Storm At Sea Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 I'm sure someone will link me to a further discussion, but the politics of NHC and their issuance or non-issuance of warning/watch products simply to hold true to well defined expectations is not only irrational, but bordering on negligence. Per their latest tracking and positioning coordinates, Hurricane Sandy would likely be not only a tropical entity (TS Sandy) with center approximately 150 miles offshore, but it would be easily creating tropical force winds at the NJ shore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WintersGrasp Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 It's a tough call because the storm nigh not technically BE a hurricane at landfall....but we all know that the damage will be the same....but a good thing to think of is that most of those people that are not weather enthusiasts DO get their forecasts from local news and TWC...and I DO feel that those networks are doing a good job at getting the importance of it across by stating that although there are no hurricane warnings, it IS just as dangerous AT LEAST Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm At Sea Posted October 28, 2012 Author Share Posted October 28, 2012 I am fairly certain that folks would be more likely to evacuate if they have "Hurricane Warning" in their TWC local forecast than "High Wind Warning; Flood Watch." For us, it's semantics, but for people outside of the know, it could be life or death. It's a tough call because the storm nigh not technically BE a hurricane at landfall....but we all know that the damage will be the same....but a good thing to think of is that most of those people that are not weather enthusiasts DO get their forecasts from local news and TWC...and I DO feel that those networks are doing a good job at getting the importance of it across by stating that although there are no hurricane warnings, it IS just as dangerous AT LEAST Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WintersGrasp Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Yep it's very true...especially for those on the go just looking at the forecast quickly, knowing in their minds how the media hypes up events Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Jims Videos Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 My cousin in Belmar nj said not too many people are taking it seriously because she said there's no hurricane warnings. And now they're under a mandatory evacuation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm At Sea Posted October 28, 2012 Author Share Posted October 28, 2012 The hype for this storm only started yesterday. There were rumors of a "storm", but I think most TV meteorologists were skeptical early in the week given the magnitude. Yep it's very true...especially for those on the go just looking at the forecast quickly, knowing in their minds how the media hypes up events Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jburns Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 I am fairly certain that folks would be more likely to evacuate if they have "Hurricane Warning" in their TWC local forecast than "High Wind Warning; Flood Watch." For us, it's semantics, but for people outside of the know, it could be life or death. People kind of laughed it off when I said this but I haven't changed my mind. Congress will "fix" this, as only they can. NHC and NWS are in for a rough time after this storm is over. It will be a circus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozart Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 So is NHC also supposed to issue a hurricane warning if a blizzard/nor'easter is set to bring hurricane winds to the Cape? I trust the NHC to make these kinds of calls. By the book -- not making up policy as they go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jburns Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 So is NHC also supposed to issue a hurricane warning if a blizzard/nor'easter is set to bring hurricane winds to the Cape? I trust the NHC to make these kinds of calls. By the book -- not making up policy as they go. To be truthful if they had followed established policy they would still be issuing updates and warnings all the way up the coast because Sandy is still a hurricane. Trying to hide behind policy will not work in this case because the have already changed it "as they go". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm At Sea Posted October 28, 2012 Author Share Posted October 28, 2012 Bozart...by definition, the storm will be affecting the NJ shore as a tropical entity! There is no question that it will still have a warm core while tropical storm conditions are being felt at the shore. Now, if the storm was clearly extra-tropical at this point (and hence, would not have the name Hurricane Sandy as we speak), then you have a point. But, that is simply not the case. This is very irresponsible by the NHC. Do you think Bloomberg would be acting like such an imbecile if a Hurricane Watch was posted. There should be Hurricane Watches up from LI south to Cape May which eventually could then be reduced to Trop. Storm warning at landfall. Plan and simple. So is NHC also supposed to issue a hurricane warning if a blizzard/nor'easter is set to bring hurricane winds to the Cape? I trust the NHC to make these kinds of calls. By the book -- not making up policy as they go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Entropy Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 So is NHC also supposed to issue a hurricane warning if a blizzard/nor'easter is set to bring hurricane winds to the Cape? I trust the NHC to make these kinds of calls. By the book -- not making up policy as they go. But this is a hurricane moving up the coast, not a typical nor'easter. In any case, they are making up policy as they go. When has it ever been the policy of the NHC not to issue warnings because of the burden of cancelling the tropical warnings and re-issuing non-tropical warnings after the storm has become extra-tropical? I can't recall seeing them do that before in the past. Can you point out when and where this policy took effect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm At Sea Posted October 28, 2012 Author Share Posted October 28, 2012 Here's what gets me though: why is landfall all of a sudden a precedent? There are often times that tropical system skirt the Outer Banks without landfall and NHC issues products. Fact of the matter is this: there will be tropical storm conditions at the NJ shore prior to the complete transition to cold core/extra-trop. To be truthful if they had followed established policy they would still be issuing updates and warnings all the way up the coast because Sandy is still a hurricane. Trying to hide behind policy will not work in this case because the have already changed it "as they go". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pamela Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 So is NHC also supposed to issue a hurricane warning if a blizzard/nor'easter is set to bring hurricane winds to the Cape? I trust the NHC to make these kinds of calls. By the book -- not making up policy as they go. Have to disagree here...since the storm *is* a hurricane at present...and it is not too often that a hurricane transitions into a blizzard / Noreaster... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csnavywx Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 All guidance has a warm core on the system as it makes landfall, and quite a few have it hanging on to a strong warm core as it makes landfall. Not to mention there will likely be a wind max near the core. +20C at 850 and >0C at 500mb. There's only 2 places on the planet I've seen that can manage above 0C at 500mb consistently, the blazing Sahara-Saudi deserts in the summer, and a tropical system. At the same time, the area outside a 50mi radius from the center will be very much baroclinic in nature. Nature has no interest in man's classifications. I've always argued that we need to be just as flexible as nature when it comes to advisories and warnings. I don't envy the NHC one bit in this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozart Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Have to disagree here...since the storm *is* a hurricane at present... Barely -- on a number of counts. And the way the wind field is expanding, extratropical transformation is already under way. And we're still a long ways from landfall. And BTW, if you want to experience 74 sustained, try the obs deck on the Empire State Building. and it is not too often that a hurricane transitions into a blizzard / Noreaster... But welcome to now. Too many people are just PO'ed at the NHC for not joining the media's hype party. They feel like they are being ripped off for their hurricane. Well, they are. But it isn't the NHC depriving them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BxEngine Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Boz, your anger is missplaced here....the complaint has nothing to do with it being a 74 mph sustained hurricane vs a 74 mph noreaster.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BxEngine Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Btw...."barely" still counts. By the book and all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Jims Videos Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Too many people are just PO'ed at the NHC for not joining the media's hype party. They feel like they are being ripped off for their hurricane. Well, they are. But it isn't the NHC depriving them. Simply not true. The public pays attention to hurricane warnings/watches at the Jersey Shore. My cousin verified the fact that folks in Belmar aren't taking this seriously because THERE'S NO HURRICANE WARNINGS ISSUED. THE MAYOR OF NYC SAID IT'S NOT IRENE BECAUSE THERE'S NO HURRICANE WATCHES/WARNINGS YESTERDAY. PEOPLE ARE STUPID, BO! I usually like your arguments in the other sections, but with this your off-base. Hurricane watches/warnings should have been issued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozart Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 PEOPLE ARE STUPID, BO! Stupid kills when it's functioning properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Entropy Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Sure looks warm-core (tropical) until landfall to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozart Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Sure looks warm-core (tropical) until landfall to me. Not convincingly, not even in that one model product you cherry-picked. I'm just saying: I trust the NHC to make these calls. Not any braying for-profit media celebrity standing out in the rain like a dope; not some rich politician who never feels a drop of rain touch his pasty flesh; and not board weenies who demand to see a certain kind of storm. This doesn't mean I think NHC is right all the time. But you'll go broke betting against them. This thread, considering its outrageous title, needed a push-back. There, you have mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJHurricane Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Simply put...if part of the coming storm threat is of tropical origin...and the named storm is talked about in the same breath as the "hybrid" to come....it causes confusion no matter how technically correct they are....from a communications standpoint its a disasterously convoluted message process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozart Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Simply put...if part of the coming storm threat is of tropical origin...and the named storm is talked about in the same breath as the "hybrid" to come....it causes confusion no matter how technically correct they are....from a communications standpoint its a disasterously convoluted message process. If you had to change your screen name to NJExtratropicalCyclone, that would be convoluted. I am not confused by NOAA's messaging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jburns Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Not convincingly, not even in that one model product you cherry-picked. I'm just saying: I trust the NHC to make these calls. Not any braying for-profit media celebrity standing out in the rain like a dope; not some rich politician who never feels a drop of rain touch his pasty flesh; and not board weenies who demand to see a certain kind of storm. This doesn't mean I think NHC is right all the time. But you'll go broke betting against them. This thread, considering its outrageous title, needed a push-back. There, you have mine. Fair enough. Here is my take. When you have to suspend reality to support a decision you are in a very tenuous position. The NHC issues watches and warnings on any tropical system that threatens land based on the number of hours before onset of clearly specified conditions. We currently have a hurricane in the Atlantic threatening the most populous area of the US within the next 24 hours. Based solely on NHC stated policy, watches should have been up for over 24 hours already for the mid-Atlantic coast and hurricane warnings should be posted now. The NHC does have a hurricane warning for the off shore Atlantic so they still correctly classify the storm as tropical. I guess they are pretending the US doesn't exist. I know that last statement is ridiculous but so is just ignoring facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridingtime Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 If you had to change your screen name to NJExtratropicalCyclone, that would be convoluted. I am not confused by NOAA's messaging. But other people are confused. But to you, who the heck cares!? They are the stupid ones afterall. You're the smart one and shouldn't care about such idiots who don't know all the semantics and technical definitions about weather systems! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreeRain Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 I am fairly certain that folks would be more likely to evacuate if they have "Hurricane Warning" in their TWC local forecast than "High Wind Warning; Flood Watch." For us, it's semantics, but for people outside of the know, it could be life or death. Let's just give them a tornado warning and that would really get them to run, right? Look, I believe we should call a spade a spade. If there's no chance for a hurricane and if there is a chance for high winds and flooding, then a HHW and a FW are what is appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozart Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 But other people are confused. But to you, who the heck cares!? They are the stupid ones afterall. You're the smart one and shouldn't care about such idiots who don't know all the semantics and technical definitions about weather systems! I could be persuaded... But seriously, those "semantics and technical definitions" serve real functions in, not just risk communication, but also the mechanisms of governance. Those distinctions go to purview, and to budgets, and they must be protected, or at least given hard-and-fast definitions, for a thousand operational reasons. I suspect there is a lot going on behind the scenes in this particular controversy, where there appear to be no perfect answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BxEngine Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Let's just give them a tornado warning and that would really get them to run, right? Look, I believe we should call a spade a spade. If there's no chance for a hurricane and if there is a chance for high winds and flooding, then a HHW and a FW are what is appropriate. This makes zero sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreeRain Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 This makes zero sense. Your response makes zero sense. Clearly I'm stating that if the NHC thinks that there won't be a hurricane in an area, then they should not issue such a warning in that area. What part of that are you having trouble with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridingtime Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 I could be persuaded... But seriously, those "semantics and technical definitions" serve real functions in, not just risk communication, but also the mechanisms of governance. Those distinctions go to purview, and to budgets, and they must be protected, or at least given hard-and-fast definitions, for a thousand operational reasons. I suspect there is a lot going on behind the scenes in this particular controversy, where there appear to be no perfect answers. Agree with you there, but I strongly believe there needs to be resolution to this. To make it more personal, my wife's grandmother, who can barely move without a walker, is currently right now in the evacuation zone about half a mile from the coast. And she is refusing to move because to her observations, this is no different and perhaps even less dangerous than hurricane Irene, which also ordered an evacuation on her neighborhood but ended up being a small nuisance. I just don't like that for folk like her (and I'm sure there are many) there is not a system currently in place that can properly explain the magnitude of this type of situation and I think NHC is partially to blame for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.