences to hyping and overrating cyclones that don't meet the criteria. People start to tune it all out after they've been in a few events called "hurricanes" that didn't really have the requisite winds.

Of course, hurricanes are water events, too-- but the fact that the water aspect is aggravated/augmented my the unique topography of SE LA doesn't mean the whole classification system should be changed. Most people who are affected by hurricanes don't live in LA bayous-- and the folks that do live down here strike me as very savvy to the unique vulnerabilities of this region.

I agree with avoiding hyping and overrating, but when we're haggling over a couple of knots, it's not really that much of a stretch to bump it up. Vastly overrating them is one thing, but for public safety's sake, going higher by a hair shouldn't be detrimental.

[Cory]

Likewise, when Isaac tips someone's garbage can and they don't see the impact expected from a hurricane, they are more apt to not prepare and ignore the next hurricane.

Some of my favorite phone calls to take.