New Hurricane Scale?
- Thread starter rdale
- Start date
Jason Foster
Scale is fine....fix the communications from public agencies.
I've heard many things from NWS staff, and other meteorologists as rumor that there have been discussions about a different rating system. This apparently will be a large focus for the upcoming Hurricane Conference in 2009
My opinion is that the Saffir-Simpson scale was a scientific scale set for the parameters exhibited by the tropical storm which is rated by that system. The failure is in that too many people focus on the scale as some variable to prepare for that is lumped into 5 broad divisions. The important part for the public, government and emergency agencies is to relay the proper information and instruction for residences and businesses to prepare for correctly. It is obvious, just as with tornadoes, it all depends on where and how a tropical system hits the land to which it is affecting and what the loss of life and or property is. Since Ike is the hot topic right now for this discussion (as is Katrina I'm sure), Ike, if traveled more to the east, and missed Galveston, this discussion likely would not be made.
I don't think there is a "failure" of the Saffir-Simpson scale. There is a failure of government and public agencies to properly prepare people. There is a failure of people to properly respond to the warnings they are given.
I've heard many things from NWS staff, and other meteorologists as rumor that there have been discussions about a different rating system. This apparently will be a large focus for the upcoming Hurricane Conference in 2009
My opinion is that the Saffir-Simpson scale was a scientific scale set for the parameters exhibited by the tropical storm which is rated by that system. The failure is in that too many people focus on the scale as some variable to prepare for that is lumped into 5 broad divisions. The important part for the public, government and emergency agencies is to relay the proper information and instruction for residences and businesses to prepare for correctly. It is obvious, just as with tornadoes, it all depends on where and how a tropical system hits the land to which it is affecting and what the loss of life and or property is. Since Ike is the hot topic right now for this discussion (as is Katrina I'm sure), Ike, if traveled more to the east, and missed Galveston, this discussion likely would not be made.
I don't think there is a "failure" of the Saffir-Simpson scale. There is a failure of government and public agencies to properly prepare people. There is a failure of people to properly respond to the warnings they are given.
IAN GIAMMANCO
EF0
The Safir-Simpson scale does have it issues. First of all, it represents a 1-min peak wind anywhere in the cyclone for any terrain exposure which is inherently difficult to measure or quantify based on differing observing platforms (e.g. SFMR or Dropsondes or flight level winds, NHC makes assumptions about the true averaging times or adjustments). It also does not account for storm size, assymetries in the wind field, bathymetry of the coastline etc etc (can go on and on)... all of which are part of the entire potential impact of a tropical cyclone. Interestingly, since universities began deploying mobile instrumentation into landfalling tropical cyclones, there have been only a 1 or 2 hurricanes which actually met their official intensity overland at landfall. Although until recently there have been very few observations along the immediate shoreline, and we also don't have a good handle on the changes in roughness at the land-sea interface.
I do think Mark and Tim's paper is a good step toward an addition to accompany a SS rating, and it is very similar in numerical values (continous 0-6 as oppposed to 1-5) to the current rating scale which is beneficial when explaining it to the general public. I do believe this addition would provide quality additional information regarding the potential impacts from the different facets of a tropical storm to emergency management as well as media outlets. But public perception is always a difficult issue to tackle. Most people just revert to their historical experiences (e.g Katrina and Camille). For Ike it seemed to be Rita for some, or Carla.
As a side note, I also seem to think sometimes that maybe the cone provided by NHC should represent forecast uncertainity rather than a standard error... but that may put too much stock in model guidance which is better but still far from perfect.
just my two cents or fifty or whatever. This is a interesting issue and was brought up after Katrina (which prompted Mark and Tim's paper)and i think Ike reiterated the need to include more specific impact ratings (not just text wording) in official products
I do think Mark and Tim's paper is a good step toward an addition to accompany a SS rating, and it is very similar in numerical values (continous 0-6 as oppposed to 1-5) to the current rating scale which is beneficial when explaining it to the general public. I do believe this addition would provide quality additional information regarding the potential impacts from the different facets of a tropical storm to emergency management as well as media outlets. But public perception is always a difficult issue to tackle. Most people just revert to their historical experiences (e.g Katrina and Camille). For Ike it seemed to be Rita for some, or Carla.
As a side note, I also seem to think sometimes that maybe the cone provided by NHC should represent forecast uncertainity rather than a standard error... but that may put too much stock in model guidance which is better but still far from perfect.
just my two cents or fifty or whatever. This is a interesting issue and was brought up after Katrina (which prompted Mark and Tim's paper)and i think Ike reiterated the need to include more specific impact ratings (not just text wording) in official products
MClarkson
EF5
Why not simply officially expand the SS scale to include surge? IE "Katrina landfell with cat 5 storm surge". "Ike, due to its unusually large windfield, produced category 4 or 5 surge while never getting above cat 2 winds". Unofficially we use language like this all the time. While I do like the idea of really detailed scales, like Integrated Kinetic Energy, for technical discussion, the public and government needs a warning scale that is simple and easy. They have enough trouble listening to evacuation warnings allready, no need to confuse them more.
MClarkson
EF5
I just dont like it when people are like "Katrina was only a cat 3 at landfall". Its misleading, as the surge was higher than any other storm in recorded Atlantic history. Officially the SS scale measures only wind speed, but we all know surge can be even more deadly. If the one scale is going to be universally applied to all hurricanes it should consider both wind and surge. The SS scale allready has guidelines for typical surge, I'm just saying make it official... a cane's category should be based on the higher of the two.
Last edited by a moderator:
MClarkson
EF5
Surge does vary by location a lot, but so does wind speed. Miami and Cancun will get less surge due to their bathymetry, but at the sime time they are more exposed to warmer water and are more likely to take higher wind hits. The uncertainty of track forecast is just as pronounced in wind forecasts... as the same jog from right side eyewall to just off the weak side eyewall(which in some storms is a very small distance) is often the difference between getting drilled and hardly getting hit at all.
If a storm is expected to drive before it 18+ foot surge, the public should consider it a Category 5. It is just as dangerous, if not more so, than 155+ mph sustained winds.
If a storm is expected to drive before it 18+ foot surge, the public should consider it a Category 5. It is just as dangerous, if not more so, than 155+ mph sustained winds.
Shane Adams
Been waiting for this...if they changed the tornado scale then naturally the old SS scale would have to comply as well...otherwise one of them is scientifically-inaccurate 
Shane Young
EF1
Idealistic and almost silly to me.
Tornado intensity doesn't include width or path length. These obviously matter and we take note of them too, but intensity is intensity.
richhorodner has a very good point.
And to extend upon it, those of us here in Florida... after last year... maybe we should include rainfall dangers too? How about tornado possibility? Or the population in the area it will hit (after all, the writer complains about Ike being only cat 2 and being third costliest in history... but I don't think it was nearly as affected by size as populace)?
After all isn't the point of this movement to somehow take every last piece of data and turn it into one value?
Seems kinda absurd. The data is out there and well publicized. And in general the broadcast media does an excellent job disseminating the key information on dangers.
I think the people who get totally decimated by 150 mph in a tiny hurricane would have a rather large complaint to the storm being considered equivalent to large a 120 mph storm.
IKE/ACE already give us a picture... and show us the failings... one "overall" value can have. And they are much more scientific than the amalgamated scale suggested here. Who's to say size and intensity are equally important? Or that the scales should be linearly related?
Also of very important note... the blog seems to compare a bunch of category 5 hurricanes. What is apparently neglected for mention is that the HSI values aren't all at peak intensity. The Powell/Reinhold paper suggests a cat 5 must have a minimum intensity scaling of 22.. yet Wilma is listed at cat 5 and only 16.
Upon further review, the table from the blog is actually a strange mix of the tables in the paper. I'd suggest looking at the paper, it's much more interesting. http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/135054.pdf
Ian brings up some good points on the TRUE shortcomings to the SS scale... and I also 100% agree that we need to have the cone have some measure of error included. Some storms we know where they are going, others we don't. Let people know that!
Perhaps collecting dangers onto one centralized graphic or loose scale might be worthwhile... similar to what the SPC does. A descriptive category of overall danger, with related graphics for each danger type including numerical forecasts.
But just saying a storm is overall X... that's yet another step backwards. At least now the SS scale doesn't claim to be an overall rating.
BTW, I never heard about this special meeting (though I'm not nearly in the loop as I used to be)... I'm guessing it was just a few guys hanging out.
And Jason, they only hold Hurricane Conferences in even numbered years. The next is in 2010.
Tornado intensity doesn't include width or path length. These obviously matter and we take note of them too, but intensity is intensity.
richhorodner has a very good point.
And to extend upon it, those of us here in Florida... after last year... maybe we should include rainfall dangers too? How about tornado possibility? Or the population in the area it will hit (after all, the writer complains about Ike being only cat 2 and being third costliest in history... but I don't think it was nearly as affected by size as populace)?
After all isn't the point of this movement to somehow take every last piece of data and turn it into one value?
Seems kinda absurd. The data is out there and well publicized. And in general the broadcast media does an excellent job disseminating the key information on dangers.
I think the people who get totally decimated by 150 mph in a tiny hurricane would have a rather large complaint to the storm being considered equivalent to large a 120 mph storm.
IKE/ACE already give us a picture... and show us the failings... one "overall" value can have. And they are much more scientific than the amalgamated scale suggested here. Who's to say size and intensity are equally important? Or that the scales should be linearly related?
Also of very important note... the blog seems to compare a bunch of category 5 hurricanes. What is apparently neglected for mention is that the HSI values aren't all at peak intensity. The Powell/Reinhold paper suggests a cat 5 must have a minimum intensity scaling of 22.. yet Wilma is listed at cat 5 and only 16.
Upon further review, the table from the blog is actually a strange mix of the tables in the paper. I'd suggest looking at the paper, it's much more interesting. http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/135054.pdf
Ian brings up some good points on the TRUE shortcomings to the SS scale... and I also 100% agree that we need to have the cone have some measure of error included. Some storms we know where they are going, others we don't. Let people know that!
Perhaps collecting dangers onto one centralized graphic or loose scale might be worthwhile... similar to what the SPC does. A descriptive category of overall danger, with related graphics for each danger type including numerical forecasts.
But just saying a storm is overall X... that's yet another step backwards. At least now the SS scale doesn't claim to be an overall rating.
BTW, I never heard about this special meeting (though I'm not nearly in the loop as I used to be)... I'm guessing it was just a few guys hanging out.
And Jason, they only hold Hurricane Conferences in even numbered years. The next is in 2010.
Last edited by a moderator:
B Ozanne
EF5
Storm surge is such a local feature it would be difficult to focus on just that aspect.
To make it even more complicated, what if you made adjustments for the area that is being impacted? A super typhoon hitting Taipei causes much less human suffering than a Cat 3 hitting New Orleans or New York. Winter storms are a good example. What qualifies as a winter storm warning in CT would only be a winter weather advisory in Alta, UT.
To make it even more complicated, what if you made adjustments for the area that is being impacted? A super typhoon hitting Taipei causes much less human suffering than a Cat 3 hitting New Orleans or New York. Winter storms are a good example. What qualifies as a winter storm warning in CT would only be a winter weather advisory in Alta, UT.
Joe Dorn
EF2
And Jason, they only hold Hurricane Conferences in even numbered years. The next is in 2010.
Must have been a whole lot of disappointed people in Austin last month after they sent in their $300.00 and spent three or four nights in $150.00 rooms.
This is the only one that I know of that has been held out of the south Florida area. Before someone says this was the Texas Hurricane Conference, usually held in Galveston, it was in San Antonio this year.
I am speculating that the event was held in Austin to have access to some of the people involved in the outstanding Texas hurricane plan.
One day, Tuesday, was open at no charge to amateur radio operators.
