Certain Death Warnings

[Mike Peregrine]

[MODS - my apologies if this is in the wrong spot. Can be moved to the tropics room, if needed.]

This came up in the cane thread, but not really a good place to discuss side points outside the realm of forecasting.

My problem with the phrase "certain death:"

When a hurricane like Ike strikes a place like Galveston/Houston, death on some scale is an almost certainty. Anyone who stays behind puts it all up for risk on the bet of a lifetime.

However, we've seen this warning language escalating over the last few years. Is it really helping? In Katrina:

The National Weather Service's New Orleans/Baton Rouge office issued a vividly worded bulletin predicting that the area would be "uninhabitable for weeks" after "devastating damage" caused by Katrina, which at that time rivaled the intensity of Hurricane Camille.

For the most part, this was accurate and warranted. Most people left ... but at least 1400 of those who stayed behind were left behind permanently when their lives were lost. They were either a) stupid; or b) unable to leave through no fault of their own.

During Rita, Houston's Mayor made similarly worded comments and reminded people of Katrina. Rita ended up being less of a problem, however. Now, you have millions of people in the Houston metro who have an impression (no matter how erroneous it may be) that the tendency during these storms is for the officials and the NHC to over-dramatize or sound alarmist.

Now I think the surge from Ike is going to be monumental. It will knock down a lot of those stilted homes and cause ridiculous damage. Anyone stupid enough to stay in Galveston will be putting their lives on the line. Death will be a certainty for many people. BUT, for officials to extend an alarmist statement can also backfire big time. People can hear that and say "hmph ... yeah, whatever." The effects of the situation can get worse with each passing storm ... particularly storms that end up weakening prior to landfall.

Solution? Convince people of the need to take action by making clear, un-exaggerated, logical arguments instead. Again, half of this is just the stupid media, who continue to insist that creating drama is in everyone's best interests.

Feel free to tear the subject up, but that's just what I'm thinking, anyway.

 

[Mike Deep]

I haven't seen a product like the "URGENT - WEATHER MESSAGE" one issued for Katrina. Did they issue anything of the sort?

All I've noticed is more vivid language in the Hurricane Warning text product. You kind of have to hunt for the line mentioning "certain death" under the storm surge/tide section, though. But man has the media latched on to that sentence. From the way they've played it up, you can tell they really do wish it was the Katrina bulletin all over again.

 

[Adam Lucio]

I agree with what you say, but the reality seems to be as follows [IMO]

When someone dies and/or their properties get washed away. The first thing those left behind will do is look for someone to blame and say things like "we werent informed properly etc etc..." Its kind of sad really, people will never take responsibility...they make the stupid choice to stay, but youll never hear them say on tv "we should have listened to the NWS warnings and left" instead youll get sob stories like "we had no warning, they didnt say it would be this bad"

People will never learn...so the only tactic left is to try and use dramatic emphasis.

in their minds know they tried to warn these fools who wont listen in the end. I guess its a way of cleaning their own conscienses. They cant come under as much criticism either...they did their job and put out the warnings.

 

[Mike Peregrine]

People will never learn...so the only tactic left is to try and use dramatic emphasis.

in their minds know they tried to warn these fools who wont listen in the end. I guess its a way of cleaning their own conscienses. They cant come under as much criticism either...they did their job and put out the warnings.

I think that is the thinking, yes. But it's a tactic that might also end up costing more lives. It's a gamble. Like a chess game, I wonder what will happen the next time there is a move to be made.

I see both sides trying to disclaim responsibility. When people hear warnings, they love to try to buck the system. The stronger the warning, the more they like to buck it. So let 'em ... we have responsibility for ourselves one way or another.

 

[Michael Towers]

The use of “certain death†is alarmist but unfortunately for some people that’s what it takes to get their attention and motivate them to take action. I also think that’s about as clear and logical as one could get in conveying the impending danger. Very similar in that respect to the Tornado Emergency and also carrying with it negative consequences regardless if the warning verifies. If it does verify people may only take action in the future if wording of that type is used again, thinking that if they ain’t talkin’ about certain death this time maybe I can ride it out. Conversely, if it doesn’t verify, there might not be any words strong enough in the future to compel people to heed warnings, let alone take heed of warnings absent such strong language.

The question is, does it really make a difference, and if so, how? Will it save more lives now? Will it cost more lives later? Without knowing the answer to that I’d err on the side of caution and not escalate things by making that statement. And is it really necessary? Isn’t a Hurricane Warning with an order to evacuate enough of an alarm?

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

I think that is the thinking, yes. But it's a tactic that might also end up costing more lives. It's a gamble. Like a chess game, I wonder what will happen the next time there is a move to be made.

I see both sides trying to disclaim responsibility. When people hear warnings, they love to try to buck the system. The stronger the warning, the more they like to buck it. So let 'em ... we have responsibility for ourselves one way or another.

The only reason this kind of terminology is a problem is if it doesn't verify. The terminology looks very likely to verify, so what's the problem? I'd rather be given clear, direct, and non-ambiguous warning about hazards than be given warnings that are wrapped in a velvet glove. The NHC is telling people that if they don't leave the coastal properties, they will die. This is true. I think this is good information for people who are about to die to have so that they can, if at all possible, avoid their own death.

 

[Mike Peregrine]

The question is, does it really make a difference, and if so, how? Will it save more lives now? Will it cost more lives later? Without knowing the answer to that I’d err on the side of caution and not escalate things by making that statement. And is it really necessary? Isn’t a Hurricane Warning with an order to evacuate enough of an alarm?

Exactly. At what point do we decide that escalation isn't doing the trick ... when we are hearing "super duper, you're gonna die and a pox on your offspring" warnings?

Since it sounds like as much as 60% of the population of Galveston have decided to ride this one out, I'm actually thinking the wording didn't motivate a large swath of the population to do anything but buy more party supplies.

 

[Sam Kennedy]

I'm not intending to offend anyone here, but my theory is: This is the way the stupid gene pool cleans itself.

Read more about it here:

http://www.darwinawards.com/



I also do think the warnings are a little over-exaggerated, but people should still listen to them. They said Gustav was going to be the hurricane of the century... but it wasn't. I think it would be better reacting to a false warning, rather than not reacting to a real warning!

 

[Wes Carter]

The sad fact is that in everything we do we have to cater to the stupid among us. I've got a sunshield for my car that says, "Do not drive with sunshield in windshield."

My wife's curling iron has several warnings, one of which says, "For external use only."

Unfortunately, lawyers see the people these warnings are intended for as cash cows. I think Sam Kennedy has the right idea.

 

[Patrick Marsh]

Here's the thing...language like this isn't usually dropped into text products by the NWS on a whim. During the "down season", EMs, NWS WCMs and the regional headquarters discuss what kinds of wording to use in what kinds of situations. There is a good chance that the wording used by the NWS for this event was pre-approved by the local EMs and was dropped into the text products at the request of the EMs.

 

[Shane Adams]

People are stupid. The NHC, NWS, or SPC can't fix that.

 

[Bart_Comstock]

The local Police Chief in Galveston has said that if you are in a mandatory evacuation area and have not left to write your Social Security Number on your forearm so that your body can be easily identified.

 

[Chris Nuttall]

I haven't seen a product like the "URGENT - WEATHER MESSAGE" one issued for Katrina. Did they issue anything of the sort?

The message in question appeared in an HLS for HGX this morning. There's a "URGENT - IMMEDIATE BROADCAST REQUESTED" line in the header. The "certain death" quote certainly (pun intended) has been played up by the media today. Here's what it actually said:

[FONT=lucida sans typewriter, lucida console, courier]PERSONS NOT HEEDING EVACUATION ORDERS IN SINGLE FAMILY ONE OR TWO STORY HOMES MAY FACE CERTAIN DEATH. MANY RESIDENCES OF AVERAGE CONSTRUCTION DIRECTLY ON THE COAST WILL BE DESTROYED. WIDESPREAD AND DEVASTATING PERSONAL PROPERTY DAMAGE IS LIKELY ELSEWHERE. VEHICLES LEFT BEHIND WILL LIKELY BE SWEPT AWAY. NUMEROUS ROADS WILL BE SWAMPED...SOME MAY BE WASHED AWAY BY THE WATER. ENTIRE FLOOD PRONE COASTAL COMMUNITIES WILL BE CUTOFF. WATER LEVELS MAY EXCEED 9 FEET FOR MORE THAN A MILE INLAND.[/FONT]

Homes in the interior of Galveston Island are not built on stilts and are not designed to withstand a storm surge. That's what the sea wall is supposed to prevent. Also, the statement said "MAY" face death. I mean, how else are you supposed to emphasize the potential impact.

Personally, I think the enhanced wording is fine...as long as it is used sparingly. I remember reading the bulletin from New Orleans in 2005. I'll never forget one line in particular: "HUMAN SUFFERING WILL BE INCREDIBLE BY MODERN STANDARDS." People just don't get it unless their told straight up. Even then, I remember someone stranded on a bridge yelling at TV cameras, "This is the United States! Stuff like this can't happen here! We're not a third-world country!"

Sometimes in extreme events, extreme measures need to be taken. Yes, people will ignore it. Yes, if it doesn't happen, more people are probably going to ignore the next one. Stubbornness is human nature. If the event happens and the language isn't there, the crap will hit the fan, "They didn't tell us it would be like this!"

 

[rdale]

My concern - what if people survive? 40% of Galveston didn't evacuate -- and what if any of them survive? What if he turns or the surge isn't that bad? How do you evacuate next time? Tell them "we REALLY REALLY mean it now"?

Just tell people the facts. Leave the "will die" stuff off, and remind them of Katrina.

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

My concern - what if people survive? 40% of Galveston didn't evacuate -- and what if any of them survive? What if he turns or the surge isn't that bad? How do you evacuate next time? Tell them "we REALLY REALLY mean it now"?

Just tell people the facts. Leave the "will die" stuff off, and remind them of Katrina.

If a 20 to 25 foot storm surge into Galveston isn't the time to pull out the OMFG language, when is?