NHC Modifies Hurricane Warning Definition in Wake of Sandy

[billgwx]

I haven't seen official internal word of this, but there you have it. Next time a Sandy-like (or dare I say even a 1938-like?) system threatens the coast, hurricane warnings will be flying:

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/breaking-nhc-modifies-hurrican/2379553

[icebreaker5221]

I suppose that if the change saves even one life then it's worth it.

I'm just wondering how many people who live in a wooden home on the ocean at 5 ft above sea level, when told repeatedly by the media that an impending "perfect storm" with 10 ft+ storm surge is approaching, will evacuate just because they hear the extra words "hurricane warning" to go with it. Always comes back to the "it couldn't happen to me" or "I've never evacuated before, why should I now?" attitude. At least with these changes, if something like Sandy were to happen again (and assuming warnings are issued), people wouldn't be able to put the blame on NHC.

edit: Just saw Ian's post in the Sandy thread. Never trust something you see on accuweather first

[Chaser25973]

If an EF-0 or an EF-5 tornado is about to hit my house, I expect the NWS to issue a tornado warning.

If a thunderstorm producing strong winds and hail is about to hit my house, I expect the NWS to issue a severe thunderstorm warning.

If a snowstorm that is going to produce over a foot of snow with temperatures below 20 degrees and winds above 45 mph is going to hit my house, I expect the NWS to issue a blizzard warning.

If a monster hurricane is combining forces with a monster nor'easter and is barrelling down on 25+ million people, I expect the NWS to do whatever the f*ck it takes to scare the absolute most sh*t out of all of them and get them to get the hell away from this catastrophic thing as quickly and efficiently as possible. The NHC handing this off to local NWS 10 miles before this thing made landfall because it no longer meets the criteria of a hurricane....

COME ON!!

[HurricaneJosh]

If a monster hurricane is combining forces with a monster nor'easter and is barrelling down on 25+ million people, I expect the NWS to do whatever the f*ck it takes to scare the absolute most sh*t out of all of them and get them to get the hell away from this catastrophic thing as quickly and efficiently as possible. The NHC handing this off to local NWS 10 miles before this thing made landfall because it no longer meets the criteria of a hurricane....

COME ON!!

The distinction between a nor'easter and a hurricane isn't academic-- it is real. A hurricane has a core of high winds and an eye; a nor'easter doesn't. A hurricane is more dangerous over a relatively small area near the center; on the contrary, a nor'easter can be most dangerous quite far from the center. So, calling a nor'easter a hurricane might sound like a good idea, but at the end of the day, you're giving people a false idea of what they're facing.

[isohume]

If a monster hurricane is combining forces with a monster nor'easter and is barrelling down on 25+ million people, I expect the NWS to do whatever the f*ck it takes to scare the absolute most sh*t out of all of them and get them to get the hell away from this catastrophic thing as quickly and efficiently as possible. The NHC handing this off to local NWS 10 miles before this thing made landfall because it no longer meets the criteria of a hurricane....

Once again, the NHC did not "hand off" Sandy to the local WFOs. The local products were coordinated days in advance on the conference calls. The NHC continued to provide very strongly worded advisories on Sandy (post-tropical or not) until landfall. They then "handed the storm off" to the HPC, like they always do.

[OSUmetstud]

The job of the NWS is not to scare people it's to inform...

[MountainMet]

The distinction between a nor'easter and a hurricane isn't academic-- it is real. A hurricane has a core of high winds and an eye; a nor'easter doesn't. A hurricane is more dangerous over a relatively small area near the center; on the contrary, a nor'easter can be most dangerous quite far from the center. So, calling a nor'easter a hurricane might sound like a good idea, but at the end of the day, you're giving people a false idea of what they're facing.

I strongly disagree. In the area off the East Coast where you can get both hurricane and nor'easters, the distinction is very subjective and academic. A pure hurricane is almost unheard of north of the Carolinas. Not all hurricanes are compact. Especially in those that are disrupted by land and restrengthen, the wind field can be very broad. Think of Katrina and Wilma.

A storm like Sandy did have a central warm core; it was very clear on both satellite images and model analyses. At the same time there is little question that the majority of the pressure gradient (and therefor winds) was being drive by baroclinic forcing -- which was set in motion by the presence of the warm core. In a situation like Sandy the impacts of a nor'easter and hurricane are very similar: strong winds, heavy rain, and large surge. It really doesn't matter which it is.

I am a firm believer that rather than characterizing a storm as a nor'easter or hurricane, we need to think of storms on a continuum. Some nor'easters develop warm cores. Most hurricane transition to baroclinic systems. Lots of tropical systems, especially those in the central Atlantic, are born from tropical transition of baroclinic systems (and I am a strong believer that this is the cause of the apparent upward trend in tropical storm counts in the Best-Track record). Even in the Arctic we see lots of polar lows which are essentially hurricanes! (Read up on this if you have not heard of them)

For introductory reading, look into Bob Hart's paper on cyclone phase space.

[Turtle]

Folks,

Not sure if CTRain (Ryan) has seen this thread yet, but you may want to read his blog entry on this topic. Not so fast on AccuWx and its proclamation (sorry Bill)...

http://ryanhanrahan.com/2012/12/05/sandy-semantics-and-communication-confusion/

This is very detailed and an excellent read, IMHO.

--Turtle

[Chaser25973]

The distinction between a nor'easter and a hurricane isn't academic-- it is real. A hurricane has a core of high winds and an eye; a nor'easter doesn't. A hurricane is more dangerous over a relatively small area near the center; on the contrary, a nor'easter can be most dangerous quite far from the center. So, calling a nor'easter a hurricane might sound like a good idea, but at the end of the day, you're giving people a false idea of what they're facing.

But this wasn't a nor'easter. This was a hybrid hurricane/nor'easter. A nor'easter doesn't cause the kind of damage to the coast that Sandy caused.

[Chaser25973]

The job of the NWS is not to scare people it's to inform...

If more people had been scared, perhaps we'd be looking at a death toll in the dozens and not the hundreds.

[Chaser25973]

Once again, the NHC did not "hand off" Sandy to the local WFOs. The local products were coordinated days in advance on the conference calls. The NHC continued to provide very strongly worded advisories on Sandy (post-tropical or not) until landfall. They then "handed the storm off" to the HPC, like they always do.

Where were the Hurricane Warnings? Where were the TS Warnings? Where was any of this? They don't always hand things off to the HPC before landfall occurs and certainly not within minutes of landfall. Perhaps after landfall occurs and the storm has weakened to something post tropical, but that didn't happen here.

[famartin]

But this wasn't a nor'easter. This was a hybrid hurricane/nor'easter. A nor'easter doesn't cause the kind of damage to the coast that Sandy caused.

Look up photos of the Ash Wednesday storm in New Jersey sometime.

[famartin]

Where were the Hurricane Warnings? Where were the TS Warnings? Where was any of this? They don't always hand things off to the HPC before landfall occurs and certainly not within minutes of landfall. Perhaps after landfall occurs and the storm has weakened to something post tropical, but that didn't happen here.

A storm doesn't have to "weaken" when it becomes post tropical. Usually it does but not always. Becoming post tropical is not the same thing as weakening. Yes, maybe that's a communication issue with the public, one that perhaps should've been avoided. But some of the worst storms to ever affect the British Isles were "post tropical" storms.

[MountainMet]

Where were the Hurricane Warnings? Where were the TS Warnings? Where was any of this? They don't always hand things off to the HPC before landfall occurs and certainly not within minutes of landfall. Perhaps after landfall occurs and the storm has weakened to something post tropical, but that didn't happen here.

I think we're missing another consideration that should not be underestimated. If NHC had maintained Sandy as a hurricane until landfall, it would have cost a lot of homeowners a LOT of money. If you live anywhere near a coastal area, I suggest you carefully read your homeowners insurance policy. If you suffer wind damage from an extra-tropical storm, you will pay your standard (probably $500) deductible. If it is classified as a hurricane, there is a good chance that you a (MUCH) higher deductible that is set as a percentage of your house -- up to $15,000 for your typical home.

If NHC had called the storm a hurricane at landfall, or even issued hurricane warnings, then you would be seeing a lot of middle class folks wondering how they were going to pay for all of the damage. By calling it post-tropical they largely enabled homeowners to dodge the problem and passed the buck on to insurance companies.

[OSUmetstud]

I think we're missing another consideration that should not be underestimated. If NHC had maintained Sandy as a hurricane until landfall, it would have cost a lot of homeowners a LOT of money. If you live anywhere near a coastal area, I suggest you carefully read your homeowners insurance policy. If you suffer wind damage from an extra-tropical storm, you will pay your standard (probably $500) deductible. If it is classified as a hurricane, there is a good chance that you a (MUCH) higher deductible that is set as a percentage of your house -- up to $15,000 for your typical home.

If NHC had called the storm a hurricane at landfall, or even issued hurricane warnings, then you would be seeing a lot of middle class folks wondering how they were going to pay for all of the damage. By calling it post-tropical they largely enabled homeowners to dodge the problem and passed the buck on to insurance companies.

I'd like to believe this wasn't a consideration when the NHC was deciding whether to go with hurricane warnings or not.

[Chaser25973]

I think we're missing another consideration that should not be underestimated. If NHC had maintained Sandy as a hurricane until landfall, it would have cost a lot of homeowners a LOT of money. If you live anywhere near a coastal area, I suggest you carefully read your homeowners insurance policy. If you suffer wind damage from an extra-tropical storm, you will pay your standard (probably $500) deductible. If it is classified as a hurricane, there is a good chance that you a (MUCH) higher deductible that is set as a percentage of your house -- up to $15,000 for your typical home.

If NHC had called the storm a hurricane at landfall, or even issued hurricane warnings, then you would be seeing a lot of middle class folks wondering how they were going to pay for all of the damage. By calling it post-tropical they largely enabled homeowners to dodge the problem and passed the buck on to insurance companies.

Can you cite a specific link for me on this?

[The Great Zo]

I'd like to believe this wasn't a consideration when the NHC was deciding whether to go with hurricane warnings or not.

This aspect of the situation exemplifies why NHC, as a science agency, needed to produce unbiased and objective forecasts and analyses of Sandy's classification (which I feel they did). While the public service aspect of NHC's job was put in a difficult position, I haven't seen any more than fringe opinions suggesting that there was any leaning toward scientific disingenuity.

[Ian]

If more people had been scared, perhaps we'd be looking at a death toll in the dozens and not the hundreds.

There's already enough emotional commentary on this subject. How about you try to back up that claim with facts?

[CT Rain]

If more people had been scared, perhaps we'd be looking at a death toll in the dozens and not the hundreds.

How do you know this?

While I think the NHC decision was the wrong one I think there were much larger issues. Complacency and lack of education in flood prone areas were, I believe, a far bigger factor.

I also think the local NWS offices did an exceptional job with the impact based forecasts.

While there is always work we can do to make a message more clear I have a feeling there were far bigger issues than whether watches or warnings were issued.

[ezweather]

I'll add my two cents worth on this topic. I really enjoy this site and read all the great posts and I respect all views on this topic and I'll way in here now. Its good to see that NHC did upgrade their warning criteria. I think they do an oustanding job in forecasting hurricanes and always looking for ways to improve their products. The latest update at least attempts to improve or better yet clearer communication. Now, looking back, as far as I'm concerned, hurricane warnings should have been extended up the coast say from Delaware up to NYC. I had people and its sad to say, I'll head down to shore to check the storm out or oh it won't be as bad as that Derecho in June. You had Bloomburg saying it won't be that bad, which I won't know where he got his information from. I just think at times we as meteorologists can't win with the public. This system, didn't become extra tropical until landfall. So, it was tropical for quite some time prior to making landfall. Plus the pressure was down to 940mb. I'm curious what was the pressure in the Ash Wednesday Storm? I think the public just didn't have any idea what post tropical means. I don't see any big deal in extending the hurricane warnings say from Delware to NYC. I thought Mount Holly, did a grreat job with their briefings. I remember one of the briefings where the MIC was pleading with folks to take this storm seriously. The bottom, we as meteorologists have to do whatever to protect the public from Weather Hazards.

I know we can debate this for some time to come, but obviously, with storms like these, I have no doubt will improve the way we can issue the warnings for special cases like this one. No doubt, there will be big lesson learn from this event.

[MountainMet]

Can you cite a specific link for me on this?

If you're looking for some news media story, here is one from Reuters.

You could also take it from me as a professional in the industry. As a meteorologist working in insurance services, this is part of what I do for a living. You can be sure the insurers watch these subtle differences in classification very carefully.

Whether or not it was publicly discussed, it had to have been in the back of everyone's mind.

[isohume]

Where were the Hurricane Warnings? Where were the TS Warnings? Where was any of this? They don't always hand things off to the HPC before landfall occurs and certainly not within minutes of landfall. Perhaps after landfall occurs and the storm has weakened to something post tropical, but that didn't happen here.

The decision to not issue hurr warnings was coordinated with the wfo's since they were covering the same threats with their products. Right or wrong, that's what happened. Again, the NHC did not hand off the storm to the HPC just before landfall. They were issuing advisories through landfall.

[HurricaneJosh]

But this wasn't a nor'easter. This was a hybrid hurricane/nor'easter. A nor'easter doesn't cause the kind of damage to the coast that Sandy caused.

Oh, yes, nor'easters can. As I said in the other thread, I feel members here often develop very strong opinions based on a few recent news stories without looking back at history. As famartin suggested, take a look at the 1962 storm-- the destruction was off-the-charts and that system was not of tropical origin.

Where were the Hurricane Warnings? Where were the TS Warnings? Where was any of this? They don't always hand things off to the HPC before landfall occurs and certainly not within minutes of landfall. Perhaps after landfall occurs and the storm has weakened to something post tropical, but that didn't happen here.

As has been pointed out, transitioning to post-tropical doesn't equal weakening. And, in fact, sometimes tropical cyclones strengthen as they transition to extratropical due to baroclinic enhancement. It's not a downgrade-- more a change of flavors.

Look up photos of the Ash Wednesday storm in New Jersey sometime.

Thank you.

[Chaser25973]

How do you know this?

While I think the NHC decision was the wrong one I think there were much larger issues. Complacency and lack of education in flood prone areas were, I believe, a far bigger factor.

I also think the local NWS offices did an exceptional job with the impact based forecasts.

While there is always work we can do to make a message more clear I have a feeling there were far bigger issues than whether watches or warnings were issued.

This is purely my opinion, but I think basic psychology is at work here. I think there was an overall confusion as to why there weren't Hurricane Warnings for NYC and NJ and because of that confusion, some people may have, incorrectly, jumped to the conclusion that this storm wasn't that serious. In combination, Michael Bloomberg's first press conference regarding Sandy was an absolute disaster and disgrace and I'll blame far more deaths on him than I would on the NHC. Is it possible one person lost their lives because they didn't evacuate because there weren't hurricane warnings? Possibly. Does that make them an idiot for not evacuating when the TV mets were calling this thing a catastrophe 24 hours out? Most likely. But there were areas, at least in NYC, where people who weren't ordered to evacuate, chose not to evacuate and were killed by flood waters.

I'll retract my last statement that the NHC should have scared people and if they had, perhaps more people would be alive today. I agree that it is not the NHC's responsibility to scare people. It is, however; a politician's job to scare people. Like it or not, people look to the government for leadership and sadly, in this case, there was none. While every single other state declared State of Emergencies on Thursday and Friday, Chris Christie waited until Saturday to issue it and to order evacuations. Michael Bloomberg thought the storm wasn't going to be a big deal.

Would either politician have taken this storm more seriously up front if there were hurricane warnings? It's pure speculation... But I think they would have.

[Chaser25973]

We knew this was going to be a hurricane at landfall, this was a hurricane at landfall and therefore, the NHC should have hoisted hurricane warnings. You could make an argument and I'll accept that it's a bit of a reach, that people died as a direct result of no HW's being issued. This is just my opinion, right or wrong. Irene wasn't really a big deal in this neck of the woods and there were hurricane warnings issued. The logical assumption would be, since there are no hurricane warnings, this won't be as big of a deal as Irene. Backing up that belief is mayor of NYC, Michael Bloomberg. Again, this is just my opinion - because all we can do here is speculate what would have been if things were different. All of us may have been tracking this storm for a week/week and a half before it actually hit, but many people didn't hear about this thing until Thursday/Friday.

I will say that Bloomberg's decision to take this storm lightly should be investigated as to where he received his info from. Unfortunately, that will never happen. There will never be an investigation into why NYC's preparation for this storm was so inadequate and if things had been done differently, less people would have perished. In the end, I don't care about property damage or storm damage - I care about 250+ people who died from Sandy. In this day and age, that number is unacceptable and we as taxpayers should be outraged. But we're not. At least, I'm the only one who seems to be outraged by the lack of preparation for this storm. Maybe I'm wrong.

[SmokeEater]

This is purely my opinion, but I think basic psychology is at work here. I think there was an overall confusion as to why there weren't Hurricane Warnings for NYC and NJ and because of that confusion, some people may have, incorrectly, jumped to the conclusion that this storm wasn't that serious. In combination, Michael Bloomberg's first press conference regarding Sandy was an absolute disaster and disgrace and I'll blame far more deaths on him than I would on the NHC. Is it possible one person lost their lives because they didn't evacuate because there weren't hurricane warnings? Possibly. Does that make them an idiot for not evacuating when the TV mets were calling this thing a catastrophe 24 hours out? Most likely. But there were areas, at least in NYC, where people who weren't ordered to evacuate, chose not to evacuate and were killed by flood waters.

I'll retract my last statement that the NHC should have scared people and if they had, perhaps more people would be alive today. I agree that it is not the NHC's responsibility to scare people. It is, however; a politician's job to scare people. Like it or not, people look to the government for leadership and sadly, in this case, there was none. While every single other state declared State of Emergencies on Thursday and Friday, Chris Christie waited until Saturday to issue it and to order evacuations. Michael Bloomberg thought the storm wasn't going to be a big deal.

Would either politician have taken this storm more seriously up front if there were hurricane warnings? It's pure speculation... But I think they would have.

Honestly, the biggest problem wasn't lack of Hurricane Warnings, it was the comparison to Irene. That's all I heard from people down here, leading up to the event, and because Irene wasn't as bad as progged, they weren't evacing. While NHC may have dropped the Hurricane Warnings, the amount of hype this storm got, if people didn't know it was going to be a decently bad storm, they're morons, end if story. All the media outlets kept pushing Hurricane the whole time. And the statement about homeowners getting a break because it wasn't classified a Hurricane is completely true. I know numerous people that if this was classified a Hurricane, their deductible would have been in the thousands instead of 500 dollars.

[HurricaneJosh]

I strongly disagree. In the area off the East Coast where you can get both hurricane and nor'easters, the distinction is very subjective and academic. A pure hurricane is almost unheard of north of the Carolinas. Not all hurricanes are compact. Especially in those that are disrupted by land and restrengthen, the wind field can be very broad. Think of Katrina and Wilma.

A storm like Sandy did have a central warm core; it was very clear on both satellite images and model analyses. At the same time there is little question that the majority of the pressure gradient (and therefor winds) was being drive by baroclinic forcing -- which was set in motion by the presence of the warm core. In a situation like Sandy the impacts of a nor'easter and hurricane are very similar: strong winds, heavy rain, and large surge. It really doesn't matter which it is.

I am a firm believer that rather than characterizing a storm as a nor'easter or hurricane, we need to think of storms on a continuum. Some nor'easters develop warm cores. Most hurricane transition to baroclinic systems. Lots of tropical systems, especially those in the central Atlantic, are born from tropical transition of baroclinic systems (and I am a strong believer that this is the cause of the apparent upward trend in tropical storm counts in the Best-Track record). Even in the Arctic we see lots of polar lows which are essentially hurricanes! (Read up on this if you have not heard of them)

For introductory reading, look into Bob Hart's paper on cyclone phase space.

Yeah, we strongly disagree about this, and that's OK.

As someone who's been in a gazillion cyclones-- ranging from severe, deep-tropical hurricanes to nor'easters and every gradation in between-- I stick to my assertion that the differences are very real and not academic.

I conceded in the other thread that cyclones don't always easily fit into neat categorizations like "tropical" and "post-tropical," as there are shades in between-- so we're on the same page about that. That having been said, the distinction is nowhere near as blurry as you're making it out to be.

Compared with a nor'easter, Wilma and Katrina were, indeed, very compact and very tropical. Yes, their wind fields were large for tropical cyclones, but they had eyewalls-- inner cores with very high winds. I was in Wilma's core. Yeah, it was big, but the cyclone's highest winds were in the eyewall. There was a front side, then a distinct calm, and then the most violent winds immediately after the calm. While large for a hurricane, Wilma was compact and tightly-wound when compared with nor'easters and other nontropical cyclones.

Again, as I said above, whether a cyclone is a hurricane or not really does matter. It affects what you experience on the ground. With a hurricane, the exact track of the center and your distance from it matter more, since the extreme effects are more centralized.

Re: hurricanes in the Northeast USA... I agree that the region basically can't get a pure-tropical cyclone, but past hurricanes in the region exhibited tropical structures that Sandy simply didn't. In Gloria, the most damaging winds immediately preceded the calm of the eye on Long Island. Carol had a small, relatively compact core when it hit NY and CT/RI (as per Brian Jarvinen). The 1938 hurricane only produced Cat-3 conditions in NY, CT, and RI-- not MA, because coastal MA was too far E and outside of the core. The point here is that these cyclones, while not purely tropical, still had relatively centralized impact zones. This was not the case with Sandy. So, yeah, I agree that cyclones all exist on a continuum, but past hurricanes in the Northeast USA are way further on one end of that continuum than Sandy.

[SmokeEater]

We knew this was going to be a hurricane at landfall, this was a hurricane at landfall and therefore, the NHC should have hoisted hurricane warnings. You could make an argument and I'll accept that it's a bit of a reach, that people died as a direct result of no HW's being issued. This is just my opinion, right or wrong. Irene wasn't really a big deal in this neck of the woods and there were hurricane warnings issued. The logical assumption would be, since there are no hurricane warnings, this won't be as big of a deal as Irene. Backing up that belief is mayor of NYC, Michael Bloomberg. Again, this is just my opinion - because all we can do here is speculate what would have been if things were different. All of us may have been tracking this storm for a week/week and a half before it actually hit, but many people didn't hear about this thing until Thursday/Friday.

I will say that Bloomberg's decision to take this storm lightly should be investigated as to where he received his info from. Unfortunately, that will never happen. There will never be an investigation into why NYC's preparation for this storm was so inadequate and if things had been done differently, less people would have perished. In the end, I don't care about property damage or storm damage - I care about 250+ people who died from Sandy. In this day and age, that number is unacceptable and we as taxpayers should be outraged. But we're not. At least, I'm the only one who seems to be outraged by the lack of preparation for this storm. Maybe I'm wrong.

I'm sorry, to say people died because of no Hurricane Warning is asinine. And many people didn't hear about it? The media was hyping this thing WELL before it was even near our area. Come on now. And Hurricane Warnings or not, people didn't take it serious because of Irene, the warnings would not have mattered. Numerous people that I had to evac, said they didn't take "Hurricane Sandy" seriously only because of Irene not being that bad.

[icebreaker5221]

No one ever said NHC was changing the scientific definition of a hurricane. They're only changing what they can issue a hurricane warning for by slightly expanding the criteria. It is the job of the NWS to protect life and property as they best see fit. They never were nor should be the authority on the state of the science.

[Ian]

We knew this was going to be a hurricane at landfall, this was a hurricane at landfall and therefore, the NHC should have hoisted hurricane warnings. You could make an argument and I'll accept that it's a bit of a reach, that people died as a direct result of no HW's being issued. This is just my opinion, right or wrong. Irene wasn't really a big deal in this neck of the woods and there were hurricane warnings issued. The logical assumption would be, since there are no hurricane warnings, this won't be as big of a deal as Irene. Backing up that belief is mayor of NYC, Michael Bloomberg. Again, this is just my opinion - because all we can do here is speculate what would have been if things were different. All of us may have been tracking this storm for a week/week and a half before it actually hit, but many people didn't hear about this thing until Thursday/Friday.

I will say that Bloomberg's decision to take this storm lightly should be investigated as to where he received his info from. Unfortunately, that will never happen. There will never be an investigation into why NYC's preparation for this storm was so inadequate and if things had been done differently, less people would have perished. In the end, I don't care about property damage or storm damage - I care about 250+ people who died from Sandy. In this day and age, that number is unacceptable and we as taxpayers should be outraged. But we're not. At least, I'm the only one who seems to be outraged by the lack of preparation for this storm. Maybe I'm wrong.

You need perspective. Given the population impact the death toll was quite low. Your 250+ number includes like 100 outside the US as well... A good majority of those who died in places like Staten Island were in mandatory evac zones. They ignored the warnings.. just as they would have if a hurricane warning was in place. Then there are those who went out and got hit by a falling tree or put a generator in their house. You should mostly be outraged that people don't listen or pay attention if you want to be outraged.