NHC Modifies Hurricane Warning Definition in Wake of Sandy

[Sunny and Warm]

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

on the contrary, I think that the SS scale is confusing to the public as it is. The SS scale wholly focuses on wind, while we often see the most deaths related to surge along the coasts. Wind is only part of the equation for surge. Storm size, duration over water, angle of attack, and coastline variability play a large role in surge as we saw with Katrina and Sandy. IMHO, by focusing solely on wind speed in the SS scale, the Met community has largely fostered the belief among the public that wind speed controls most if not all aspects of the weather associated with a tropical entity outside rainfall.

[Eskimo Joe]

Can you cite a specific link for me on this?

Here is another link from CNN: http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/01/real_estate/sandy-hurricane-deductible/index.html

[Sunny and Warm]

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 this 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.

Tony,

Thanks for the clarification. As you know, I live 800 miles away, and the perception from this distance in reading the papers and TV news is that most of the dead were from those barrier islands. Interesting to say the least. I wonder where the genesis of these falsehoods begins. Like I said though, it's difficult to fight a nameless enemy.

Edit to add that maybe people see all those pictures of severe destruction on the barrier islands and ASSUME that the deaths were concentrated there.

[famartin]

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

Perhaps that was good... though most of the public still made the comparison anyway. I got a few questions about it myself from people back home. My response: "This will be worse than Irene, no question".

[Rainshadow]

Tony,

Thanks for the clarification. As you know, I live 800 miles away, and the perception from this distance in reading the papers and TV news is that most of the dead were from those barrier islands. Interesting to say the least. I wonder where the genesis of these falsehoods begins. Like I said though, it's difficult to fight a nameless enemy.

Edit to add that maybe people see all those pictures of severe destruction on the barrier islands and ASSUME that the deaths were concentrated there.

I can understand why. We wouldn't want the facts to get in the way of people's (not on this board) agenda items on how Sandy was handled/mishandled.

[Rainshadow]

Perhaps that was good... though most of the public still made the comparison anyway. I got a few questions about it myself from people back home. My response: "This will be worse than Irene, no question".

Yes and recent recollections of being on the west side of named storms (Gloria, Floyd, Irene) just heightens the false sense of security. We made it through....why do we evacuate now? I give Governor Christie all the credit in the world for not using the weakened results from Irene to influence his evacuation decisions with Sandy.

[Sunny and Warm]

Perhaps that was good... though most of the public still made the comparison anyway. I got a few questions about it myself from people back home. My response: "This will be worse than Irene, no question".

local news and weather people used the comparison a lot.

[famartin]

Yes and recent recollections of being on the west side of named storms (Gloria, Floyd, Irene) just heightens the false sense of security. We made it through....why do we evacuate now? I give Governor Christie all the credit in the world for not using the weakened results from Irene to influence his evacuation decisions with Sandy.

Yes, he did an amazing job making sure people knew that they needed to get out.

[phlwx]

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.

I told your boss a few weeks ago that everyone at PHI was to be commended for their handling of the storm. You guys all kicked a--, took names, and did a great job of communicating expectations to the public.

Whether the public (and those in government in various parts of the Northeast such as a particular mayor in a big city up the road from me) chooses to heed the advice given by many in the NWS, NOAA, and in private forecasting is on them.

I don't think anyone in the media in Philadelphia, in the NWS at PHI, or the NHC downplayed this storm from about the Wednesday before the storm on through its conclusion, once it was pretty clear it was going to be a bad situation.

[IsentropicLift]

Hurricane Warnings up this way would have been a waste of time. The general public up here doesn't take any warnings serioiusly, no matter what they are. This has occured because the actual percentage of the warnings being verified are quite low. I can tell you personally that if a severe thunderstorm warning or a tornado warning are issued up this way, it's business as usual. The media doesn't even get it right. We could have a tornado watch up and or a squall line bearing down on the region and the local stations would be calling for thundershowers.

I have to give credit to Gov. Christie here in NJ. He took the warnings from NHC/NWS seriously and put out the message in the days before that this was a very serious storm and that people needed to get the hell out. HIs comments were so stern, some people took his wording during the evacuation orders as rude. I specifically remember him saying, "If I'm right, you're dead, and that's not a good combination". So to sit here and say that strong wording was not used and that a hurricane warning would have made a difference is absurd. The people that chose to stay were going to stay no matter what.

[HurricaneJosh]

on the contrary, I think that the SS scale is confusing to the public as it is. The SS scale wholly focuses on wind, while we often see the most deaths related to surge along the coasts. Wind is only part of the equation for surge. Storm size, duration over water, angle of attack, and coastline variability play a large role in surge as we saw with Katrina and Sandy. IMHO, by focusing solely on wind speed in the SS scale, the Met community has largely fostered the belief among the public that wind speed controls most if not all aspects of the weather associated with a tropical entity outside rainfall.

But it's actually not confusing. This is a manufactured problem.

Except for a couple or recent anomalies (Ike, Katrina), the SS scale actually adequately describes most storms most of the time.

Again, people focus waaaaaay too much on the last two big news stories, not the long-term averages. Over the last few decades and going back further, the SS scale ratings usually summarize storms adequately.

[Sunny and Warm]

But it's actually not confusing. This is a manufactured problem.

Except for a couple or recent anomalies (Ike, Katrina), the SS scale actually adequately describes most storms most of the time.

Again, people focus waaaaaay too much on the last two big news stories, not the long-term averages. Over the last few decades and going back further, the SS scale ratings usually summarize storms adequately.

Josh,

I think you're in the minority here, and recent anomalies like Ike, Katrina, and Sandy DO matter in public policy discussion. I'm usually all for a wait and see approach on things like this, but for years now I've believed that the SS scale does not adequately take into account all of the necessary storm elements that are in play. It's an archaic and limiting scale.

[HurricaneJosh]

Josh,

I think you're in the minority here, and recent anomalies like Ike, Katrina, and Sandy DO matter in public policy discussion. I'm usually all for a wait and see approach on things like this, but for years now I've believed that the SS scale does not adequately take into account all of the necessary storm elements that are in play. It's an archaic and limiting scale.

In the USA, Gustav was a 2, Dolly 1, Humberto 1, Wilma 3, Ivan 3, Charley 4, Isabel 2, Floyd 2, Fran 3, Opal 3, Andrew 5, Hugo 4, Gloria 2 in NC and 1 in NY, Alicia 3, Frederic 3, Eloise 3, etc.-- to name just some of the important landfalls of the last few decades.

Which of those scale assignments confuses you?

I don't care that I'm in the minority here. I'm also in the minority in the sense that I'm probably the biggest reanalysis/history nerd here, too-- meaning my perspective is balanced and goes back beyond the last three ZOMG!-Superest-Storm-Everzzz!!!11!!1! news cycles.

[phlwx]

Isabel for a 2 had a greater IKE than Charley at 4. Saffir only measure max winds, not size or radius of TS winds.

Saffir is good for those who care about what the max is in the eyewall. It doesn't accurately reflect size though.

[isohume]

I don't care that I'm in the minority here. I'm also in the minority in the sense that I'm probably the biggest reanalysis/history nerd here, too-- meaning my perspective is balanced and goes back beyond the last three ZOMG!-Superest-Storm-Everzzz!!!11!!1! news cycles.

You're not in the minority here Josh. If there was a need for a change to the SS scale, then it would come from our customers. There are no organized efforts/concerns underway from the shipping industry, oil industry, FAA, media, EM's, FEMA, States, nor the public seeking a SS scale change.

[HurricaneJosh]

Isabel for a 2 had a greater IKE than Charley at 4. Saffir only measure max winds, not size or radius of TS winds.

Saffir is good for those who care about what the max is in the eyewall. It doesn't accurately reflect size though.

Nor is it supposed to. Some formula that blends intensity and size and other factors is going to produce a number with zero meaning to anyone except insurance adjusters trying to predict total dollar damage and physicists interested in measuring total energy release. If a Charley is approaching the coast, people in its path need to hear the number 4-- because essentially a large tornado is coming. Surge heights are predicted in the advisories-- I don't know what's so complicated about this.

And I will point out that a hurricane is first and foremost a wind storm-- that is how it's defined. While surge is obviously a big factor (especially with regard to deaths in notable historic storms like Galveston 1900 and Lake Okeechobee 1928), it only affects people along the immediate coast (with some exceptions, like SW LA). The winds affect everyone. Even in the low-lying bayous of LA, what I noticed most after Isaac was the wind damage.

Look at the severe typhoon that just hit the Philippines. That thing was small, but boy, if that thing were coming toward the American coastline, folks would need to hear 5. Penalizing it for its small size and calling it, say, a 3 would be insane.

You're not in the minority here Josh. If there was a need for a change to the SS scale, then it would come from our customers. There are no organized efforts/concerns underway from the shipping industry, oil industry, FAA, media, EM's, FEMA, States, nor the public seeking a SS scale change.

Cool-- thanks. Around here I feel like a minority.

[HurricaneJosh]

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.

Very interesting.

So, despite all the bellyaching about how a hurricane wind scale doesn't adequately predict a nor'easter's tides, there were no surge-related deaths in one of the hardest-hit areas. Also interesting is that most of the deaths in this area were caused by wind, the factor that no one seems to think matters.

Are we manufacturing a problem here?

I want to again point out that a death toll between 100 and 200 people for an event of this size and in this region of the USA is really small. I don't view this death toll as tragic-- I just think, "Wow-- that's it??"

[famartin]

Very interesting.

So, despite all the bellyaching about how a hurricane wind scale doesn't adequately predict a nor'easter's tides, there were no surge-related deaths in one of the hardest-hit areas. Also interesting is that most of the deaths in this area were caused by wind, the factor that no one seems to think matters.

Are we manufacturing a problem here?

I want to again point out that a death toll between 100 and 200 people for an event of this size and in this region of the USA is really small. I don't view this death toll as tragic-- I just think, "Wow-- that's it??"

Well... some people are reacting to "There hasn't been this many deaths in the Northeast from a hurricane since 1938 (I'm guessing)"... to which I respond "Well duh, a storm like this hasn't hit the Northeast since then"

[famartin]

Very interesting.

So, despite all the bellyaching about how a hurricane wind scale doesn't adequately predict a nor'easter's tides, there were no surge-related deaths in one of the hardest-hit areas.

Though Tony's statement only included New Jersey. I don't know if there were surge deaths in NYC, but my guess is yes, from remembering some of the descriptions I heard.

[HurricaneJosh]

Though Tony's statement only included New Jersey. I don't know if there were surge deaths in NYC, but my guess is yes, from remembering some of the descriptions I heard.

Yes, and I acknowledged it was just in that one area. But it was one of the hardest-hit areas. And as someone else pointed out, the surge deaths in NYC apparently occurred in mandatory evacuation zones, so the folks were warned. At the end of the day, we can't hold a hurricane scale or a government agency responsible for the fact that some people just won't listen, no matter what scale or what words are used. Period.

I maintain that the death toll is very low and should be viewed as a win.

[phlwx]

Nor is it supposed to. Some formula that blends intensity and size and other factors is going to produce a number with zero meaning to anyone except insurance adjusters trying to predict total dollar damage and physicists interested in measuring total energy release. If a Charley is approaching the coast, people in its path need to hear the number 4-- because essentially a large tornado is coming. Surge heights are predicted in the advisories-- I don't know what's so complicated about this.

And I will point out that a hurricane is first and foremost a wind storm-- that is how it's defined. While surge is obviously a big factor (especially with regard to deaths in notable historic storms like Galveston 1900 and Lake Okeechobee 1928), it only affects people along the immediate coast (with some exceptions, like SW LA). The winds affect everyone. Even in the low-lying bayous of LA, what I noticed most after Isaac was the wind damage.

Look at the severe typhoon that just hit the Philippines. That thing was small, but boy, if that thing were coming toward the American coastline, folks would need to hear 5. Penalizing it for its small size and calling it, say, a 3 would be insane.

Size matters though. A small four hitting Punta Gorda sucks for them and will cause a lot of impact for them but it is a localized impact near the eye. This is where Saffir is a bit of a fail because it only focuses on the max winds in a very small area but fails to acknowledge the geography of the storm.

Isabel produced much greater impact over a wider area, even though the worst of worst was not as bad as a Charley. The impacts of being 100 miles away from Charley's eye are different than 100 miles from Isabel.

I think quantifying max winds without a scale is sufficient...scaling the storm around a 1-5 based on max winds at the eyewall doesn't do the storm's overall size justice.

[Ginx snewx]

There was a reason surge was dropped from SS by NHC, obviously Isohumes customers demanded it.

[HurricaneJosh]

Size matters though. A small four hitting Punta Gorda sucks for them and will cause a lot of impact for them but it is a localized impact near the eye.

This applies to any hurricane, to varying degrees. That is what makes a hurricane unique compared with other kinds of cyclones-- the severe conditions are centralized around the center. Charley was unusually small, but that is what a hurricane is. You get the worst of a hurricane when you get a direct hit.

This is where Saffir is a bit of a fail because it only focuses on the max winds in a very small area but fails to acknowledge the geography of the storm.

The SS scale is an intensity scale. It's not a size scale; it's not a measure of the storm's potential societal impact; it's not a measure of the total energy released. Given this, it serves its function appropriately. That single number was never intended to encapsulate the entire story.

Isabel produced much greater impact over a wider area, even though the worst of worst was not as bad as a Charley. The impacts of being 100 miles away from Charley's eye are different than 100 miles from Isabel.

How do you measure impact? By how many people saw rain from it? Charley caused almost three times the dollar damage of Isabel. Yes, the tiny Cat 4 caused way more damage than the ultra-large Cat 2. Surprise!

I think quantifying max winds without a scale is sufficient...scaling the storm around a 1-5 based on max winds at the eyewall doesn't do the storm's overall size justice.

I disagree. The general public can easily remember and understand a five-point, symbolic, relative scale. I think actual wind speed is harder to remember and understand. For example, the typical person thinks a hurricane with 100-mph winds is really, really bad, because it has the word "hundred" in there.

[Rainshadow]

Though Tony's statement only included New Jersey. I don't know if there were surge deaths in NYC, but my guess is yes, from remembering some of the descriptions I heard.

It doesn't include the five northeastern counties. Josh is right considering the population at risk, the number was low. It wasn't zero though, we have to keep working at it.

[HurricaneJosh]

Re: conveying surge threats vs. conveying wind threats...

A typical coastal resident usually knows their elevation, in feet, above sea level. Given this, giving an actual surge prediction, in feet, makes sense.

A typical coastal resident does not know exactly what wind speed will cause structural failure. So, wind speed in mph is a rather abstract value to the average joe. Given this, helping them understand the threat with a symbolic scale that expresses relative wind intensity makes sense. When they hear "4", they know that's really high on a finite, five-point scale.

[isohume]

There was a reason surge was dropped from SS by NHC, obviously Isohumes customers demanded it.

True, the storm surge estimates with the old scale was failing to meet customer's needs of more accurate storm surge progs. Katrina was a good case where it failed (under estimated) and post analysis showed the need for better SS estimates. Haha no really, actually it was a weenie on a msg board that got that change done.

[HurricaneJosh]

Again...

Of these significant USA landfalls from the last few decades, which SS landfall assignments seem wrong or misleading? Gustav 2, Dolly 1, Humberto 1, Wilma 3, Ivan 3, Charley 4, Isabel 2, Floyd 2, Fran 3, Opal 3, Andrew 5, Hugo 4, Gloria 2 in NC and 1 in NY, Alicia 3, Frederic 3, David 2, Eloise 3.

The only two I can think of where the scale might have inadequately expressed the threat were Katrina and Ike-- but even with those:

* Katrina was a 5 up until pretty close to landfall and was still pushing a 5 surge and, that aside, the main tragedy was caused by an engineering failure in an extremely vulnerable region-- not the storm's inensity. If that exact same storm hit the E coast of FL, it would have been Jeanne II.

* Ike was just below the Cat-3 threshold.

[phlwx]

How do you measure impact? By how many people saw rain from it? Charley caused almost three times the dollar damage of Isabel. Yes, the tiny Cat 4 caused way more damage than the ultra-large Cat 2. Surprise!

...and Irene as a Cat 1 and Ike as a 2 were costlier than Charley.

My Isabel comparison was a poor one on dollars, I didn't have a chance to look at the damage # since I was not in a spot where I could, but my point stands that simply looking at max wind speed and nothing else is not a good representation of what a storm's impact is. While SS is an intensity scale, it only measure max winds in a small spot...not wind radii of either TS or cane winds. Those need to be considered as part of the equation when it comes to public consumption.

Saffir shouldn't be used for public consumption (ie TV, radio) since it's more about impact...and Saffir doesn't capture that. Sandy as a hybrid 1 is more expensive than anything other than Katrina.

[HurricaneJosh]

...and Irene as a Cat 1 and Ike as a 2 were costlier than Charley.

We're getting off topic here. Is hurricane intensity measured in dollars? Is it measured by how many cities/people are in the path? I'm really confused here by what you think an intensity scale is.

My Isabel comparison was a poor one on dollars, I didn't have a chance to look at the damage # since I was not in a spot where I could, but my point stands that simply looking at max wind speed and nothing else is not a good representation of what a storm's impact is. While SS is an intensity scale, it only measure max winds in a small spot...not wind radii of either TS or cane winds. Those need to be considered as part of the equation when it comes to public consumption.

Which is exactly why those things are expressed in public advisories! What are we arguing about here? No single number is going to magically express all of a storm's unique qualities.

Saffir shouldn't be used for public consumption (ie TV, radio) since it's more about impact...and Saffir doesn't capture that.

Huh? Whom do you think the SS scale was designed for? It isn't for scientists (or people like us) who understand the complexity of cyclone intensity. It's for the public, who need a simple, easy-to-remember way of understanding intensity.

I'm not going to retype my posts above which address exactly this topic.

But, again, a number that expresses overall destructive potential by blending size and intensity is interesting to insurance adjusters and physicists, and completely useless to residents. And such an approach would leave people in the path of a 120-kt microcane grossly unprepared.

[HurricaneJosh]

The crux of the problem here is that folks are conflating 1) intensity and 2) cumulative societal impact.

An intensity scale indicates intensity-- not size, not gale radius, not number of people threatened, not whether I95 cities are in the path, not the slope of the coastline, not the angle of the cyclone's approach, not whether the cyclone hits at high tide, not whether the surge is augmented by bays and inlets, not the quality of housing construction in the stricken area, not whether the stricken area is below sea level, not whether the stricken area has faulty levees, not whether the cyclone is slow-moving, not whether the cyclone has exceptionally heavy rainfall, etc. etc. etc.

An intensity scale indicates intensity-- nothing more.