NHC Modifies Hurricane Warning Definition in Wake of Sandy

[HurricaneJosh]

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.

Bingo for two reasons:

* The death toll was actually very low given the severity of the impact and the population density of the affected region. People are going to die when that much destruction happens over such a wide, heavily populated area. That is the reality.

* Even when the word "hurricane" is used, lots of people ignore the warnings and stay put. It's not a magic activator.

[Ian]

Bingo for two reasons:

* The death toll was actually very low given the severity of the impact and the population density of the affected region. People are going to die when that much destruction happens over such a wide, heavily populated area. That is the reality.

* Even when the word "hurricane" is used, lots of people ignore the warnings and stay put. It's not a magic activator.

Most or all of the worst impacted folks have never seen an event like Sandy.. that's going to lead to second guessing and staying put... shoot we see plenty of people stay put in places that get hurricanes all the time. I recall a number of people calling into CNN etc afterwards saying things like "I've never left, it's never been bad before" and then wanting to know why they were stranded etc. Granted, Bloomberg's initial response was poor but they got onto the right track while there was still time.

Big anomalous weather events will always kill people as far as I'm concerned. Not sure we need to spend so much time blaming for that.

To lessen the deaths that could be avoided simply by moving away from rising water etc, folks need to be better educated beforehand. There's only so much someone can take in right before an event.

Plus we should de-aggregate deaths a bit more to get the real picture. Sorry.. but if you're out walking your dog in a forest during 80-90 mph gusts and get hit by a tree I'm not sure you can blame your death on issues with NHC. (granted I almost got hit by a limb walking my dog but I digress).

[SmokeEater]

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.

Couldn't have said it any better Ian.

[Sunny and Warm]

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.

As said previously, IMHO the lack of citizen and govt action for Sandy was due largely to the hyperbole surrounding Irene and the resultant "letdown" when Jersey and NYC did not get slammed. That's why scaring the bejesus out of people only works the first time, and is a short term argument. I like the direction that the NHC is going toward with using more scientific purity in its updates.

[CT Rain]

As said previously, IMHO the lack of citizen and govt action for Sandy was due largely to the hyperbole surrounding Irene and the resultant "letdown" when Jersey and NYC did not get slammed. That's why scaring the bejesus out of people only works the first time, and is a short term argument. I like the direction that the NHC is going toward with using more scientific purity in its updates.

I find this to be equally as troublesome and it all goes back to education.

Irene resulted in the greatest and longest-duration power outage in CT history (only to be exceeded 2 months later) and also produced some of the worst coastal flooding since the 1950s in parts of the Connecticut shore. Countless homes and businesses were destroyed during Irene here and some were swept out to sea.

Part of educating the public and government officials, for that matter, is that a hurricane is a complex event. Just because Irene didn't impact your particular city hard doesn't necessarily mean the storm way hyped. It's like saying a tornado warning for a county was overhyped when an F5 only went through 2 towns and avoided the other 30 in your county.

There was undoubtedly reluctance by some people in Bloomberg's administration and other agencies like NJ Transit (which has blamed OKX for their troubles) following a perceived Irene bust that is (and was) a dangerous game to play.

[HurricaneJosh]

Irene resulted in the greatest and longest-duration power outage in CT history (only to be exceeded 2 months later) and also produced some of the worst coastal flooding since the 1950s in parts of the Connecticut shore. Countless homes and businesses were destroyed during Irene here and some were swept out to sea.

Wow-- really? That surprised me to read this. I chased Irene on Long Island, and while there was extensive flooding and power outages, my feeling about it was basically the same as Sunny and Warm's-- that the event had been overhyped, and that this created a long-term danger of apathy.

[Sunny and Warm]

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.

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.

Thank you.

Josh,

I posted a surge chart for RI a few weeks ago which showed the surge numbers for notable storms going back to the 1600's. The most notable systems that had tropical origins had surges FAR, FAR greater than any noreaster has produced. In other aspects of these hybrids you may be correct, but for surge, which killed the most people in Sandy, it was the tropical aspect which produced that. So Sandy was not just a nor'easter as you keep saying. Look at the Ash Wednesday storm. 40% of the surge of Sandy.

Edit: Removed chart as it was bogus!!

[Sunny and Warm]

I find this to be equally as troublesome and it all goes back to education.

Irene resulted in the greatest and longest-duration power outage in CT history (only to be exceeded 2 months later) and also produced some of the worst coastal flooding since the 1950s in parts of the Connecticut shore. Countless homes and businesses were destroyed during Irene here and some were swept out to sea.

Part of educating the public and government officials, for that matter, is that a hurricane is a complex event. Just because Irene didn't impact your particular city hard doesn't necessarily mean the storm way hyped. It's like saying a tornado warning for a county was overhyped when an F5 only went through 2 towns and avoided the other 30 in your county.

There was undoubtedly reluctance by some people in Bloomberg's administration and other agencies like NJ Transit (which has blamed OKX for their troubles) following a perceived Irene bust that is (and was) a dangerous game to play.

I don't disagree with anything you just said, but I qualified my post with, "in Jersey and NYC". Even on this board, weather hobbyists always relate a storm to MBY. The people in Jersey and NYC definitely believe Irene underperformed, even though as you say CT got slammed. Honestly, it's a mental thing that you as a Met can never win. The public will always pick out a storm from the past and compare it to what is coming, and the storm they choose in their minds will be one that dove-tails with the outcome they'd like to see occur, such as riding out the storm because it won't be as bad as Irene. Just my viewpoint.

[HurricaneJosh]

Josh,

I posted a surge chart for RI a few weeks ago which showed the surge numbers for notable storms going back to the 1600's. The most notable systems that had tropical origins had surges FAR, FAR greater than any noreaster has produced. In other aspects of these hybrids you may be correct, but for surge, which killed the most people in Sandy, it was the tropical aspect which produced that. So Sandy was not just a nor'easter as you keep saying. Look at the Ash Wednesday storm. 40% of the surge of Sandy.

I'd be curious to see a similar chart for areas like NJ, NYC, and LI, which were more directly impacted by Sandy.

Of course Sandy was of tropical origins, and that gave it some kick-- but I still think it's dangerous to confuse it with a hurricane.

Back to the warnings... The end goal is to save lives, and in my opinion (and as Ian pointed out), under 200 deaths from an event of this size equals success-- so in my opinion, the warnings worked and I frankly don't understand what all this bellyaching is about. Tens of millions of people were directly impacted by a large and very destructive storm. It's actually amazing to me so few people did die.

[CT Rain]

Wow-- really? That surprised me to read this. I chased Irene on Long Island, and while there was extensive flooding and power outages, my feeling about it was basically the same as Sunny and Warm's-- that the event had been overhyped, and that this created a long-term danger of apathy.

Yeah... when coupled with the serious inland flooding the impact was quite a bit worse than Gloria in many respects. While winds were less than Gloria I doubt you could find one person in CT to say the storm was overhyped. Just shows you how localized these things can be.

Places on the shoreline that hadn't flooded since 1954 did so in Irene.

[CT Rain]

I don't disagree with anything you just said, but I qualified my post with, "in Jersey and NYC". Even on this board, weather hobbyists always relate a storm to MBY. The people in Jersey and NYC definitely believe Irene underperformed, even though as you say CT got slammed. Honestly, it's a mental thing that you as a Met can never win. The public will always pick out a storm from the past and compare it to what is coming, and the storm they choose in their minds will be one that dove-tails with the outcome they'd like to see occur, such as riding out the storm because it won't be as bad as Irene. Just my viewpoint.

Yup... we just need to find better ways to communicate risk and educate prior to events. That's key IMO.

About that chart you posted... where did they get the 4 meter storm surge in S RI???? Highest surge values I saw there were around 6 feet.

[HurricaneJosh]

Yup... we just need to find better ways to communicate risk and educate prior to events. That's key IMO.

About that chart you posted... where did they get the 4 meter storm surge in S RI???? Highest surge values I saw there were around 6 feet.

Yeah... Looking at that chart again, I was wondering the same thing. I didn't hear anything like that from RI. Kings Point in NY had 14 ft.

[Sunny and Warm]

I'd be curious to see a similar chart for areas like NJ, NYC, and LI, which were more directly impacted by Sandy.

Of course Sandy was of tropical origins, and that gave it some kick-- but I still think it's dangerous to confuse it with a hurricane.

Back to the warnings... The end goal is to save lives, and in my opinion (and as Ian pointed out), under 200 deaths from an event of this size equals success-- so in my opinion, the warnings worked and I frankly don't understand what all this bellyaching is about. Tens of millions of people were directly impacted by a large and very destructive storm. It's actually amazing to me so few people did die.

Like the 1991 storm, Sandy was a hybrid and not a hurricane nor a noreaster. I also agree with you that for the destruction that took place, under 200 deaths was a very good outcome. Sometimes I think people just need to b!tch about something.

[Sunny and Warm]

Yup... we just need to find better ways to communicate risk and educate prior to events. That's key IMO.

About that chart you posted... where did they get the 4 meter storm surge in S RI???? Highest surge values I saw there were around 6 feet.

Great question, and I just spent the last few minutes trying to find the answer. As with anything on the internet, buyer beware!! Appears someone took a valid scientific document produced in 2001 and overlaid Sandy's surge on it. However, the surge noted from Sandy was from NYC and not from R.I. Good catch guys. Actual surge from Sandy nearest Succotash Marsh was 5.2', or 1.6m.

[CT Rain]

Great question, and I just spent the last few minutes trying to find the answer. As with anything on the internet, buyer beware!! Appears someone took a valid scientific document produced in 2001 and overlaid Sandy's surge on it. However, the surge noted from Sandy was from NYC and not from R.I. Good catch guys. Actual surge from Sandy nearest Succotash Marsh was 5.2', or 1.6m.

Interesting thing about the RI surge (which we have discussed in the NE forum) is that the destruction was absolutely remarkable. While 5 feet of surge may not sound like much... the arrival at high tide when coupled with unusually powerful breaking waves (for a NE hurricane... record IKE helped I'm guessing) resulted in far more destruction than you'd expect to see from a surge of that level in Rhode Island.

Here in Connecticut we lucked out in Sandy with the worst surge occurring just after low tide. Had it occurred at high tide 10-12 feet of surge would have resulted in record-shattering flooding west of New Haven.

[Sunny and Warm]

Yup... we just need to find better ways to communicate risk and educate prior to events. That's key IMO.

As someone said, the MIC at Mount Holly could not have done a better job in pleading for the public to take Sandy seriously via the weather briefings from the prior Thursday onwards, and still a lot of the people who died were in that WFO. Part of me says your task is hopeless, but I know you have to keep trying. Maybe Katrina and Sandy will have the chastining effects for the next 20-25 years until memories fade again.

[Sunny and Warm]

I'd be curious to see a similar chart for areas like NJ, NYC, and LI, which were more directly impacted by Sandy.

Josh,

If you're really interested, I think this group may have your answers:

http://stormy.msrc.sunysb.edu/

[HurricaneJosh]

Josh,

If you're really interested, I think this group may have your answers:

http://stormy.msrc.sunysb.edu/

I meant charts comparing peak surges for the last 500 years of events at a given location.

[BillB]

As someone said, the MIC at Mount Holly could not have done a better job in pleading for the public to take Sandy seriously via the weather briefings from the prior Thursday onwards, and still a lot of the people who died were in that WFO. Part of me says your task is hopeless, but I know you have to keep trying. Maybe Katrina and Sandy will have the chastining effects for the next 20-25 years until memories fade again.

Gee, I thought our offices were a lot safer than that. Will have to check things when I go in tonight!

[Ed Lizard]

Gee, I thought our offices were a lot safer than that. Will have to check things when I go in tonight!

He might have meant CWA.

[Sunny and Warm]

He might have meant CWA.

Yes, and I think he knows that. Thus the smiley.

[famartin]

Numerous people that I had to evac, said they didn't take "Hurricane Sandy" seriously only because of Irene not being that bad.

Which is exactly what I've been saying. The Irene overhype (and yes, it was overhype, it never seemed as bad to me as some made it out to be leading up to it) directly resulted in the complacency with Sandy.

[famartin]

I find this to be equally as troublesome and it all goes back to education.

Irene resulted in the greatest and longest-duration power outage in CT history (only to be exceeded 2 months later) and also produced some of the worst coastal flooding since the 1950s in parts of the Connecticut shore. Countless homes and businesses were destroyed during Irene here and some were swept out to sea.

Yes, but that's CT. NJ was generally expected to be on the left side of the track of Irene, and we all know what that means. CT, as I recall, was expected to at least half on the right side. It made a big difference.

[phlwx]

Part of educating the public and government officials, for that matter, is that a hurricane is a complex event. Just because Irene didn't impact your particular city hard doesn't necessarily mean the storm way hyped. It's like saying a tornado warning for a county was overhyped when an F5 only went through 2 towns and avoided the other 30 in your county.

Pretty much this. As Ray said, being left-of-track in NJ changes the equation regarding what Irene did but to your point it is an education issue.

I think part of that education process is the enforcement of thinking that no two hurricanes (or hybrids for that matter) are alike...

[famartin]

Pretty much this. As Ray said, being left-of-track in NJ changes the equation regarding what Irene did but to your point it is an education issue.

I think part of that education process is the enforcement of thinking that no two hurricanes (or hybrids for that matter) are alike...

A good point, but of course in the last 20+ years, most of them have been pretty similar: Heavy rain inland, and some (but not horrendous, like Sandy) wind at the coast. Because most had that track along the coast which put NJ, or at least the majority of NJ, left of track. Even for storms which partly tracked over the shore directly, like Floyd and Irene, their cores were so beat up by the time they got there that the best wind was off to the east, over the open ocean.

I read one news report which said that Mercer County officials were preparing for Delaware River flooding, even though the NWS specifically told them them that the Delaware was not expected to flood (which it didn't). The reasoning was two fold: "Well that's what hurricanes usually do" and "you can never predict the weather."

[phlwx]

A good point, but of course in the last 20+ years, most of them have been pretty similar: Heavy rain inland, and some (but not horrendous, like Sandy) wind at the coast. Because most had that track along the coast which put NJ, or at least the majority of NJ, left of track. Even for storms which partly tracked over the shore directly, like Floyd and Irene, their cores were so beat up by the time they got there that the best wind was off to the east, over the open ocean.

I read one news report which said that Mercer County officials were preparing for Delaware River flooding, even though the NWS specifically told them them that the Delaware was not expected to flood (which it didn't). The reasoning was two fold: "Well that's what hurricanes usually do" and "you can never predict the weather."

True on "big picture" (rain left of track, wind right of) but I'm talking more scale of impact/size of storm.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/sandy-packed-more-total-energy-than-katrina-at-landfall/2012/11/02/baa4e3c4-24f4-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_blog.html

Sandy had nearly twice the IKE that Irene had and was second to Isabel. Isabel knocked out power to over a half mil in SE PA alone and the center went in over the Carolinas. The monster high to the north helped with a big wind field but it was a very large storm to begin with...

[famartin]

True on "big picture" (rain left of track, wind right of) but I'm talking more scale of impact/size of storm.

http://www.washingto...c6a24_blog.html

Sandy had nearly twice the IKE that Irene had and was second to Isabel. Isabel knocked out power to over a half mil in SE PA alone and the center went in over the Carolinas. The monster high to the north helped with a big wind field but it was a very large storm to begin with...

Maybe we need a "IKE" scale like SS, though that would probably end up confusing the public.

[Rainshadow]

As someone said, the MIC at Mount Holly could not have done a better job in pleading for the public to take Sandy seriously via the weather briefings from the prior Thursday onwards, and still a lot of the people who died were in that WFO. Part of me says your task is hopeless, but I know you have to keep trying. Maybe Katrina and Sandy will have the chastining effects for the next 20-25 years until memories fade again.

First this is not directed to you. There is so much mis-information on the internet out there about this storm already it boggles my mind.

This is as of today. In the Mt. Holly CWA, there were 24 Sandy related deaths in NJ. There is a distinction that is made between direct (caused by the wind and/or tidal surge) vs indirect (CO poisioning, heart attacks, hypothermia, etc) deaths. With respect to the former, there were 9 direct deaths caused by Sandy, two drownings (on the mainland of Ocean County) and seven people killed by falling trees oe tree limbs. There were no direct deaths on the barrier islands caused by either the wind or the tidal surge from Sandy. There were no Sandy related deaths at all in Monmouth County. Two people who failed to evacuate died from hypothermia at/near the coast.

As Isohume has posted, the decision to not issue tropical related warnings was a collaborated decision made that included the NHC. Th NHC did not decide on its own to follow this path and has erroneously been thrown under the bus for "their" decision.

Hurricane deductible laws in NJ clearly state that there has to be land based measured hurricane force winds for the deductible to kick in. NHC could have a category IV hurricane making landfall in Cape May, but if the highest measured sustained wind is 45 mph, the deductible would not kick in.

[phlwx]

Maybe we need a "IKE" scale like SS, though that would probably end up confusing the public.

I would be for an improved SS (or simply ditching it and saying the storm has max winds of X, can produce surge of Y, wind field of Z)

[Rainshadow]

Which is exactly what I've been saying. The Irene overhype (and yes, it was overhype, it never seemed as bad to me as some made it out to be leading up to it) directly resulted in the complacency with Sandy.

That's why the conscious decision was made to not use Irene as a comparison in those briefing packages.