BxEngine Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 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? Do tropical storms exist in your world? This isnt about whether we reach the magic number threshold of a hurricane....there is plenty of evidence that this isnt a clear cut extratropical entity....not now, and maybe not at landfall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stellarfun Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 The NWS and NHC will be judged on the timeliness and accuracy of the warnings, not on semantics. To this point, has one life been lost, or has anyone been put in danger, or have governments or businesses failed to take appropriate action because a warning of hurricane force winds was put out by local weather offices rather than a hurricane warning issued by NHC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozart Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 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. That problem appears to lie with a previous over-warning -- not a present under-warning. From what I hear, local media outlets in the path of the storm are conveying the danger with everything except brass bands and vaudeville acts. Why, it's my understanding even the redoubtable Mayor Bloomberg has gotten the message. All my best to your grandmother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreeRain Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Do tropical storms exist in your world? This isnt about whether we reach the magic number threshold of a hurricane....there is plenty of evidence that this isnt a clear cut extratropical entity....not now, and maybe not at landfall. I used the word "if". I specifically said if the NHC thinks there won't be a hurricane (or tropical storm) and if they think it will be extratropical... Clearly if one thinks this might be tropical, then one should argue for such a warning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BxEngine Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 I used the word "if". I specifically said if the NHC thinks there won't be a hurricane (or tropical storm) and if they think it will be extratropical... Clearly if one thinks this might be tropical, then one should argue for such a warning. Which is why it is being discussed on this scientific (lol) based forum. If it is "barely" a hurricane now (sorry Boz, i still luv ya )while giving areas on the east coast tropical storm conditions, i think its absolutely a fair question to ask and have a discussion about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreeRain Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 The NWS and NHC will be judged on the timeliness and accuracy of the warnings, not on semantics. To this point, has one life been lost, or has anyone been put in danger, or have governments or businesses failed to take appropriate action because a warning of hurricane force winds was put out by local weather offices rather than a hurricane warning issued by NHC? A warning for hurricane force winds seems pretty clear to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridingtime Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 That problem appears to lie with a previous over-warning -- not a present under-warning. From what I hear, local media outlets in the path of the storm are conveying the danger with everything except brass bands and vaudeville acts. Why, it's my understanding even the redoubtable Mayor Bloomberg has gotten the message. All my best to your grandmother. Thanks. I believe the messages that come more across to her are the official warnings from government officials. She puts way more stock in that than media hype. Hearing Bloomberg not issue the proper warnings at first was enough for her, and I am sure his initial statements were made as a result of the NHC not calling it a hurricane. Either way, something needs to change and that might require being less semantic and technical and more realistic for the sake of the general public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BxEngine Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 A warning for hurricane force winds seems pretty clear to me. Right. It worked out well for the mayor of the largest city in America. Bloomturd is many things....an idiot he is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreeRain Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Which is why it is being discussed on this scientific (lol) based forum. If it is "barely" a hurricane now (sorry Boz, i still luv ya )while giving areas on the east coast tropical storm conditions, i think its absolutely a fair question to ask and have a discussion about. I agree with that. What I don't agree with is the opinion expressed by some here that we should retain hurricane or tropical storm warnings when we think the conditions will not be met, only because we think some people will not prepare correctly for the the hurricane force winds, the surge and all the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozart Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 If it is "barely" a hurricane now (sorry Boz, i still luv ya )while giving areas on the east coast tropical storm conditions, i think its absolutely a fair question to ask and have a discussion about. It is a fair question and an interesting communication scenario, for it goes beyond what I've been emphasizing: will it really be a hurricane at landfall? The bigger issue seems to be that, even if it is a hurricane at landfall, it won't be for long thereafter. Once the story is all nor'easter fetch and blizzard, those "hurricane" bulletins were always going to go "poof." The Hurricane Center has repeatedly, through a number of discussion iterations, highlighted the danger of ceasing hurricane bulletins during the height of the storm: AS NOTED IN PREVIOUS ADVISORIES...TO AVOID A HIGHLY DISRUPTIVE CHANGE FROM TROPICAL TO NON-TROPICAL WARNINGS WHEN SANDY BECOMES POST-TROPICAL...THE WIND HAZARD NORTH OF THE TROPICAL STORM WARNING AREA WILL CONTINUE TO BE CONVEYED THROUGH HIGH WIND WATCHES AND WARNINGS ISSUED BY LOCAL NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE OFFICES. The Hurricane Center didn't want to find itself forced to cease bulletins, perhaps only a few hours into the storm, arguably lulling some people into standing down, even while surge flooding was still on the rise. Better -- less "highly disruptive" -- to adopt the inevitable posture from the outset. The "lesser evil" choice than having to eat the consequences of a mid-storm hand-off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlizzardWx Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 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. I agree with this from purely a loss of life perspective. People's lives are the most important so don't not post a hurricane warning because of red tape. Its true that it will be transitioning and not solely a hurricane at that point but for the uninformed I think the way its being conveyed now may lull some into a bad decision to stay or not take it as serious. It shouldn't, but it will.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down The Rabbit Hole Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 It's not irrational; if anything, it's TOO rational. Bureaucratic stupidity at its finest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEXtreme Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Does anybody know what the "H" over NJ means on the NHC track? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormlover74 Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 HWWEFKAS..high wind weather event formerly known as sandy Does anybody know what the "H" over NJ means on the NHC track? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Lizard Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 If 1938 happened exactly as it did again next year, a 100 mph warm seclusion post tropical storm hitting Long Island would not have any watch/warning products from NHC. WFO OKX and BOX would just communicate the danger with high wind warnings and coastal flood statements. Good or bad, won't say, but that is the obvious meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mempho Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 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. I would agree... if this storm is not a bust, lots of Congressional hearings. They are being way too nitpicky. Sent from my Milestone X 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mempho Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Does anybody know what the "H" over NJ means on the NHC track? It means extratropical "hurricane"... it's so ridiculous. You know, we have storm reports and best track stuff to sort out the pure science of it later. This is the same type of social akwardness that scientists are often ridiculed for. Perhaps only 2% of the population is ever going to care whether this thing was full/sub/post tropical by the time it crosses the Jersey shore. Sent from my Milestone X 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 It means extratropical "hurricane"... The letter is only an indication of intensity. It means an extratropical storm with hurricane force winds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mempho Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 The letter is only an indication of intensity. It means an extratropical storm with hurricane force winds. I know... hence the quotes around hurricane Sent from my Milestone X 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe1946 Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 The NWS and NHC will be judged on the timeliness and accuracy of the warnings, not on semantics. To this point, has one life been lost, or has anyone been put in danger, or have governments or businesses failed to take appropriate action because a warning of hurricane force winds was put out by local weather offices rather than a hurricane warning issued by NHC? I agree, I was in Myrtle Beach SC when the 1993 Superstorm hit and there was no hurricane warning even with up to 110mph winds in NC but everyone knew it was coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stellarfun Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 I agree, I was in Myrtle Beach SC when the 1993 Superstorm hit and there was no hurricane warning even with up to 110mph winds in NC but everyone knew it was coming. If there are Congressional hearings, they won't be on the nomenclature used. If there had been a major under-estimation of the intensity, or a greatly erroneous track, that would generate hearings, finger-pointing and castigation. Any Congressional hearings that ensue from Sandy will likely focus on continued building on barrier islands and vulnerable coastlines. And that will play on how many billions the Corps of Engineers gets to repair the damage. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozart Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 If there are Congressional hearings, they won't be on the nomenclature used. If there had been a major under-estimation of the intensity, or a greatly erroneous track, that would generate hearings, finger-pointing and castigation. Great point. Forecasters gave people fully a week of advance billing on this unusual storm -- intensity, freakish track, and all. They nailed it. Seems to me any nit-picking about last-minute communications would be pretty ungrateful, given the stellar performance of our forecasters leading into this thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Great point. Forecasters gave people fully a week of advance billing on this unusual storm -- intensity, freakish track, and all. They nailed it. Seems to me any nit-picking about last-minute communications would be pretty ungrateful, given the stellar performance of our forecasters leading into this thing. All big events have a post-event report which is usually pretty lengthy. This one will too. If anything, I suspect the biggest complaint will be "well they said it would be really bad in Irene and it wasn't so I thought..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jburns Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 All big events have a post-event report which is usually pretty lengthy. This one will too. If anything, I suspect the biggest complaint will be "well they said it would be really bad in Irene and it wasn't so I thought..." Well there are some constants in situations like this. 1. It will not be any politicians fault. 2. It will not be the fault of the general public(voters). Figure out who is left and you have your scapegoat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N. OF PIKE Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 this was negligent by the NHC, and heads should roll. they should roll because they are in charge of warning the public, their first defense (extra tropical transition) show'd they didn't "GET IT" and the fact that it wasn't clearly gonna be the case show's they rolled the dice with the public .and now they have no legs to stand on as the storm approaches landfall as a hurricane its a embarressment and many who " get it" are disgusted by this call and have been since they made it. They have their heads buried in textbooks, when the storm was a hurricane, forecast by them to strengthen as a hurricane and transition right before landfall, and they make a call to not issue watches/warning bc they don't want to add to confusion. it is scary how out to lunch with public perception, reality, and their job of warning the public was compromised by this decision, and they should have a public apology tommorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eastpa Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Looks like landfall will be in a half an hour, last recon the Nhc is still calling it a hurricane. What are the long term consequences for messing this call up for insurance cos and the Nhc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGorse Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Folks, remember that the NHC is part of the NWS. It was not all NHC regarding tropical and non-tropical headline decisions. This decision was collaborated among NWS Eastern Region Headquarters, affected coastal NWS offices and NHC. The explanation for this was released and repeatedly mentioned in the NHC text products. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 this was negligent by the NHC, and heads should roll. they should roll because they are in charge of warning the public, their first defense (extra tropical transition) show'd they didn't "GET IT" and the fact that it wasn't clearly gonna be the case show's they rolled the dice with the public .and now they have no legs to stand on as the storm approaches landfall as a hurricane its a embarressment and many who " get it" are disgusted by this call and have been since they made it. They have their heads buried in textbooks, when the storm was a hurricane, forecast by them to strengthen as a hurricane and transition right before landfall, and they make a call to not issue watches/warning bc they don't want to add to confusion. it is scary how out to lunch with public perception, reality, and their job of warning the public was compromised by this decision, and they should have a public apology tommorrow. In fact, Sandy was NOT a tropical entity at landfall based on imagery and HH's in there at the time. It appears to have disintegrated a couple hours prior to landfall. Most of the damage we see along the Jersey coast and NYC/LI was caused by a sting jet brought to the surface by a MAUL. The MAUL itself was precipitated by the dissolution of the tropical entity. It just so happened that all this occurred near a population center. I think everyone involved at the NWS did a fantastic job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Can you state right here that Sandy was a hurricane at landfall? If so, what is your evidence? If you do not believe Sandy was a hurricane at landfall, but believe that they should have held the moniker to landfall, are you then advocating deception by the NWS as an acceptable tool going forward? That's a mighty slippery slope don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaoPos Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 http://uneditedpolitics.com/2012/10/28/new-york-mayor-michael-bloomberg-press-conference-on-hurricane-sandy-102712/ The Bloomberg presser on Saturday. "This won't be a tropical storm or hurricane, and so the surge won't be like one." IMHO, this is what did me in to think that tropical warnings should have been issued. By the time Bloomberg released his presser on sundy, the water was already rising. Fact is, the surge was slowly building, and it exploded onto land one it reached NYC. Bloombergs assumption that it wouldn't be a quick, hard charging surge like that of Hurricane Irene's, downplayed this to the general John Q. Public. People lost 24 hrs of preparation time for a worst case scenario in downtown manhattan. Whoever informed the mayor on Saturday must of downplayed the potential impact for him to release this statement only 24-36hr before the HEIGHT of the storm. Maybe the more was informed, but decided to downplay it?? I dunno... But this irks me to no end. IMO, I think the NHC should have had hurricane warnings along the coastal sections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.