Certain Death Warnings

[Jonathan Garner]

First off, there is no statistical evidence showing that blown forecasts cause people to dismiss future warnings. Surveys have been conducted by the "WAS*IS" folks at UCAR, specifically addressing that point. Regarding the enhanced wording, the job of the National Weather Service is to monitor and interpret the weather data at their disposal, and then provide the public with information that they can use to take *action.* Therefore, I would assume that the data NWS Houston had at their disposal suggested that enhanced wording was necessary...they did their jobs correctly, and provided the residents of Houston/Galveston with information in which they could make well informed decisions, and then act.

 

[rdale]

Just so we're clear - nobody is saying that the NWS shouldn't tell us it will be bad. This is not about busted forecasts.

To say that every NWS meteorologist is smarter than every non-NWS meteorologist is an interesting argument. I'll leave that for another thread

Jonathan - to take your reasoning another step, if the "you will die" language was appropriate, why did they remove that language from later products?

I've read the WASIS stuff, and my experiences from Tornado Warnings seems to agree, but I don't think they've addressed this type of issue.

 

[Terry Tyler]

i have two schools of thought on this one...

1; certain death warnings, or warnings in general that feature those bold, ballzy statements need to verify every time, otherwise i think it turns into abuse...

2; these kind of warnings are good, because when it is certain that a city is going to be in peril, they need to know its not just a run-of-the-mill weather event, but then again...what defines a regular weather event? surely it wont be "certain death" every single time a hurricane makes landfall, it wasnt always that way...

bottom line is, atleast in my opinion...there is a time and a place for these sort of words...a situation such as greensburg, when they know its going to be terrible would be a time to issue such a warning...however, i would advise against issuing a warning like that if there was even %10 doubt that the storm in question might not live up to the wording...

 

[Mike Peregrine]

The trick is knowing when those benchmark moments are going to occur. With Katrina, the language was perfect. Looking back, no one could have nailed it any better. But who knows exactly when all those factors are definitely coming together again on the next storm? I don't think there is any such thing as a forecaster who can make that kind of call consistently. I feel like the better realization is that, even with all of this forecasting technology and experienced forecasters, etc., the atmosphere is just dynamic enough that we still don't know exactly which event is going to become the next Katrina or the next Greensburg until after it happens. If people can be helped to appreciate THAT, then you have something. Because they will realize the inherent risk associated with taking such a large gamble that this particular Cat 2 storm won't suddenly intensify as it spins 50 miles offshore and strike land with the full weight of its fury. I think somehow the general public needs to come to an understanding of the extremely unpredictable nature of weather. We all have it. We understand that if we make a forecast for severe weather in the plains and it does not verify, then hey - that's just the nature of the game. It won't stop us from doing the work next time.

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

It's pretty important to realize that as far as the US is concerned, Ike was NOT a major hurricane. It may have been trying to strengthen at the time of landfall, but as a Category 2, it was nowhere near a Charley, Katrina, or even a Rita.

It may not have been up there in wind intensity, though it was up there in pressure. And considering the current estimate is that the storm did at least $17B in insured damage, I don't think anyone who went through it would write it off as minor. Galveston and Houston certainly could have gotten it worse and may again some day (or may not), but the entire north Texas and southwest LA coast got it pretty hard this time around.

I'm still curious to hear the final death toll; hopefully it remains where it is now. I get the feeling there is still currently a very large information gap in the reporting on this.

 

[Greg Stumpf]

With Katrina, the language was perfect.

I'll differ with that opinion. The Katrina "death warning" never mentioned the two real reasons for the catastrophe - the storm surge and the flooding as a result of levee breaching. Wind damage was a secondary and not-so-severe issue. In the pre-Katrina New Orleans scenarios, it was widely known that the effect of water would be the major impact, due to the vulnerability of the low-lying communities.

I think somehow the general public needs to come to an understanding of the extremely unpredictable nature of weather. We all have it. We understand that if we make a forecast for severe weather in the plains and it does not verify, then hey - that's just the nature of the game.

Agreed. It's hard to second-guess statements like these, however, without being part of the decision-making process. With any higher-certainty forecasts and warnings, I see no reason why enhanced wording should not be used. But it must be emphasized that no forecast can be 100% certain. As an example, the May 3, 1999 tornado could have dissipated soon after the tornado emergency was declared, even though at the time, there was a large and extremely dangerous tornado being tracked live on television. Certainty was 100% at the time the statement was issued, but not 100% beyond the present time. Sill, you take a chance when issuing any enhanced-worded statements because the future is never 100% certain.

Anyway, here is the text from the Katrina warning if folks need their memory jogged:

WWUS74 KLIX 282139
NPWLIX

URGENT - WEATHER MESSAGE
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE NEW ORLEANS LA
413 PM CDT SUN AUG 28 2005

...EXTREMELY DANGEROUS HURRICANE KATRINA CONTINUES TO APPROACH THE
MISSISSIPPI RIVER DELTA...
...DEVASTATING DAMAGE EXPECTED...

MOST OF THE AREA WILL BE UNINHABITABLE FOR WEEKS...PERHAPS LONGER. AT
LEAST ONE HALF OF WELL CONSTRUCTED HOMES WILL HAVE ROOF AND WALL
FAILURE. ALL GABLED ROOFS WILL FAIL...LEAVING THOSE HOMES SEVERELY
DAMAGED OR DESTROYED.

THE MAJORITY OF INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS WILL BECOME NON FUNCTIONAL.
PARTIAL TO COMPLETE WALL AND ROOF FAILURE IS EXPECTED. ALL WOOD
FRAMED LOW RISING APARTMENT BUILDINGS WILL BE DESTROYED. CONCRETE
BLOCK LOW RISE APARTMENTS WILL SUSTAIN MAJOR DAMAGE...INCLUDING SOME
WALL AND ROOF FAILURE.

HIGH RISE OFFICE AND APARTMENT BUILDINGS WILL SWAY DANGEROUSLY...A
FEW TO THE POINT OF TOTAL COLLAPSE. ALL WINDOWS WILL BLOW OUT.

AIRBORNE DEBRIS WILL BE WIDESPREAD...AND MAY INCLUDE HEAVY ITEMS SUCH
AS HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES AND EVEN LIGHT VEHICLES. SPORT UTILITY
VEHICLES AND LIGHT TRUCKS WILL BE MOVED. THE BLOWN DEBRIS WILL CREATE
ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTION. PERSONS...PETS...AND LIVESTOCK EXPOSED TO THE
WINDS WILL FACE CERTAIN DEATH IF STRUCK.

POWER OUTAGES WILL LAST FOR WEEKS...AS MOST POWER POLES WILL BE DOWN
AND TRANSFORMERS DESTROYED. WATER SHORTAGES WILL MAKE HUMAN SUFFERING
INCREDIBLE BY MODERN STANDARDS.

THE VAST MAJORITY OF NATIVE TREES WILL BE SNAPPED OR UPROOTED. ONLY
THE HEARTIEST WILL REMAIN STANDING...BUT BE TOTALLY DEFOLIATED. FEW
CROPS WILL REMAIN. LIVESTOCK LEFT EXPOSED TO THE WINDS WILL BE
KILLED.

AN INLAND HURRICANE WIND WATCH IS ISSUED WHEN SUSTAINED WINDS NEAR
HURRICANE FORCE...OR FREQUENT GUSTS AT OR ABOVE HURRICANE FORCE...ARE
POSSIBLE WITHIN THE NEXT 24 TO 36 HOURS.

 

[Mike Peregrine]

Agreed. It's hard to second-guess statements like these, however, without being part of the decision-making process. With any higher-certainty forecasts and warnings, I see no reason why enhanced wording should not be used. But it must be emphasized that no forecast can be 100% certain. As an example, the May 3, 1999 tornado could have dissipated soon after the tornado emergency was declared, even though at the time, there was a large and extremely dangerous tornado being tracked live on television. Certainty was 100% at the time the statement was issued, but not 100% beyond the present time. Sill, you take a chance when issuing any enhanced-worded statements because the future is never 100% certain.

Exactly - - - storm cycling is a real-time concern that occurs during the heat of battle that I honestly don't know how forecasters and WCMs deal with. Thanks for the post - and for the clarification on Katrina.