Time to scale back the scale

[U_Thant]

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/mlb/?n=tcig

Local NWS offices, as they are tasked to do, have been issuing products outlining and describing specific TC threat/hazard levels for years, and products such as these need to be given as much visibility as possible by those responsible for disseminating storm information, our agency included.

While it has some use, any simplified multi-parameter scale trying to represent the totality of parameters or hazards of a hurricane will have significant limitations. Specific hazards, and their threat levels, will ALWAYS need to be emphasized, as they currently are. I don't know that such a scale can ever exist that is both all-encompassing, explanative, and yet still simple.

I'm not a psychology expert, but I believe that it's human nature for people to look for a simple metric when coming up with their plan for preparation and/or action, and this is why some people choose to focus on the S-S category of the storm, and compare it to previous storms they've experienced, rather than the forecast of wind speeds, rainfall totals, and storm surge for their specific area. I think this is a big reason why Bob Sheets (I think) was quoted after Katrina as saying that Hurricane Camille killed more people in 2005 than it did in 1969.

I don't know how many times it can be pounded into the collective psyche of coastal residents that storm surge and fresh water flooding are going to be the most significant hazards the great majority of the time. And I don't know if you can ever convince enough people by word alone that haven't experienced such a thing that truly catastrophic weather conditions will occur.

[phlwx]

Did that happen? I didn't hear that anywhere.

I don't think anyone made any specific comparison to a run-of-the-mill system (I was being a bit facetious about it) but I do think there's a general sense that because it's "just" a tropical storm it's not as bad.

I think many of us get too hung up on the label in front of the storm and not focus on the storm itself (its size, momentum, etc.). S-S can't quantify those factors very effectively.

Hell, we use a 19th century definition to define what a hurricane is (Beaufort) by wind speed and we're using a 20th century system (S-S) to determine how "bad" the cane is. Both are pretty antiquated and should be discarded.

If we're going to use an index, maybe some modification of the "destructive scale" that's out there to factor in event duration based on the system's forward movement.

[jburns]

I don't know how many times it can be pounded into the collective psyche of coastal residents that storm surge and fresh water flooding are going to be the most significant hazards the great majority of the time. And I don't know if you can ever convince enough people by word alone that haven't experienced such a thing that truly catastrophic weather conditions will occur.

Good post. We put way too much emphasis in windspeed in both reporting and classifying. It is like judging which dog is most dangerous by the length of their tail.

[Amped]

Leave the scale alone. The warning system needs a revamp. NHC, HPC and the NWS local offices get issue too many vague warnings to cover the same thing and confuse people.

[BeauDodson]

Lessons from Isaac

http://isaaclessons.blogspot.com/?view=classic

[tornadotony]

Or what about separating out each aspect fully into some sort of integrated scale? So, a hurricane might be rated: 1/3/3 (1 for winds, 3 for storm surge, 3 for inland flooding potential). There are hurricanes that would be a 1/1/1 on that type scale, and therefore, it wouldn't make sense to evacuate the same number of people for a 1/1/1 type-storm than a storm like Isaac. Inland flooding would be the most imprecise, but storm surge forecasting has been really solid lately.

Edited to add: What I'm thinking of is a system like TS Hannah- almost a hurricane. I totally get what folks are saying that people need to take all storms seriously, etc. But if Hannah had just strengthened a tad more, it would have made landfall as a Cat 1 hurricane and still "only" have done pretty minimal damage. Having some sort of scaled value to give to the public would help them distinguish better between a Hannah-type-landfall and an Isaac-type-landfall.

The Fujita Scale used to be sort of that way. It was originally the Fujita-Pearson Scale, and had values for strength, path length, and max path width. Eventually, only the strength value (the one Fujita created) stuck with the public. My feeling is that if we try something similar with hurricanes, that will happen again.

Personally, I would like to see us switch over to categorizing hurricanes with the IKE scale and the IKE scale only, scrapping the Saffir-Simpson Scale entirely. IKE would give EMs, the media, and the public a good grasp on the total amount of damage a hurricane would be capable of producing. We could still provide the max sustained wind in products, but going simply with the IKE scale would give a much better representation of the preparation necessary since most of the damage in a hurricane is done by rain and surge anyway.

[Ground Scouring]

Reposted from the Tropical Action thread:

I think that much of the problem can be attributed to the fact that, especially over the last few years, new technologies such as SFMR and recent research on convective trends have shown that the line between representative and transient winds--i.e., between what, exactly, constitutes representative and small-scale winds--is much murkier than once thought. For example, in Jeanne 2004, as reconnaissance penetrated the storm just before FL landfall, the aircraft at 1429Z/25 September recorded 114 kt at 700 mb, according to the NHC report here. Because Jeanne was then deepening steadily from 957 to 952 mb during this period, the NHC used the 90% reduction factor, resulting in a surface wind of 102.6 kt, or ≈105 kt. But a look at the wind-based time series shows that at least the AFWA satellite estimates during this time period were closer to 100 rather than 105 kt--or fully 20-30 kt below those of the TAFB and SAB estimates. The discrepancy is fully relevant because, as you probably know, the satellite presentation of Jeanne at landfall was not outstanding for a 105-kt hurricane; while the eye was warm, it was neither as warm nor as clear as in other intensifying majors, even ones with much smaller eyes like Marilyn 1995 or Omar 2008. Also, there was clearly dry-air intrusion occurring in the southern quadrant, as in this image (note the warmer temperatures just south of the intense convection south of the eye) and radar imagery. All this is relevant because the gridded wind analysis only shows a 90-kt wind contour as well as a rather asymmetric wind structure for an intensifying system, even one that is interacting with land.

Compare the Jeanne analysis with the ones for Andrew 1992 (and two hours after landfall), a rapidly intensifying, small system, and even Camille 1969, a larger and steady-state hurricane at landfall. While both storms were far more intense and smaller than Jeanne was, the main point to be taken is that both storms 1) had a very or fairly symmetric wind structure at or even after landfall and 2) even a steady system like Camille retained very intense winds at the coast, with major hurricane winds of 100 kt even occurring, if the analysis is correct, on the weaker (west) side of the NNW-moving system. While Jeanne was moving faster than Camille and was moving WNW, and thus would have been weaker on the south side, the faster forward speed should not have been expected to create such an asymmetric wind structure with only 60-kt winds over land south of the center--particularly in a system that was deepening steadily at a rather respectable, though not rapid, state (approximately 1 mb/hour). What is clear, however, is that even while deepening, Jeanne 1) exhibited less intense convection than did Andrew (and certainly Camille, based upon Jackson, MS, radar showing a small closed eye after landfall--see the Camille report, PDF p. 7, from the NHC archives) and 2) was experiencing dry-air intrusion, something evidently absent in Andrew and Camille.

Another thing to be mentioned is that I have seen many accounts from chasers who were in Martin and St. Lucie counties, in the immediate region of landfall for both Frances and Jeanne 2004, and even in the eyes of both storms. These chasers noted, in comparing the two storms, is that, even while compensating for the fact that slow-moving Frances cleared out a lot of debris before Jeanne did, the damage from Frances, even near the maximum winds in the N eye wall, seemed worse than that in the same region in Jeanne. While Frances 2004 at 90 kt is officially weaker than Jeanne at landfall gridded analysis for Frances shows a larger inland expanse of 70+ kt north of the eye and, unlike in Jeanne, actually shows a tiny area of 65-kt winds over land near downtown West Palm Beach, whereas such winds in Jeanne never went inland from the coast in Palm Beach County. Also, the overall symmetry of the wind structure is just as good, if not even a bit better in the N quadrant, in Frances as in Jeanne. This is despite the fact that Frances was much larger than Jeanne, was in a steady state at landfall, was surrounded by a weaker pressure gradient (meaning lower winds for the pressure-wind relationship), and was overall lacking a consolidated inner core at landfall--the storm was a bit tilted, or sheared, as it came ashore, due to the same shear that caused it to drop from 125 kt to 90 kt some days earlier. The main difference is that dry air seems to have been lesser of a problem than shear in Frances rather than in Jeanne.

All this makes me wonder whether Jeanne was in fact 100 kt, or even 95 kt, at landfall, while Frances was perhaps just as strong (90-95 kt) but caused much more damage because 1) dry air, being largely absent, did not reduce the conversion factor, so winds transferred more easily to the surface; 2) shear enhanced the gustiness factor, thus causing stronger winds, which were unrecorded (no 100+ kt gusts in Frances, unlike in Jeanne, which produced near-110-kt gusts) because more weather stations, having been unprepared due to minimal tree-trimming before the storm, lost power before the peak conditions came, whereas the storm cleared debris in time for Jeanne, during which fewer stations lost power; and 3) Frances, while larger and slower-moving, with more potential for damage than smaller, more rapidly-moving Jeanne, was really just as strong as its twin a few weeks later.

I also think that dry air and cooler waters have different effects on a storm, so, for instance, a storm like Kirk or Michael this year should not be classified as a weaker storm because its convection is weaker at higher latitudes. Dry air tends to reduce the reduction factor and sometimes decreases gustiness; cooler water, due to the lack of latent heat, may actually exert a smaller effect on the surface winds, particularly if the storm, like Michael, is small and surrounded by a relatively high pressure gradient. (Stability, not dry air, was actually the main thermodynamic factor with Kirk and Michael, and to a relatively limited extant it was, owing to baroclinic factors nearby.) The cool waters actually tend to increase the gustiness factor, particularly above the surface; and if baroclinic/frontal forces are at play, as in the 1938 Long Island Express (which was actually embedded in a fairly tight outer pressure gradient, being wedged between a strong W Atlantic ridge and a highly amplified Appalachian trough), when combined with a storm entering cooler waters while remaining in a tight gradient and accelerating, the results can maintain surface winds and even increase the gustiness factor, even transferring those stronger gusts more effectively to the surface (although elevated, the spectacular 162-kt gust at Blue Hill, MA, in September 1938 is a notable exemplar of this).

To conclude, I would like to end by saying that, in light of these complexities, the recent trend toward discrepancies between pressure and wind--i.e., Isidore 2002, Katrina 2005, Alex 2008, Ike 2008, Isaac 2012, etc.--may merely be an illusion. Obviously, even the Atlantic TC reanalysis is dealing with somewhat limited data prior to the 1950s, so data on RMW, pressure gradient, eye size, etc. may be hard to discern even from several observations many hours apart--especially if no station data were available within 20-40 mi of a landfall location. Let me continue by returning to an old discussion topic of ours: the 1947 Fort Lauderdale hurricane.

Recently, I conducted extensive archival research on the 1947 Category 4 hurricane in South FL and used the research to greatly expand the Wikipedia article on the storm. Note that the lowest pressure in the eye, according to a subsection I authored, was actually 951 mb at Fort Lauderdale, which had calm winds for more than an hour at the time. Based upon this research, the 947 mb at Hillsboro Lighthouse, which was outside the eye and occurred during hurricane-force (!) winds, was likely not reduced to sea level, as the Monthly Weather Review summary claimed. The same Hillsboro anemometer that recorded the 135-kt maximum wind 1) was 115 feet above sea level, near the top of the lighthouse, and 2) actually measured a gust, or 24-second wind, not a 1-minute value (I found the actual Hillsboro observations in the archives at the National Hurricane Center, which listed the value as an “extreme velocity,” a contemporary term usually referring to a 24-second gust. Using a conversion factor of 1.06 provided by the NHC, the 1-minute value was really 127 kt; and as the anemometer was above sea level, a 90% reduction gives a surface wind of 114 kt--just within the low Category 4 range. A newspaper article from Delray Beach after the storm quoted Chief Meterologist Grady Norton in Miami as saying that Delray Beach actually experienced the worst wind damage in the entire storm.

I uploaded this image, with credits to the Delray Beach Historical Society, to Wikipedia, showing the most intense wind damage I could locate in the Delray photo archives. The damage, while severe, actually is only slightly worse than what portions of S FL faced during Wilma--meaning Category 2 winds at most.

An interesting factoid is mentioned in the subset I wrote:

West Palm Beach was at least 30 mi from the center at that time, yet according to a newspaper cited it actually recorded sustained Category 2 winds before the peak arrived. Another interesting note is that many coconut palms in West Palm Beach literally snapped during the storm. Such damage, while present, was not as common in the Delray photos. If one presumes Hillsboro had Category 4 winds, and that Delray Beach had maybe low-end Category 2 winds and West Palm Beach slightly higher winds, then perhaps the storm had a double RMW/outer eye wall at landfall, much like that of Katrina 2005 in LA. This fits the description in the first article of a large eye at landfall; note that in a

new reanalysis paper of the 1944-1953 TC seasons (Hagen et al., 2012), p. 4455 has a table listing the U.S. landfalling hurricanes. The 1947 storm was reanalyzed as 115 kt/945 mb at landfall in S FL, with an (inner?) RMW of about 25 mi/20 nm based upon Hillsboro wind data. Since the 1947 storm was so large, and since the research and images I showed did not really show severe, Category-4-type structural damage (i.e., on a Charley 2004- or Andrew 1992-type level), I am really wondering whether the 1947 TC was instead a Category 3 storm, like Jeanne in structure, at landfall, but that we lack sufficient evidence to prove it. How many other reanalyzed TCs like Audrey 1957 present similar complexities?

Hopefully, you will have some time to digest all this! Any comments, anyone?

[HurricaneJosh]

I just saw this thread.

The reason a hurricane is rated by wind speed is because it's defined by wind speed. A system is designated a hurricane when it has winds of a certain speed-- not when it drops a certain amount of rain or produces a certain level of surge.

As someone who's been in a gazillion hurricanes, I strongly take issue with this fantasy that hurricanes are primarily water events. Even in the swamps of SE LA-- the most flood-prone region in the USA's hurricane country-- Isaac was primarily a wind event for most residents. As I drove the long trek from Galliano to Houma and then to New Orleans-- land that is mostly low-lying swamps-- the main thing I noticed after the storm was downed trees and power poles, blown-out signs, and damaged roofs. Some places were flooded-- but the wind damage was everywhere.

Many extremely damaging American hurricanes in recent years were almost entirely wind events-- for example, Wilma, Charley, and Andrew. In these storms, many millions of residents who weren't threatened by water in any way were impacted by dangerous winds. But even with 'canes that we think of as "water events", it's the same: Ike caused dramatic, once-a-century storm-surge flooding along the coast-- but millions and millions of Houstonians who weren't anywhere near surge zones were impacted by dangerous winds for many hours-- as is the case with most landfalling hurricanes, because most people in a hurricane's path don't live on the coast below 20 ft. The fact that America's greatest hurricane tragedies were due to water doesn't change the fact that in most hurricanes, most of the population is threatened by the winds, not the water.

Also, keep in mind that surge is dependent on factors that have nothing to do with the hurricane-- the topography and so on. A hurricane approaching the N Gulf Coast has different surge potential depending on where it comes ashore. So you can't just assign some generic "surge category" to the cyclone; what you can do is forecast surge potential in specific places-- which is exactly what they do now.

[am19psu]

what you can do is forecast surge potential in specific places-- which is exactly what they do now.

But the whole point of this thread is that those forecasts either aren't heeded or aren't understood by the general public. There needs to be a way to communicate the threat of a hurricane due to size, not just the max wind.

Think about what a Charley-type storm would have done on the exact same track as Katrina. Charley was a stronger storm at landfall, but I think it's difficult to argue that its effects would have been worse.

[Ed Lizard]

But the whole point of this thread is that those forecasts either aren't heeded or aren't understood by the general public. There needs to be a way to communicate the threat of a hurricane due to size, not just the max wind.

Think about what a Charley-type storm would have done on the exact same track as Katrina. Charley was a stronger storm at landfall, but I think it's difficult to argue that its effects would have been worse.

I think Josh is right.

And, BTW, when Katrina was still a Cat 5 and MSY HLS warnings were almost guaranteeing death to anyone who stayed behind, people were still staying behind.

If people ignore Hurricane Local Statements, not really sure some revision of the SS scale to make a 95 knot storm a Cat 4 if it will produce a 15 foot surge will really do all that much. Isaac's excessive rainfall/fresh water flooding and surge threat were well covered/forecasted, and, IIRC, the East Bank of Plaquemines parish was under an evac order.

[tornadotony]

I just saw this thread.

The reason a hurricane is rated by wind speed is because it's defined by wind speed. A system is designated a hurricane when it has winds of a certain speed-- not when it drops a certain amount of rain or produces a certain level of surge.

As someone who's been in a gazillion hurricanes, I strongly take issue with this fantasy that hurricanes are primarily water events. Even in the swamps of SE LA-- the most flood-prone region in the USA's hurricane country-- Isaac was primarily a wind event for most residents. As I drove the long trek from Galliano to Houma and then to New Orleans-- land that is mostly low-lying swamps-- the main thing I noticed after the storm was downed trees and power poles, blown-out signs, and damaged roofs. Some places were flooded-- but the wind damage was everywhere.

Many extremely damaging American hurricanes in recent years were almost entirely wind events-- for example, Wilma, Charley, and Andrew. In these storms, many millions of residents who weren't threatened by water in any way were impacted by dangerous winds. But even with 'canes that we think of as "water events", it's the same: Ike caused dramatic, once-a-century storm-surge flooding along the coast-- but millions and millions of Houstonians who weren't anywhere near surge zones were impacted by dangerous winds for many hours-- as is the case with most landfalling hurricanes, because most people in a hurricane's path don't live on the coast below 20 ft. The fact that America's greatest hurricane tragedies were due to water doesn't change the fact that in most hurricanes, most of the population is threatened by the winds, not the water.

Also, keep in mind that surge is dependent on factors that have nothing to do with the hurricane-- the topography and so on. A hurricane approaching the N Gulf Coast has different surge potential depending on where it comes ashore. So you can't just assign some generic "surge category" to the cyclone; what you can do is forecast surge potential in specific places-- which is exactly what they do now.

Impact != endangerment. More people in the end may be impacted by wind, but there is no question historically that more people are endangered by surge and flooding. IMO, giving the wind estimate (as we do now) and giving an impact rating based on surge/flood potential (or perhaps even some combination of surge, flooding, and wind) would do a much better job at addressing the population fixing to be endangered by a hurricane rather than the population fixing to be impacted but not necessarily endangered.

[am19psu]

I think Josh is right.

And, BTW, when Katrina was still a Cat 5 and MSY HLS warnings were almost guaranteeing death to anyone who stayed behind, people were still staying behind.

If people ignore Hurricane Local Statements, not really sure some revision of the SS scale to make a 95 knot storm a Cat 4 if it will produce a 15 foot surge will really do all that much. Isaac's excessive rainfall/fresh water flooding and surge threat were well covered/forecasted, and, IIRC, the East Bank of Plaquemines parish was under an evac order.

My argument wasn't that people still wouldn't stay, my argument was that people felt they weren't adequately warned because it was "only" a Cat 1. And that's based on nothing more than media reports, which could be cherry picking. And I also didn't suggest that the S-S needed to be revised. I said we need to do a better job communicating threats due to size (both in terms of surge and longevity). Why introduce multiple strawmen into my argument?

[Ed Lizard]

My argument wasn't that people still wouldn't stay, my argument was that people felt they weren't adequately warned because it was "only" a Cat 1. And that's based on nothing more than media reports, which could be cherry picking. And I also didn't suggest that the S-S needed to be revised. I said we need to do a better job communicating threats due to size (both in terms of surge and longevity). Why introduce multiple strawmen into my argument?

Not introducing strawmen.

I watched some TWC coverage, read MSY and NHC products. Didn't watch local NOLA news, but the threat of excessive rains, and high surge, were well communicated to the people, best I can tell. People were warned.

[am19psu]

Not introducing strawmen.

I watched some TWC coverage, read MSY and NHC products. Didn't watch local NOLA news, but the threat of excessive rains, and high surge, were well communicated to the people, best I can tell. People were warned.

Sigh. I have no doubt YOU knew about the surge/freshwater flood threat. You are a scientist and like hurricanes. I'm talking Jean and Robert in rural Louisiana. Those are the people who were reportedly caught off guard by Isaac.

[Srain]

A comment I'll make regarding Ike and the pleading with some folks on our local forum when they were stating it's only a CAT 2 and we are not leaving after the Rita fiasco. We received many reports later that those that were in fact following our discussions heeded those pleas to leave in Bolivar, Galveston and particularly along W Galveston Bay. HGX was doing everything they could to communicate the surge threat and not the SS issue. Thankfully most heeded those pleas to leave, but some didn't. The death toll from Ike could have been far worse...

URGENT - IMMEDIATE BROADCAST REQUESTED

HURRICANE IKE LOCAL STATEMENT

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE HOUSTON/GALVESTON TX

718 AM CDT FRI SEP 12 2008

...HURRICANE IKE APPROACHING THE UPPER TEXAS COAST...

AT 700 AM CDT THE CENTER OF HURRICANE IKE WAS LOCATED NEAR

LATITUDE 26.9 NORTH LONGITUDE 92.2 WEST OR ABOUT 230 MILES

SOUTHEAST OF GALVESTON TEXAS.

IKE IS MOVING TOWARD THE WEST-NORTHWEST NEAR 13 MPH. A TURN

TOWARD THE NORTHWEST IS EXPECTED LATER TODAY...WITH A TURN TOWARD

THE NORTH EXPECTED ON SATURDAY. ON THE FORECAST TRACK... THE

CENTER OF IKE WILL BE VERY NEAR THE UPPER TEXAS COAST BY LATE

TODAY OR EARLY SATURDAY. HOWEVER...BECAUSE IKE IS A VERY LARGE

TROPICAL CYCLONE...WEATHER WILL DETERIORATE ALONG THE COASTLINE

TODAY...LONG BEFORE THE CENTER REACHES THE COAST.

MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS REMAIN NEAR 105 MPH WITH HIGHER GUSTS.

IKE IS A CATEGORY TWO HURRICANE ON THE SAFFIR- SIMPSON SCALE.

SOME ADDITIONAL STRENGTHENING IS POSSIBLE DURING THE NEXT 24

HOURS...AND IKE IS FORECAST TO BECOME A MAJOR HURRICANE BEFORE

THE CENTER REACHES THE COAST.

IKE REMAINS A VERY LARGE TROPICAL CYCLONE. HURRICANE FORCE WINDS

EXTEND OUTWARD UP TO 120 MILES FROM THE CENTER...AND TROPICAL

STORM FORCE WINDS EXTEND OUTWARD UP TO 275 MILES. AN OIL PLATFORM

IN THE NORTHWESTERN GULF OF MEXICO RECENTLY REPORTED SUSTAINED

WINDS OF 109 MPH AT AN ELEVATION OF 400 FEET.

THE ESTIMATED MINIMUM CENTRAL PRESSURE IS 956 MB...28.23 INCHES.

TXZ200-213-214-235>238-131230-

/O.CON.KHGX.HU.W.1009.000000T0000Z-000000T0000Z/

BRAZORIA-CHAMBERS-GALVESTON-HARRIS-JACKSON-LIBERTY-MATAGORDA-

718 AM CDT FRI SEP 12 2008

...HURRICANE WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT...

...NEW INFORMATION...

AT 700 AM CDT THE CENTER OF HURRICANE IKE WAS LOCATED NEAR

LATITUDE 26.9 NORTH LONGITUDE 92.2 WEST OR ABOUT 230 MILES

SOUTHEAST OF GALVESTON TEXAS.

...AREAS AFFECTED...

THIS STATEMENT RECOMMENDS ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN BY PERSONS IN THE

FOLLOWING COUNTIES OR MARINE AREAS:

BRAZORIA...CHAMBERS...GALVESTON...HARRIS...JACKSON...LIBERTY...

MATAGORDA.

...WATCHES/WARNINGS...

PLEASE LISTEN TO NOAA WEATHER RADIO OR GO TO WEATHER.GOV ON THE

INTERNET FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THESE ADDITIONAL HAZARDS.

FLOOD WATCH.

...PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...

CURRENT EVACUATION INFORMATION:

BRAZORIA COUNTY:

MANDATORY EVACUATIONS HAVE BEEN ORDERED FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTY

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CITIES OF PEARLAND...ALVIN...MANVEL...

AND ANGLETON.

RESIDENTS IN THE COASTAL AREAS AND THOSE REQUIRING TRANSPORTATION

FROM BRAZORIA COUNTY TO BELL COUNTY MUST RUSH THEIR PREPARATIONS

TO COMPLETION.

CHAMBERS COUNTY:

A MANDATORY EVACUATION HAS BEEN ORDERED FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTY

EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.

GALVESTON COUNTY:

A MANDATORY EVACUATION HAS BEEN ORDERED FOR ALL OF GALVESTON

ISLAND.

A MANDATORY EVACUATION IS IN EFFECT FOR BOLIVAR PENINSULA...

OMEGA BAY...SAN LEON...BACLIFF...FREDDIESVILLE...TIKI ISLAND...

KEMAH...AND CLEAR LAKE SHORES.

SPECIAL NEEDS EVACUATION IS ALSO TAKING PLACE.

BUSES ARE AVAILABLE FOR FOR CITIZENS THAT NEED ASSISTANCE WITH

EVACUATIONS. BUSES ARE AVAILABLE AT THE FOLLOWING PICKUP POINTS:

BACLIFF COMMUNITY CENTER: 4500 10TH STREET...BACLIFF...77518

DICKINSON COMMUNITY CENTER: 2417 HWY 3...DICKINSON...77539

HITCHCOCK LIBRARY...8005 BARRY AVENUE...HITCHCOCK...77563

CRYSTAL BEACH ANNEX...941 NOBLE CARL DRIVE...CRYSTAL BEACH...

77650

CITIZENS SHOULD ALSO CONSIDER EVACUATING IF THEY LIVE IN AREAS

SUBJECT TO FLOODING OR IN MOBILE HOMES. IF YOU DECIDE TO

EVACUATE...PLEASE REMEMBER TO PACK YOUR DISASTER KIT AND

IMPORTANT PAPERS.

THE GALVESTON-BOLIVAR FERRY HAS CEASED OPERATIONS.

SCHOOL CLOSINGS...THE FOLLOWING SCHOOL DISTRICTS WILL BE CLOSED

THROUGH FRIDAY...HIGH ISLAND...HITCHCOCK...SANTA FE...CLEAR

CREEK...FRIENDSWOOD...GALVESTON AND DICKINSON. THE FOLLOWING

DISTRICTS WILL BE CLOSED ON FRIDAY...LA MARQUE AND TEXAS CITY.

THE BOLIVAR S.U.D. HAS INDICATED THEY HAVE CEASED WATER SERVICE

TO

THE PENINSULA.

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH HOSPITAL IN GALVESTON MAY

BEGIN A COMPLETE EVACUATION OF THE HOSPITAL FACILITIES THIS

MORNING. THE EMERGENCY ROOM WILL STAY OPEN.

HARRIS COUNTY:

A MANDATORY EVACUATION HAS BEEN ORDERED FOR THE FOLLOWING ZIP

CODES...77058...77059...77062...77520...77546...77571...77586...

77598 AND 77507.

PERSONS THROUGHOUT HARRIS COUNTY THAT LIVE IN MOBILE HOMES OR

HIGH RISES SHOULD CONSIDER EVACUATING DUE TO THE HIGH THREAT OF

DAMAGING WINDS.

FOR HARRIS COUNTY GOVERNMENT WORKERS...ESSENTIAL WORKERS ONLY

REPORT ON FRIDAY.

FOR RESIDENTS IN THE MANDATORY EVACUATION ZIP ZONES WHO HAVE

SPECIAL NEEDS AND ARE NOT REGISTERED...PLEASE CALL 311.

THERE WILL BE NO TRASH SERVICE ON FRIDAY DUE TO THE EXPECTED

HIGH WINDS.

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES IS SUSPENDING FLIGHTS INTO AND OUT OF HOBBY

AIRPORT BEGINNING AT 9 AM TODAY.

JACKSON COUNTY:

A MANDATORY EVACUATION HAS BEEN ORDERED FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTY.

SCHOOLS WILL BE CLOSED TODAY.

MATAGORDA COUNTY:

A MANDATORY EVACUATION HAS BEEN ORDERED FOR PEOPLE WHO LIVE AND

WORK SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 35. THIS MANDATORY EVACUATION INCLUDES THE

COMMUNITIES OF PALACIOS...ASHBY-BUCKEYE...EL MATON...

COLLEGEPORT...MATAGORDA...WADSWORTH...SARGENT...CEDAR LANE...

CHINQUAPIN...TRES PALACIOS OAKS...AND TIDEWATER OAKS. BLESSING

IS ALSO INCLUDED IN THE MANDATORY EVACUATION EVEN THOUGH IT IS

NORTH OF HIGHWAY 35.

MATAGORDA COUNTY OFFICIALS ARE RECOMMENDING A VOLUNTARY

EVACUATION OF RESIDENTS NORTH OF HIGHWAY 35 AND IN BAY CITY AND

VAN VLECK FOR THOSE LIVING IN LOW LYING AREAS AND MANUFACTURED

HOMES THAT ARE NOT PROPERLY TIED DOWN.

IT IS RECOMMENDED YOU EVACUATE WITH YOUR PETS. BE SURE TO TAKE A

PET CARRIER...LEASH...VACCINATION RECORDS...AND FOOD FOR YOUR

PET. IF YOU EVACUATE TO A SHELTER...YOUR PETS WILL BE BOARDED AT

A SEPARATE FACILITY.

BE SURE TO START YOUR EVACUATION WITH A FULL TANK OF GAS.

IF YOU HAVE NO MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION OR CANNOT FIND ANYONE TO

HELP YOU EVACUATE AND NEED ASSISTANCE...YOU CAN CONTACT

979-245-3056 OR 979-244-5318. YOU SHOULD COME TO THE BAY CITY

SERVICE CENTER OR KC HALL IN PALACIOS.

RESIDENTS OF MATAGORDA COUNTY WHO NEED SHELTER CAN EVACUATE TO

THE SHELTER HUB IN AUSTIN. SIGNS IN AUSTIN WILL DIRECT EVACUEES

TO OPEN SHELTERS.

ALL SCHOOLS IN MATAGORDA COUNTY WILL BE CLOSED TODAY AND FRIDAY.

PALACIOS SCHOOL DISTRICT WILL ALSO BE CLOSED ON MONDAY SEPTEMBER

15TH.

...STORM SURGE AND STORM TIDE...

TIDE LEVELS AT GALVESTON AND NORTH JETTY ARE ALREADY 3 FEET ABOVE

NORMAL TIDE LEVELS. TIDE LEVELS WILL CONTINUE RISING THROUGH THE

MORNING AND WILL EXCEED 5 FEET ABOVE MEAN LOWER LOW WATER ALONG

THE UPPER TEXAS COAST AND ALONG THE SHORELINES OF THE BAYS BY MID

MORNING. WATER LEVELS WILL RISE STEADILY BEGINNING LATE AFTERNOON

TODAY AS THE STORM SURGE MOVES INTO THE AREA. WATER LEVELS WILL

RISE VERY RAPIDLY FRIDAY NIGHT THROUGH 3 AM SATURDAY...AREAS NEAR

THE COAST MAY BEGIN TO SEE A SLOW DROP AFTER 3 TO 5 AM. MAXIMUM

STORM TIDE LEVELS ARE HIGHLY DEPENDENT ON THE TRACK OF THE STORM

AND VARIATIONS IN THE TRACK OF ONLY 15 MILES CAN MAKE DIFFERENCES

OF SEVERAL FEET MORE OR LESS FROM SOME OF THESE VALUES.

MAXIMUM WATER LEVELS FORECAST:

GULF-FACING COASTLINE WEST OF SARGENT...4 TO 6 FEET

SHORELINE OF MATAGORDA BAY...2 TO 5 FEET

GULF-FACING COASTLINE FROM SARGENT TO

SAN LUIS PASS...12 TO 15 FEET

GULF-FACING COASTLINE SAN LUIS PASS TO HIGH ISLAND

INCLUDING GALVESTON ISLAND......15 TO 20 FEET

SHORELINE OF GALVESTON BAY...15 TO 25 FEET

LIFE THREATENING INUNDATION LIKELY!

ALL NEIGHBORHOODS...AND POSSIBLY ENTIRE COASTAL COMMUNITIES...

WILL BE INUNDATED DURING THE PERIOD OF PEAK STORM TIDE. PERSONS

NOT HEEDING EVACUATION ORDERS IN SINGLE FAMILY ONE OR TWO STORY

HOMES MAY FACE CERTAIN DEATH. MANY RESIDENCES OF AVERAGE

CONSTRUCTION DIRECTLY ON THE COAST WILL BE DESTROYED. WIDESPREAD

AND DEVASTATING PERSONAL PROPERTY DAMAGE IS LIKELY ELSEWHERE.

VEHICLES LEFT BEHIND WILL LIKELY BE SWEPT AWAY. NUMEROUS ROADS

WILL BE SWAMPED...SOME MAY BE WASHED AWAY BY THE WATER. ENTIRE

FLOOD PRONE COASTAL COMMUNITIES WILL BE CUTOFF. WATER LEVELS MAY

EXCEED 9 FEET FOR MORE THAN A MILE INLAND. COASTAL RESIDENTS IN

MULTI-STORY FACILITIES RISK BEING CUTOFF. CONDITIONS WILL BE

WORSENED BY BATTERING WAVES CLOSER TO THE COAST. SUCH WAVES WILL

EXACERBATE PROPERTY DAMAGE...WITH MASSIVE DESTRUCTION OF

HOMES...INCLUDING THOSE OF BLOCK CONSTRUCTION. DAMAGE FROM BEACH

EROSION COULD TAKE YEARS TO REPAIR.

HIGH TIDE TIMES:

MORGANS POINT...

FRI 2:52 PM.

SAT 2:59 PM.

CLEAR LAKE ENTRANCE...

FRI 10:36 AM.

SAT 10:43 AM.

EAGLE POINT...

FRI 8:25 AM.

SAT 8:32 AM.

PORT BOLIVAR...

FRI 1:52 PM.

SAT 4:52 AM.

SAT 3:00 PM.

GALVESTON CHANNEL...

FRI 1:38 PM.

SAT 4:38 AM.

SAT 2:46 PM.

GALVESTON PLEASURE PIER...

FRI 12:32 PM.

SAT 3:32 AM.

SAT 1:40 PM.

JAMAICA BEACH...

FRI 7:09 AM.

FRI 4:16 PM.

SAT 7:16 AM.

SAT 5:24 PM.

SAN LUIS PASS...

FRI 1:29 PM.

SAT 4:29 AM.

SAT 2:37 PM.

FREEPORT...

FRI 12:54 PM.

SAT 3:54 AM.

SAT 2:02 PM.

PORT O CONNOR...

FRI 10:15 AM.

SAT 2:01 PM.

NOTE...TIDE LEVELS ARE REFERENCED FROM THE MEAN LOWER LOW WATER.

...WINDS...

PERSONS WHO HAVE NOT EVACUATED SHOULD PLAN TO SHELTER IN PLACE IN

A WELL BUILT STRUCTURE DURING THE PERIOD OF TROPICAL STORM FORCE

WINDS. IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT PERSONS WHO LIVE IN MOBILE HOMES OR

POORLY-BUILT STRUCTURES SHOULD EVACUATE TO A SAFER LOCATION SUCH

AS A WELL BUILT HOME. PERSONS WHO LIVE IN HIGH RISES SHOULD

CONSIDER EVACUATING AS WINDS CAN BE STRONGER AT THE TOP OF A HIGH

RISE THAN AT GROUND LEVEL.

THE WIND FIELD SURROUNDING IKE ARE UNUSUALLY LARGE. TROPICAL

STORM FORCE WINDS IN EXCESS OF 39 MPH ARE EXPECTED TO

REACH THE COASTAL COUNTIES BY 8 TO 10 AM FRIDAY...AND SPREAD

INLAND TO THE HOUSTON AREA BETWEEN 11 AM AND 3 PM FRIDAY.

WINDS OF AT LEAST TROPICAL STORM FORCE WILL THEN POSSIBLY

LAST ABOUT 24 HOURS.

DEPENDING ON THE EVENTUAL TRACK AND STRENGTH OF IKE THE HURRICANE

FORCE WINDS WILL REACH THE COASTAL COUNTIES EARLY EVENING ON

FRIDAY AND THE HOUSTON METRO AREA 9 TO 11 PM FRIDAY NIGHT.

HURRICANE FORCE WINDS MAY LAST FOR UP TO 10 TO 12 HOURS.

PEAK WIND GUSTS OF 95 TO 115 MPH WILL BE POSSIBLE ACROSS

HARRIS...LIBERTY...BRAZORIA...GALVESTON...AND CHAMBERS COUNTIES.

WIND SPEEDS IN EXCESS OF 115 MPH WILL BE POSSIBLE NEAR WHERE THE

CENTER OF THE STORM COMES ONSHORE.

VERY DANGEROUS WINDS WILL PRODUCE WIDESPREAD DAMAGE AND

DESTRUCTION OF MOBILE HOMES IS LIKELY.

STRUCTURAL DAMAGE WILL INCLUDE THE MAJORITY OF MOBILE HOMES BEING

SEVERELY DAMAGED. THOSE THAT SURVIVE WILL BE UNINHABITABLE UNTIL

REPAIRED. HOUSES OF POOR TO AVERAGE CONSTRUCTION WILL HAVE MAJOR

DAMAGE...INCLUDING PARTIAL WALL COLLAPSE AND ROOFS BEING LIFTED

OFF. MANY WILL BE UNINHABITABLE. WELL CONSTRUCTED HOUSES WILL

INCUR MINOR DAMAGE TO SHINGLES...SIDING...GUTTERS...AS WELL AS

BLOWN OUT WINDOWS. UP TO ONE QUARTER OF GABLED ROOFS WILL FAIL.

PARTIAL ROOF FAILURE IS EXPECTED AT INDUSTRIAL PARKS...ESPECIALLY

TO THOSE BUILDINGS WITH LIGHT WEIGHT STEEL AND ALUMINUM

COVERINGS. OLDER LOW RISING APARTMENT ROOFS MAY ALSO BE TORN

OFF...AS WELL AS RECEIVING SIDING AND SHINGLE DAMAGE. UP TO ONE

QUARTER OF ALL GLASS IN HIGH RISE OFFICE BUILDINGS WILL BE BLOWN

OUT. AIRBORNE DEBRIS WILL CAUSE DAMAGE...INJURY...AND POSSIBLE

FATALITIES.

NATURAL DAMAGE WILL INCLUDE ALL TREES WITH ROTTING BASES BECOMING

UPROOTED OR SNAPPED. NEARLY ALL LARGE BRANCHES WILL SNAP. BETWEEN

ONE QUARTER AND ONE HALF OF HEALTHY SMALL TO MEDIUM SIZED TREES

WILL BE SNAPPED OR UPROOTED...MOST COMMON WHERE THE GROUND IS

SATURATED. UP TO THREE QUARTERS OF NEWLY PLANTED GROUND CROPS

WILL BE DAMAGED.

...INLAND FLOODING...

A FLASH FLOOD WATCH HAS BEEN ISSUED AND TAKES EFFECT AT 6 AM

THOUGH RAINFALL FRIDAY MORNING WILL BE MORE SPOTTY BUT WILL

EXPAND AND INTENSIFY THROUGHOUT THE AFTERNOON HOURS. WIDESPREAD

RAINFALL OF 5 TO 7 INCHES WITH ISOLATED TOTALS OF 10 TO 12 INCHES

WILL BE POSSIBLE FRIDAY THROUGH SATURDAY. SIGNIFICANT FLOODING

WILL BE POSSIBLE IN AREAS OF HEAVIEST RAINFALL.

...TORNADOES...

THE THREAT FOR TORNADOES WILL INCREASE RAPIDLY BEGINNING LATE

FRIDAY AND CONTINUE THROUGH LATE SATURDAY AS IKE MOVES ONSHORE.

YOU SHOULD PLAN TO SEEK SHELTER IN AN INTERIOR ROOM ON THE LOWEST

FLOOR AWAY FROM WINDOWS.

...NEXT UPDATE...

THIS STATEMENT WILL BE UPDATED AROUND 11 AM CDT.

$$

GMZ330-335-350-355-370-375-131230-

/O.CON.KHGX.HU.W.0001.000000T0000Z-000000T0000Z/

GALVESTON BAY-MATAGORDA BAY-

WATERS FROM FREEPORT TO THE MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL 20 NM TO 60 NM-

WATERS FROM FREEPORT TO THE MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL OUT 20 NM-

WATERS FROM HIGH ISLAND TO FREEPORT 20 TO 60 NM-

WATERS FROM HIGH ISLAND TO FREEPORT OUT 20 NM-

718 AM CDT FRI SEP 12 2008

...HURRICANE WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT...

...NEW INFORMATION...

AT 700 AM CDT THE CENTER OF HURRICANE IKE WAS LOCATED NEAR

LATITUDE 26.9 NORTH LONGITUDE 92.2 WEST OR ABOUT 230 MILES

SOUTHEAST OF GALVESTON TEXAS.

...AREAS AFFECTED...

THIS STATEMENT RECOMMENDS ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN BY PERSONS IN THE

FOLLOWING COUNTIES OR MARINE AREAS:

GALVESTON BAY...MATAGORDA BAY...WATERS FROM FREEPORT TO THE

MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL 20 NM TO 60 NM...WATERS FROM FREEPORT TO

THE MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL OUT 20 NM...WATERS FROM HIGH ISLAND

TO FREEPORT 20 TO 60 NM...WATERS FROM HIGH ISLAND TO FREEPORT

OUT 20 NM.

...WATCHES/WARNINGS...

NO ADDITIONAL HAZARDS ARE IN EFFECT.

...PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...

MARINERS SHOULD HAVE COMPLETED PREPARATIONS FOR THE PASSAGE OF A

MAJOR HURRICANE THROUGH THE TEXAS COASTAL WATERS. A HURRICANE

WARNING IS NOW IN EFFECT. PREPARATIONS SHOULD BE RUSHED TO

COMPLETION.

...WINDS...

TROPICAL STORM FORCE WINDS ARE EXPECTED TO BEGIN AFFECTING THE

20 TO 60 NAUTICAL MILE WATERS LATE TONIGHT...THE NEARSHORE WATERS

MID MORNING FRIDAY...AND THE BAYS BY MIDDAY FRIDAY. HURRICANE

FORCE WINDS OF 70 TO 100 KNOTS WILL REACH THE COASTAL WATERS LATE

FRIDAY AFTERNOON AND PERSIST THROUGH EARLY SATURDAY.

SWELLS ASSOCIATED WITH HURRICANE IKE ARE ALREADY AFFECTING THE

COASTAL WATERS. SEAS ARE RUNNING 11 TO 14 FEET NEARSHORE...12 TO

15 FEET OFFSHORE. SEAS WILL CONTINUE TO BUILD THROUGH LATE

TONIGHT. SEAS

WILL PEAK AT 20 TO 35 FEET FRIDAY NIGHT INTO SATURDAY MORNING.

...TORNADOES...

WATERSPOUTS ARE POSSIBLE TODAY THROUGH SATURDAY AS IKE PASSES

THROUGH.

...NEXT UPDATE...

THIS STATEMENT WILL BE UPDATED AROUND 11 AM CDT.

$$

TXZ163-164-176>179-198-199-212-226-227-131230-

/O.CON.KHGX.HI.W.0001.000000T0000Z-080914T1200Z/

FORT BEND-GRIMES-HOUSTON-MADISON-MONTGOMERY-POLK-SAN JACINTO-

TRINITY-WALKER-WALLER-WHARTON-

718 AM CDT FRI SEP 12 2008

...HURRICANE WIND WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL 7 AM CDT

SUNDAY...

...NEW INFORMATION...

AT 700 AM CDT THE CENTER OF HURRICANE IKE WAS LOCATED NEAR

LATITUDE 26.9 NORTH LONGITUDE 92.2 WEST OR ABOUT 230 MILES

SOUTHEAST OF GALVESTON TEXAS.

...AREAS AFFECTED...

THIS STATEMENT RECOMMENDS ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN BY PERSONS IN THE

FOLLOWING COUNTIES OR MARINE AREAS:

FORT BEND...GRIMES...HOUSTON...MADISON...MONTGOMERY...POLK...

SAN JACINTO...TRINITY...WALKER...WALLER...WHARTON.

...WATCHES/WARNINGS...

PLEASE LISTEN TO NOAA WEATHER RADIO OR GO TO WEATHER.GOV ON THE

INTERNET FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THESE ADDITIONAL HAZARDS.

FLOOD WATCH.

...PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...

DAMAGING WINDS ARE EXPECTED.

PERSONS SHOULD PREPARE THEIR PROPERTIES FOR THE POTENTIAL OF

DAMAGING WINDS. SECURE OR REMOVE ANY LOOSE ITEMS SURROUNDING YOUR

PROPERTY WHICH COULD BE BLOWN AROUND BY TROPICAL STORM OR

HURRICANE FORCE WINDS. TRIM TREES NEAR YOUR PROPERTY.

MOST MOBILE HOMES WILL EXPERIENCE MODERATE TO SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE.

SOME OF POOR CONSTRUCTION WILL BE UNINHABITABLE UNTIL REPAIRED.

HOUSES OF POOR TO AVERAGE CONSTRUCTION WILL HAVE DAMAGE TO

SHINGLES...SIDING...AND GUTTERS. SOME WINDOWS WILL BE BLOWN OUT.

UNFASTENED HOME ITEMS OF LIGHT TO MODERATE WEIGHT WILL BECOME

AIRBORNE...CAUSING ADDITIONAL DAMAGE AND POSSIBLE INJURY. DOZENS

OF WIRES WILL BE BLOWN DOWN. LOCAL POWER OUTAGES WILL AFFECT

ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOODS.

MANY LARGE BRANCHES OF HEALTHY TREES WILL BE SNAPPED...AND

ROTTING SMALL TO MEDIUM SIZED TREES WILL BE UPROOTED.

...WINDS...

TROPICAL STORM FORCE WINDS IN EXCESS OF 39 MPH ARE EXPECTED TO

REACH INTO THE LIVINGSTON TO HEMPSTEAD COMMUNITIES BEGINNING

4 TO 6 PM FRIDAY EVENING. THESE WINDS ARE EXPECTED TO OCCUR FOR

AN 16 TO 24 HOUR PERIOD. WIND GUSTS OF 60 TO 90 MPH WILL BE

POSSIBLE OVER AREA.

...INLAND FLOODING...

A FLOOD WATCH IS IN EFFECT FOR THE HEAVY RAINS THAT WILL

ACCOMPANY THE PASSAGE. WIDESPREAD RAINFALL OF 5 TO 7 INCHES WITH

ISOLATED TOTALS OF 10 TO 12 INCHES WILL BE POSSIBLE FRIDAY THROUGH

SATURDAY. SIGNIFICANT FLOODING WILL BE POSSIBLE IN AREAS OF

HEAVIEST RAINFALL.

...TORNADOES...

THE THREAT FOR TORNADOES WILL GRADUALLY INCREASE LATE FRIDAY

AFTERNOON AND CONTINUE THROUGH SATURDAY EVENING AS THE

RAIN BANDS ASSOCIATED WITH IKE SPREAD INLAND. BASED ON THE

CURRENT FORECAST TRACK...THE GREATEST THREAT OF TORNADOES WILL

BE ALONG AND EAST OF INTERSTATE 45. YOU SHOULD PLAN TO SEEK

SHELTER IN AN INTERIOR ROOM ON THE LOWEST FLOOR AWAY FROM WINDOWS.

...NEXT UPDATE...

THIS STATEMENT WILL BE UPDATED AROUND 11 AM CDT.

$$

TXZ195>197-210-211-131230-

/O.CON.KHGX.TI.W.0002.000000T0000Z-080914T1200Z/

AUSTIN-BRAZOS-BURLESON-COLORADO-WASHINGTON-

718 AM CDT FRI SEP 12 2008

...TROPICAL STORM WIND WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL 7 AM CDT

SUNDAY...

...NEW INFORMATION...

AT 700 AM CDT THE CENTER OF HURRICANE IKE WAS LOCATED NEAR

LATITUDE 26.9 NORTH LONGITUDE 92.2 WEST OR ABOUT 230 MILES

SOUTHEAST OF GALVESTON TEXAS.

...AREAS AFFECTED...

THIS STATEMENT RECOMMENDS ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN BY PERSONS IN THE

FOLLOWING COUNTIES OR MARINE AREAS:

AUSTIN...BRAZOS...BURLESON...COLORADO...WASHINGTON.

...WATCHES/WARNINGS...

PLEASE LISTEN TO NOAA WEATHER RADIO OR GO TO WEATHER.GOV ON THE

INTERNET FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THESE ADDITIONAL HAZARDS.

FLOOD WATCH.

...PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...

PERSONS SHOULD PREPARE THEIR PROPERTIES FOR THE POTENTIAL OF

WINDS IN EXCESS OF 40 MPH. SECURE OR REMOVE ANY LOOSE ITEMS

SURROUNDING YOUR PROPERTY WHICH COULD BE BLOWN AROUND BY TROPICAL

STORM FORCE WINDS. TRIM TREES NEAR YOUR PROPERTY.

MINOR DAMAGE MAY OCCUR IN OLDER MOBILE HOME PARKS. NEWLY PLANTED

TREES AND SHRUBS MAY BE UPROOTED IF NOT SECURED PROPERLY. SOME

SMALL TWIGS WILL SEPARATE FROM TREES. RESIDENTS SHOULD MOVE

UNFASTENED ITEMS...SUCH AS GARBAGE CANS AND DECK FURNITURE

INDOORS.

...WINDS...

TROPICAL STORM FORCE WINDS IN EXCESS OF 39 MPH ARE EXPECTED TO

SPREAD ACROSS THE AREA FRIDAY EVENING. THESE WINDS ARE FORECAST

TO PERSIST UNTIL MID AFTERNOON SATURDAY.

...INLAND FLOODING...

WIDESPREAD RAINFALL OF 3 TO 5 INCHES WITH ISOLATED TOTALS OF 6 TO

8 INCHES WILL BE POSSIBLE FRIDAY NIGHT THROUGH SATURDAY.

SIGNIFICANT FLOODING WILL BE POSSIBLE IN AREAS OF HEAVIEST

RAINFALL.

...TORNADOES...

THE THREAT FOR TORNADOES SHOULD INCREASE FRIDAY EVENING AND

CONTINUE THROUGH SATURDAY AFTERNOON AS THE RAIN BANDS ASSOCIATED

WITH IKE SPREAD INLAND. BASED ON THE CURRENT FORECAST TRACK...

THE GREATEST THREAT OF TORNADOES WILL BE ALONG AND EAST OF

INTERSTATE 45...BUT A SMALL THREAT OF ISOLATED TORNADOES WILL

EXIST AS FAR WEST AS THE COLLEGE STATION TO COLUMBUS AREAS. YOU

SHOULD PLAN TO SEEK SHELTER IN AN INTERIOR ROOM ON THE LOWEST

FLOOR AWAY FROM WINDOWS IF TORNADO WARNINGS ARE ISSUED FOR YOUR

AREA.

...NEXT UPDATE...

THIS STATEMENT WILL BE UPDATED AROUND 11 AM CDT.

[HurricaneJosh]

But the whole point of this thread is that those forecasts either aren't heeded or aren't understood by the general public. There needs to be a way to communicate the threat of a hurricane due to size, not just the max wind.

But I believe they are. Some foolish people are always going to ignore the warnings, but the bottom line is, most people heed the warnings. People in the LA bayous were totally mobilizing, preparing, and evacuating across the board, before Isaac was even a 'cane. People were warned and most people listened. I just can't help but feel we're making too big a deal about a few stupid people who just wouldn't do the smart thing no matter what they were told.

Katrina was a spectacular tragedy, but it was not the result of people being under-warned or the NHC not properly conveying the threat. The language from the NHC and the local NWS Office could not have been more dire.

I think Josh is right.

And, BTW, when Katrina was still a Cat 5 and MSY HLS warnings were almost guaranteeing death to anyone who stayed behind, people were still staying behind.

If people ignore Hurricane Local Statements, not really sure some revision of the SS scale to make a 95 knot storm a Cat 4 if it will produce a 15 foot surge will really do all that much. Isaac's excessive rainfall/fresh water flooding and surge threat were well covered/forecasted, and, IIRC, the East Bank of Plaquemines parish was under an evac order.

Bingo. The issue here is that some people are going to be stupid, no matter what the scale.

Impact != endangerment. More people in the end may be impacted by wind, but there is no question historically that more people are endangered by surge and flooding. IMO, giving the wind estimate (as we do now) and giving an impact rating based on surge/flood potential (or perhaps even some combination of surge, flooding, and wind) would do a much better job at addressing the population fixing to be endangered by a hurricane rather than the population fixing to be impacted but not necessarily endangered.

Actually, when you are impacted by hurricane winds, you are endangered by them-- from breaking windows, falling trees, flying debris, and even structural failure. After a hurricane, when I talk with residents in the stricken area, it is almost always the winds they comment on. After Jova, several residents told me of how scary they found it-- not the rain, not the waves along the seashore, but the wind-- how awful the sound was, how physically threatened they felt by it, etc.

I'm not saying the surge isn't dangerous. Like you said, surge has killed more people historically and in any given 'cane, it is potentially the most deadly feature-- but to fewer people. Everyone is hammered by the winds.

[am19psu]

But I believe they are. Some foolish people are always going to ignore the warnings, but the bottom line is, most people heed the warnings. People in the LA bayous were totally mobilizing, preparing, and evacuating across the board, before Isaac was even a 'cane. People were warned and most people listened. I just can't help but feel we're making too big a deal about a few stupid people who just wouldn't do the smart thing no matter what they were told.

Then what of the articles that came out over the weekend suggesting people weren't adequately warned and that people were complaining that it was "only" a Cat 1? There is something incongruous here. My guess is the media looking for an angle, but I have no proof of that.

Katrina was a spectacular tragedy, but it was not the result of people being under-warned or the NHC not properly conveying the threat. The language from the NHC and the local NWS Office could not have been more dire.

My Katrina-Charley example was more about size comparisons than adequate warning time. Use Ivan and Dennis - two well forecasted hurricanes - as another example. Ivan was much larger and created much more havoc on the Panhandle than Dennis, despite both being major hurricanes.

[HurricaneJosh]

Then what of the articles that came out over the weekend suggesting people weren't adequately warned and that people were complaining that it was "only" a Cat 1? There is something incongruous here. My guess is the media looking for an angle, but I have no proof of that.

At the end of the day, the media can look for an angle, but let's step back: how many people died or were injured in this storm? That is the ultimate success/failure metric in this discussion-- not some anecdotal quotes the media dug up-- and I think according to that metric, the Isaac warnings were a success. People have praised NOLA many times over for its preparedness and mobilization for this mere Cat 1. In my hotel in Houma, all of the TVs in the lobby were set on channels that covered this event nonstop for three days-- even before it was a 'cane. The threat was strongly communicated and well-heeded.

My Katrina-Charley example was more about size comparisons than adequate warning time. Use Ivan and Dennis - two well forecasted hurricanes - as another example. Ivan was much larger and created much more havoc on the Panhandle than Dennis, despite both being major hurricanes.

I agree that size is a factor-- and NHC discusses this factor in the warnings. I'm not saying the SS scale is perfect. I don't think there's any simple way to adequately describe any one hurricane with a single number-- but I still believe the SS scale comes closest, as opposed to some number that brings size and other factors into the mix. With a blended scale, storms like Charley and Andrew wouldn't rank as high, and anyone who experienced the core of Charley or Andrew and was scared out of their minds needs to know when something like that-- something called a 4 or a 5-- is coming again.

[am19psu]

I agree that size is a factor-- and NHC discusses this factor in the warnings. I'm not saying the SS scale is perfect. I don't think there's any simple way to adequately describe any one hurricane with a single number-- but I still believe the SS scale comes closest, as opposed to some number that brings size and other factors into the mix. With a blended scale, storms like Charley and Andrew wouldn't rank as high, and anyone who experienced the core of Andrew or Charley and was scared out of their minds needs to know when something like that-- something called a 4 or a 5-- is coming again.

Totally agree with this. It needs to be a separate, stand-alone metric. And it needs to be communicated that the new number describes different risks - surge, longevity of winds, etc - not the top end destructive potential.

[isohume]

These kind of discussions happen after every major event. After a handful of people have a couple negative comments blown up by the media and others. Let's start addressing the masses, not the squeaky wheels.

[icebreaker5221]

And, BTW, when Katrina was still a Cat 5 and MSY HLS warnings were almost guaranteeing death to anyone who stayed behind, people were still staying behind.

Very true. You can tell people a category 7 is heading towards them and there will still be people who will "ride it out".

That is a better idea, multiple scales would probably get out of control.

C = ((W/Wavg1) + (R/Ravg1) + (S/Savg1))/3

C is the category, W is the wind speed, R is the rainfall rate, and S is the surge. The subscript avg1 is the average conditions in a category 1 hurricane... so everything is normalized. Obviously this equation would need to honed in with lots of data to work, but the point is a category 3 is 3X stronger than a category 1 and so forth. Seems logical enough.

So for Isaac, we'll say 85 mph winds, 18" of rain somewhere, and 12' of surge. We'll say cat 1 averages are 75 mph, 6 inches, and 7 ft. That's a category 2.26. Definitely need a better equation though for this to be useful, gotta find the mathematical relationships between wind and damage, rain and damage, etc. They're not linear.

It's a good idea if well executed, but I see two problems with it. First, how does one assign a category for something over the ocean? We can sample the winds via aircraft, but there's very little surge associated with even the largest storms if they're in the middle of the ocean away from topography. If the storm moved towards shallow water, would the category suddenly jump up? I could see that catching people off guard. Also, it would be very difficult to know how much rain the storm is producing over the open ocean. Even reanalysis would have trouble assigning a category if it had a rainfall requirement for something over water.

The second issue, as I believe someone else pointed out, is that it's very hard to be exact about max rainfall and max surge when you don't know the exact track. While wind forecasts are inherently dependent upon forecast track, rainfall and surge forecasts are even more-so due to orographic effects on precipitation maxima and the relationship between slope of the coastal plane and surge.

[Ed Lizard]

Someone mention integrated potential energy above. I suppose a simplified version of IKE ( some kind of easily calculated number, based on max winds and RMW, major hurricane winds and their radius, ditto hurricane, storm and gale force, with values broken up into 1 of 5 categories and called the "Enhanced Saffir Simpson Scale" or something might better convey expected surge dangers, but I can't think of a simple way to express concerns about speed and fresh water flooding other than hurricane local statements. Or the effect of coastal shape, angle of approach or bathymetery, such that an enhanced new SS scale Cat 1 might still produce a more damaging surge event than a new SS scale Cat 2 or 3.

[Mencken_Fan]

If everywhere, in all bulletins and media, it is said over and over again "this is a wind category 1 and a surge category 3"... people will understand. It's not that difficult.

I fully agree. The immediate and greatest impact of a hurricane is on the coast. And what causes the most death and destruction? Surge.

A more complex system such as the one noted earlier here would be most useful to those responsible for recovery planning. For public warning and preparation though, a wind and surge scale would be most useful.

If I live on the coast I don't much care about rain when a hurricane is approaching -- our soil can handle massive amounts of rain and recovery from flooding doesn't usually take long; furthermore we don't get the type of flooding that may occur on the inland plateau or hills (busted dams, wicked stream/river flows, etc.) -- I care about wind and surge. And I don't care if the storm's brunt is 50 miles wide or 200 miles wide -- I just want to know what the potential is for my town. (You can't tell coastal people a 140mph hurricane is a lower category just because it's small in size; that information is only useful for FEMA, etc.)

Why we don't already have separate categories for these two is beyond me. As for flood-causing rainfall, well, that's a horse of another color; advise the vast inland areas of what to expect.

[am19psu]

NHC says hush y'all: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/news/20120910_pa_surgeScale.pdf

[HurricaneJosh]

NHC says hush y'all: http://www.nhc.noaa...._surgeScale.pdf

It's a good piece.

It makes some points I made above-- for example, that a cyclone's surge-generating potential isn't inherent to the system-- it's dependent on other factors, like where it landfalls-- so you can't just assign a surge rating to the actual hurricane. I also like how they point out that a blended scale produces a number which is essentially useless in terms of understanding the the storm's threat to you personally.

I'm excited by their mention of high-res, predictive surge maps in the future.

[am19psu]

It's a good piece.

It makes some points I made above-- for example, that a cyclone's surge-generating potential isn't inherent to the system-- it's dependent on other factors, like where it lamdfalls-- so you can't just assign a surge rating to the actual hurricane. I also like how they point out that a blended scale produces a number which is essentially useless in terms of understanding the the storm's threat to you personally.

I'm excited by their mention of high-res, predictive surge maps in the future.

I'm definitely against a one-size-fits-all scale. I know the general public isn't going to understand risk exceedance maps, either, and some risk exceedance map isn't going to make someone more or less likely to evacuate when told. I'm glad they're enlisting social scientists to help solve the problem.

[JamieOber]

NHC says hush y'all: http://www.nhc.noaa...._surgeScale.pdf

It's a good piece.

It makes some points I made above-- for example, that a cyclone's surge-generating potential isn't inherent to the system-- it's dependent on other factors, like where it landfalls-- so you can't just assign a surge rating to the actual hurricane. I also like how they point out that a blended scale produces a number which is essentially useless in terms of understanding the the storm's threat to you personally.

I'm excited by their mention of high-res, predictive surge maps in the future.

I'm definitely against a one-size-fits-all scale. I know the general public isn't going to understand risk exceedance maps, either, and some risk exceedance map isn't going to make someone more or less likely to evacuate when told. I'm glad they're enlisting social scientists to help solve the problem.

I am sort of surprised one fact hasn't been brought up much - 90% of deaths in hurricanes are not from winds, but from surge. http://curiosity.dis...eaths-hurricane

That makes warning about surge an important part of risk communication. I agree, the one-size-fits-all scale isn't going to work, and that makes it a big risk communication challenge - shoreline geography is huge. I agree, good social scientists are helping to solve it.

One thing I remember being discussed at AccuWeather was the problem of recent transplants to a booming region that is vulnerable to hurricanes not understanding the risks due to inexperience with them.

On a different note, I have a friend who works as an extension specialist with the NC/SC Sea Grant and she said short memory is another problem. She is currently attempting to raise some issues with planned development in Charleston but some city officials are making the claim that Charleston doesn't get serious hurricanes....seriously. They want to build in areas that go underwater with a 2-foot surge and are really not taking seriously even basic sea wall improvements.

[Ed Lizard]

^^ Except for Katrina, where most of the deaths were indirectly surge related (elevated levels in Ponchartrain due to surge breaking containment levees and flood control structures), which obviously skews the major cause of death because the death toll was so significant, I was under the impression the last four decades or so, with improved forecasting and coastal evacuations, the majority of deaths from most storms were inland fresh water flooding.

Going from memory, but I think even Camille killed as many people from inland fresh water flooding as it did with surge along the Gulf Coast.

[isohume]

Going from memory, but I think even Camille killed as many people from inland fresh water flooding as it did with surge along the Gulf Coast.

Yep, the last TS Alison killed many with inland flooding too. Inland flooding and landslides are always a major concern here with the mountains. The problem with New Orleans is they need to upgrade all their levy systems. They can't handle direct hits yet, even from a slow moving cat I. They were more than warned adequately and they responded well. Very few deaths, but they still need to improve their systems. Other coastal communities need to take note.

[HurricaneJosh]

I am sort of surprised one fact hasn't been brought up much - 90% of deaths in hurricanes are not from winds, but from surge. http://curiosity.dis...eaths-hurricane

That makes warning about surge an important part of risk communication. I agree, the one-size-fits-all scale isn't going to work, and that makes it a big risk communication challenge - shoreline geography is huge. I agree, good social scientists are helping to solve it.

One thing I remember being discussed at AccuWeather was the problem of recent transplants to a booming region that is vulnerable to hurricanes not understanding the risks due to inexperience with them.

On a different note, I have a friend who works as an extension specialist with the NC/SC Sea Grant and she said short memory is another problem. She is currently attempting to raise some issues with planned development in Charleston but some city officials are making the claim that Charleston doesn't get serious hurricanes....seriously. They want to build in areas that go underwater with a 2-foot surge and are really not taking seriously even basic sea wall improvements.

That's unbelievable Re: the Charleston city officials. Just wow.

Re: the surge's role in fatalities, this was acknowledged and thoroughly covered earlier in this discussion-- read back a bit.