Should NHC Bump Borderline Cases to Hurricanes?

[bobbutts]

I wish that were true, but it isn't. Southwest Florida was under a Hurricane Warning for Charlie in 2004, but the official track took it toward the Tampa area. It turned and hit SW FL...hard. And MANY people there were upset that they weren't "warned". And a lot were unprepared because of the forecast track and all the national talk about Tampa. Yes, NHC was right, TECHNICALLY, but ask the people of SW FL if they were.

Glenn

From my experience living in Port Charlotte for Charley is that most people were totally surprised. I had been preparing for the worst, and hoping for the best, which seems cliche, but I think is very good advice in these situations. That was not the case for many my friends and neighbors. At least we were able to hide from the wind and did not have any major structural damage.

The first thing I thought after the storm passed was that many must be dead due to the cat 4 surge. Of course the surge was not realized in that case, but I certainly worry about a similar situation where there is a deadly and unexpected surge.

[OceanStWx]

Some of my favorite phone calls to take.

I'm with you there.

And it's pointless to haggle over kts or mph now as they went and upgraded it. It was always forecast to become a hurricane prior to landfall, and now it has, pretty much in line with NHC's forecast from the beginning.

[Jim Marusak]

one of the other drivers i would think in the technical side of all of this is the impact on insurance companies. I'm not saying the NHC would care about them, because life is more important. but I am sure that more than a few policies in the property insurance side of things have special coverages that kick in for hurricanes that wouldn't be in place for a tropical storm. so changing what is called a hurricane/typhoon/cyclone would be a big headache for them.

[hurricaneschwartz]

And now it's a hurricane. Officially

[OceanStWx]

From my experience living in Port Charlotte for Charley is that most people were totally surprised. I had been preparing for the worst, and hoping for the best, which seems cliche, but I think is very good advice in these situations. That was not the case for many my friends and neighbors. At least we were able to hide from the wind and did not have any major structural damage.

The first thing I thought after the storm passed was that many must be dead due to the cat 4 surge. Of course the surge was not realized in that case, but I certainly worry about a similar situation where there is a deadly and unexpected surge.

That is probably the number one area where this country lags in the warning process. There is very little preparation for these high impact events.

[Voyager]

The fact remains that tropical storm versus hurricane does not change the forecast that people are being given. They are being told to prepare for a hurricane. The public has been warned to expect a low end hurricane. This isn't a case of severe thunderstorm versus tornado warning, because they are in fact being warned for a hurricane.

True, and Hurricane Warnings have been up for a couple of days now, but the public will probably think something along these lines: "Oh it's still just a Tropical Storm, guess it's not as bad as they thought it would be"...all the while not realizing that the storm is indeed close to if not actually a true hurricane. Keep in mind, I'm not saying it should be bumped up for no reason, but if most of the data suggests it's a low end 'cane, call it as such.

[CandymanColumbusGA]

Just throwing this out there... What if there aren't any hurricane force winds recorded on shore with Isaac? What then? They're being cautious with classifying this a hurricane for this reason, IMO. It's odd they didn't mention the dropsonde in the discussion, but none of the other surface obs (buoys, oil rigs, etc.) have been near 65 kts so I'm OKAY with them not bumping it up.

IF the local meteorologists are smart, then they'd be hyping the flooding and storm surge with this system, not so much the winds. When people hear 8-12 feet for storm surge, I'm sure people will listen! When someone hears 12-18" of rain, people listen. Yes, there's the whole psychological effect of hearing Hurricane vs. Tropical Storm but I think the point become a bit more muted when hearing the other impacts Isaac will have along the Gulf Coast.

[Cory]

NHC Director Rick Knabb on TWC explaining how people take it more seriously when it's actually called a hurricane. Good timing.

[mike2010]

10 years ago, it definately would of been classified a Hurricane already.

But since they know we're all 'watching'... the last thing they wanna do is classify it as a Hurricane at the 11am advisory....only to downgrade it to a TS at the 2pm advisory. (because of borderline criteria)

[greg ralls]

This is a great thread - enjoying the respectful back & forth intelligent discussion.

[MGorse]

My latest tweets:

Glenn Schwartz‏@HurricaneNBC10

Isaac still "technically" a Trop. Storm. In the old days, this would clearly have been upgraded. "Pure science" like this is misleading

Glenn Schwartz‏@HurricaneNBC10

In hurricane coverage, public communication is as important as being scientifically precise. Virtually no one would have argued if upgraded

"Not just flight level winds impressive. Surface winds too. When I was at NHC, they would often exaggerate for effect. "Hurricane"gets action"

IF Isaac continues to strengthen this aftn, this decision, in retrospect, will be clearly wrong. Each NHC director has a different philosophy, and apparently the new philosophy is to be scientifically precise, regardless of the consequences. I can think of many occasions in the past where being precise would have been a BIG mistake.

Glenn

I think it has to be more on the communication side to the public and users regarding a tropical storm that is nearly a hurricane. While people probably react more to a hurricane compared to a tropical storm, Issac was forecast to become a hurricane for days and hurricane warnings have been in effect for awhile. Hitting the points about the impacts from a strong tropical storm/low end hurricane is I think more important instead of questioning about upgrading it because it is close enough. After more data was given, the NHC upgraded Issac to a hurricane. From the coverage I have see so far, the message about the impacts (surge and tons of rain/inland flooding) have been good. I saw an interview around midday today on TWC with the MIC of the NWS office in Slidell, LA. The information that was given I thought was done well. In the field of Meteorology, forecasters still struggle at times in getting the message out with discussions still ongoing regarding improvements and other methods of doing so. This I think is improving with the NWS making some changes and getting on board with social media. Of course the NWS cannot do all of this without the help from the partners, such as the private sector and media. Interesting discussion.

[Rick G]

The discussion is academic now, but in the future, why not pull the trigger at 70 mph (60 knots)? most of the devistation in NO after Katrina was due to the flooding. The point that "people look for a way to avoid a warning" is so true. Media hype doesn't help either. People need either a good education on what happens in a storm or then need to be taught a hard lesson. Unfortunately lessons like Katrina will be forgotten in a few years.

[Dunkman]

Apparently the evidence required for a bump from 70 to 75 is much greater than that required for a bump from 75 to 80.

[MGorse]

Apparently the evidence required for a bump from 70 to 75 is much greater than that required for a bump from 75 to 80.

It looks like the 5 PM NHC discussion really did not dive into the details for bumping the winds up a bit more (it was mentioned more on the internal conference/coordination call).

[Dark Energy]

To go back to the movie JAWS, the mayor said “you hear a barracuda is in the water, people say, what’s that? But if you say Shark! Then it’s a whole other ballgame. I was just talking to my pops and he was saying "I've never heard so much talk about just a TS". I know that SPC has issued svr tstm watches in the NYC metro area around holidays even tho the threat was marginal. This was explained in their disco because "it was a holiday and it seemed right to highlight the threat", etc. With this being a setup between saying a hurricane vice TS, i still think a bump to a hurricane would have worked best. IMHO.

[phlwx]

I think too many obsess more about the title in front of the storm than actually look at the storm itself. If Isaac had remained 70 mph for max winds it would have still been a high impact event due to its size. 10 mph of additional wind doesn't help, obviously, but the storm's size, slow movement, and the location of the storm along the Gulf Coast are all components that make for a bad scenario no matter how it's sliced. That's where educating the public on TV, media, and through NHC advisories works...and the NHC was very good about talking about this being a large impact event due to size despite the winds not being of 'cane force.

I'm glad the NHC was prudent in upgrading the storm and merely didn't pull the trigger. If the storm is not generating 74 mph winds at the surface, it isn't a "hurricane" by definition. As of now, that's the way the ball rolls and I think it's better to be scientifically accurate than to merely change the title in order to get a "zomg" reaction from the public and the media.

Maybe it's better to dump the TS/Hurricane designation and label them all tropical cyclones. Use gale warnings for the lower impact areas, storm warning in moderate, and "landfall or high impact" warning designation in the "worst of the worst" areas. I think that tropical storm/hurricane designation does trip folks up into thinking that a 70 mph tropical storm isn't *as bad* as a 75 mph hurricane simply because of the title. Five mph is not a huge difference.

[U_Thant]

Perhaps this could be considered slightly OT, but this discussion could be expanded to include how to operationally treat hybrid systems such as the one that struck our CWA on 9 October of last year - i.e how much "tropicality" does a surface low have to acquire for it to have advisories initialized as a STC vs a non-tropical low or gale center, and, perhaps slightly less importantly, a full-blown TC versus a STC. There are some who think they were hit by a TS, and for all practical purposes, they were...at least they were hit by about 6 hours of TS conditions (wind/seas/surf) - after being lashed with 2 days of what I would call near gale conditions in strong gradient winds.

Sensible weather conditions were covered by the traditional (non-tropical) NWS product suite such as wind advisories, high wind warnings and high surf advisories over land areas, and gale and storm warnings over the Atlantic. When is the time to make the jump, esepcially in a fast breaking scenario that is bound to be temporally brief, as it was in this case.

[isohume]

No, wait until it's actually a hurricane. Otherwise, folks would eventually be crying that borderline TS's be named and that borderline majors be elevated. It'd all get fuzzy and dumb real quick.

However, I do think hurricane statements should be made more clear and definitive. Something like...

"A HURRICANE WARNING IS EFFECT FOR BLAH BLAH....SERIOUS...A HURRICANE WARNING IS IN EFFECT FOR BLAH BLAH...REALLY NOT KIDDING...A HURRICANE WARNING IS IN EFFECT FOR BLAH BLAH..."

[OceanStWx]

To go back to the movie JAWS, the mayor said “you hear a barracuda is in the water, people say, what’s that? But if you say Shark! Then it’s a whole other ballgame. I was just talking to my pops and he was saying "I've never heard so much talk about just a TS". I know that SPC has issued svr tstm watches in the NYC metro area around holidays even tho the threat was marginal. This was explained in their disco because "it was a holiday and it seemed right to highlight the threat", etc. With this being a setup between saying a hurricane vice TS, i still think a bump to a hurricane would have worked best. IMHO.

True that people react more appropriately to a hurricane, but in the example of a watch, hurricane watches (then warnings) were issued.

So it's not like they ignored that threat, they went with hurricane watches because they expected hurricane conditions.

[Clinch Leatherwood]

No, wait until it's actually a hurricane. Otherwise, folks would eventually be crying that borderline TS's be named and that borderline majors be elevated. It'd all get fuzzy and dumb real quick.

However, I do think hurricane statements should be made more clear and definitive. Something like...

"A HURRICANE WARNING IS EFFECT FOR BLAH BLAH....SERIOUS...A HURRICANE WARNING IS IN EFFECT FOR BLAH BLAH...REALLY NOT KIDDING...A HURRICANE WARNING IS IN EFFECT FOR BLAH BLAH..."

This is already what is happening though. I'm glad they've gone back to being more of a stickler. This storm as of yet hasn't produced sustained hurricane force winds on land has it? That's the criteria and in the end their caution was well founded. People forget they drop in the worst areas to get MAXIMUM winds. If that's a tiny area and not consistent I can see why they don't jump. It'd be like forecasting a snowstorm for an entire region based on an upslope region 50 miles away from a metro area that gets dumped on.

[jacindc]

On the other hand, listen to Billy Nungesser in Plaquemines Parish, about how shocked he is about what he's seeing from "just" a Category 1 (and he had ridden out Katrina down there).

I'm guessing the story will be told of a lot of people down there who chose not to evacuate (despite the "mandatory" order) because it was just a Category 1. And also probably because it had stayed a tropical storm for so long.

[Quincy]

If after a re-analysis, it looks like NHC did the scientifically correct thing, then I would support their decision to not upgrade the storm. I think what drove some of us crazy was the fact that some winds aloft and analysis data indicated that the storm may have been stronger than the official NHC statement(s).

[Clinch Leatherwood]

On the other hand, listen to Billy Nungesser in Plaquemines Parish, about how shocked he is about what he's seeing from "just" a Category 1 (and he had ridden out Katrina down there).

I'm guessing the story will be told of a lot of people down there who chose not to evacuate (despite the "mandatory" order) because it was just a Category 1. And also probably because it had stayed a tropical storm for so long.

He's shocked because for the last decade or more we've inflated storms. This is just a weak category 1 in terms of winds...if that. But they can do tremendous damage still. If people aren't smart enough to evacuate when a storm is coming shame on them. I live in an area that will get leveled the next time an 80-100mph hurricane hits from Islip to New Bedford. I'll be long gone before the storm gets to the Carolinas when that day comes regardless of what NOAA is telling me. I hate the idea of inflating storms to protect the stupid. Sounds harsh, but if you've got a storm coming you move, plain and simple.

[JamieOber]

Excellent thread, Glenn. Having worked in weather communications (as communications manager at AccuWx), I can say that communicating weather hazards are a huge, huge challenge. General thoughts:

- As for the science/technicalities vs. communications to the public debate, the debate ends with the mission and vision of the NHC as to what their job is. It is quite clear. From their site: Mission (Why We Exist) - To save lives, mitigate property loss, and improve economic efficiency by issuing the best watches, warnings, forecasts and analyses of hazardous tropical weather, and by increasing understanding of these hazards. Vision (What We Hope to Achieve) - To be America's calm, clear and trusted voice in the eye of the storm, and, with our partners, enable communities to be safe from tropical weather threats.

- Given the mission, you have to bracket out your own thoughts here. We are an extremely small portion of the general public; the overwhelming majority do not care if it looks great on satellite, has a pretty eye, etc. They want to know if they are going to have to evacuate and whether they are going to lose everything. When a hurricane is making landfall, the NHC's sole responsibility is to them. So....that said.....

- We go back to the challenge of communicating risk to the public - a public who has minimal understanding of tropical systems compared to us, and often has ideas about weather that are outright myths. One of those myths is forecasters are NEVER correct. that one person said is true - people will look for any excuse to think it won't be bad and not to take action. You have to kind of rattle people's cages to get them to act. The flipside, of course, is being careful about creating perceptions and expectations for future storms; as in declaring something a hurricane and it's not that bad. Then you back to that whole myth thing....because in the public mind, often they do not differentiate between storms. If Isaac was a dud, it wouldn't matter if in a month a Camille redux was approaching the coast....you'd hear a lot of "well back when Isaac was around they said it would be bad and it wasn't so I'm not leaving."

- To communicate risks, you have to hit on statistics, and hit them hard. Someone mentioned surge and flooding as being the top two killers, and not wind. Of course wind is terrible but there have been "mere" tropical storms that have killed more than some hurricanes.

- There in lies a big challenge...how do you make people take a Cat 1 seriously. For starters, jiminy Christmas, TV people need to can the "only a Category 1" stuff. I hear that a lot. And there has to be a communications middle ground when a storm is weakening. I have read about studies that said people heard Katrina was weakening so they didn't take it serious. I do hear a fair amount of people on-air now hit the "still dangerous" verbage when a storm is losing some punch.

I think it has to be more on the communication side to the public and users regarding a tropical storm that is nearly a hurricane. While people probably react more to a hurricane compared to a tropical storm, Issac was forecast to become a hurricane for days and hurricane warnings have been in effect for awhile. Hitting the points about the impacts from a strong tropical storm/low end hurricane is I think more important instead of questioning about upgrading it because it is close enough. After more data was given, the NHC upgraded Issac to a hurricane. From the coverage I have see so far, the message about the impacts (surge and tons of rain/inland flooding) have been good. I saw an interview around midday today on TWC with the MIC of the NWS office in Slidell, LA. The information that was given I thought was done well. In the field of Meteorology, forecasters still struggle at times in getting the message out with discussions still ongoing regarding improvements and other methods of doing so. This I think is improving with the NWS making some changes and getting on board with social media. Of course the NWS cannot do all of this without the help from the partners, such as the private sector and media. Interesting discussion.

I think the NWS is definitely improving.

No, wait until it's actually a hurricane. Otherwise, folks would eventually be crying that borderline TS's be named and that borderline majors be elevated. It'd all get fuzzy and dumb real quick.

However, I do think hurricane statements should be made more clear and definitive. Something like...

"A HURRICANE WARNING IS EFFECT FOR BLAH BLAH....SERIOUS...A HURRICANE WARNING IS IN EFFECT FOR BLAH BLAH...REALLY NOT KIDDING...A HURRICANE WARNING IS IN EFFECT FOR BLAH BLAH..."

Yeah...goes back to the idea of rattling their cage and getting people to take notice.

He's shocked because for the last decade or more we've inflated storms. This is just a weak category 1 in terms of winds...if that. But they can do tremendous damage still. If people aren't smart enough to evacuate when a storm is coming shame on them. I live in an area that will get leveled the next time an 80-100mph hurricane hits from Islip to New Bedford. I'll be long gone before the storm gets to the Carolinas when that day comes regardless of what NOAA is telling me. I hate the idea of inflating storms to protect the stupid. Sounds harsh, but if you've got a storm coming you move, plain and simple.

Well, trust me, I hear what you are saying but then the NHC wouldn't be doing their job. See their Mission/Vision.

[Clinch Leatherwood]

Excellent thread, Glenn. Having worked in weather communications (as communications manager at AccuWx), I can say that communicating weather hazards are a huge, huge challenge. General thoughts:

- As for the science/technicalities vs. communications to the public debate, the debate ends with the mission and vision of the NHC as to what their job is. It is quite clear. From their site: Mission (Why We Exist) - To save lives, mitigate property loss, and improve economic efficiency by issuing the best watches, warnings, forecasts and analyses of hazardous tropical weather, and by increasing understanding of these hazards. Vision (What We Hope to Achieve) - To be America's calm, clear and trusted voice in the eye of the storm, and, with our partners, enable communities to be safe from tropical weather threats.

- Given the mission, you have to bracket out your own thoughts here. We are an extremely small portion of the general public; the overwhelming majority do not care if it looks great on satellite, has a pretty eye, etc. They want to know if they are going to have to evacuate and whether they are going to lose everything. When a hurricane is making landfall, the NHC's sole responsibility is to them. So....that said.....

- We go back to the challenge of communicating risk to the public - a public who has minimal understanding of tropical systems compared to us, and often has ideas about weather that are outright myths. One of those myths is forecasters are NEVER correct. that one person said is true - people will look for any excuse to think it won't be bad and not to take action. You have to kind of rattle people's cages to get them to act. The flipside, of course, is being careful about creating perceptions and expectations for future storms; as in declaring something a hurricane and it's not that bad. Then you back to that whole myth thing....because in the public mind, often they do not differentiate between storms. If Isaac was a dud, it wouldn't matter if in a month a Camille redux was approaching the coast....you'd hear a lot of "well back when Isaac was around they said it would be bad and it wasn't so I'm not leaving."

- To communicate risks, you have to hit on statistics, and hit them hard. Someone mentioned surge and flooding as being the top two killers, and not wind. Of course wind is terrible but there have been "mere" tropical storms that have killed more than some hurricanes.

- There in lies a big challenge...how do you make people take a Cat 1 seriously. For starters, jiminy Christmas, TV people need to can the "only a Category 1" stuff. I hear that a lot. And there has to be a communications middle ground when a storm is weakening. I have read about studies that said people heard Katrina was weakening so they didn't take it serious. I do hear a fair amount of people on-air now hit the "still dangerous" verbage when a storm is losing some punch.

I think the NWS is definitely improving.

Yeah...goes back to the idea of rattling their cage and getting people to take notice.

Well, trust me, I hear what you are saying but then the NHC wouldn't be doing their job. See their Mission/Vision.

Jamie you are absolutely right about the media. Instead of focusing on what category level they should have been hammering potentially record storm surge flooding and rains. NHC was forecasting massive storm surges all along but focus didn't really seem to be on that this time. I don't know how they handle it to be honest, tough situation.

[Dunkman]

I would think most of the outrage/confusion was due to the fact that they clearly changed their standards in some way. Observations that we are accustomed to meaning one thing no longer did. It could have been something as simple as having more rigorous requirements for this storm at this time since there was pretty much recon in it then entire time from Cuba to LA. So, perhaps they felt that the argument that they may not have sampled the strongest winds was not valid. It could also be that the new director changed the requirements. In the past the requirements for an upgrade seemed to be that there was evidence that there could be hurricane force surface winds. For this storm the requirements seemed to be irrefutable proof that there were hurricane force winds at the surface. Personally I don't mind, but if they did change the requirements it probably would have been a good idea to communicate that in some way.

[bobbutts]

The SS scale, with it's exclusive focus on wind speed, is not only too simple to describe tropical cyclones overall, it fails to convey a consistently accurate level of danger. Katrina is an easy example for me, it's deadly 27' surge into populated areas should have come with the highest level of warning (just talking about the MS coast).

[Entropy]

The problem with now getting super technical about the definition is that people have come to rely upon the more liberal criteria used in the past. This same phenomenon is present in comparing tornadoes today to those of yesteryear. Dr. Forbes discussed this in his post mortem of the April 2011 tornado outbreak. The criteria used to evaluate tornado category is materially different than that used to evaluate past events, even with the Enhanced Fujita scale. An F5 tornado from 1974 might be classified as an EF-3 today based on better knowledge of wind speeds required to produce damage. An F5 tornado from 2002, however, would be roughly equivalent to an EF-5 today.

Fortunately, in the case of tornadoes, people pretty much take heed regardless of whether it turns out to be an F0 or an F5. In fact, except for certain cases, the warnings seldom mention the severity of the possible tornado. But with tropical storms, people have come to rely on their past experiences. I saw one global warming skeptic blog claim this was a 45-mph storm based on surface observations. Anybody who read that would wrongly assume this was no big deal based on their past experiences with weak to moderately intense storms. My point is that if, under past conventions, a tropical storm or borderline hurricane produced little damage, that may not necessarily be the case under a super strict, definition-based convention. This would be especially true if the damage from Isaac turns out to be on par with past Category 2 or 3 storms. Perhaps an Enhanced Saffir-Simpson scale should be instituted for continuity purposes?

[Indystorm]

Definitely should call a hurricane when things are this close. If they can wait ten years to get the science right and reclassify Hurricane Andrew as a Category 5 I don't think that calling a borderline tropical storm that meets some but not all parameters a hurricane is going to make all that difference.