Should the Saffir-Simpson Scale Be Abandoned?

[brunota2003]

I don't mind people's names on them. It gives at least some credit where credit is due. I mean, it's not like they opened a cracker jack box and found the scale, and decided to name it after themselves. These scales required many, many hours of study and work to put together, using the latest and greatest information they had at the time.

I think that for assessments after the fact, and while the system is out to sea, it should be ranked by the SSHWS (for record keeping and continuation). Once the system gets close to land, however, all mention of categories should be dropped, in favor for detailed information only.

Now, the problem with all the complaining is that all the information that is needed/wanted by the public is right there in the advisory, and is easily readable/understandable. It is NOT the NHC's job to tell you what is going to happen at your specific house. That isn't even the NWS' job. No one can tell you exactly what is going to happen, that is why we don't see advisories from the NHC (or warnings from the NWS) saying that 13.5 feet of surge is going to happen at Bruno's house. Instead, they say 12 to 15 feet is possible between Morehead City and Havelock. If my house is there, and is only 12 feet ASL, I'm a big boy, and can decide whether or not I want to risk staying.

A big issue with the whole advisory thing is, no matter how it is changed, someone can claim *something* is "buried" within the text, because they don't want to take the extra 30 seconds to read the full text. Even if we did like I suggested, and posted the hazards in a brief description at the top, followed by more detail further down, people would still complain.

The public needs to get over the whole "oh, the government will protect me and tell me to leave, otherwise I'm staying", and grab some responsibility and LEARN. If you live in an area prone to winter storms, you LEARN the supplies you need to survive for up to 2 weeks due to ice. If you live in tornado prone areas, you LEARN safety rules and where to run to if one threatens. If you are prone to flooding, you LEARN what you need to do in order to survive and try your best to save your property. Why should hurricanes be any different?

Okinawa just went through a strong typhoon, and things picked up like almost nothing happened the next day. WHY aren't we like that? And don't say "oh, they deal with typhoons all the time", because the U.S. deals with tropical threats quite a bit, too. Instead, we're complaining that we "don't get enough information", when EVERYTHING we need is RIGHT there in the warnings and advisories! Responsibility is the key! Understanding of things that threaten your LIFE or your families LIFE is NEEDED. Not Storm Surge Warnings...then people will complain they "weren't in the warning, and we got flooded", "I thought the warnings were only for the immediate coast, not 1/2 mile inland", etc.

Ignorance is not bliss when you have a strong tropical system bearing down on you! I'm sick of people trying to push responsibility onto others, or blaming other things, when they are caught with their pants down. It is YOUR responsibility to learn about ALL hazards that could impact your area (weather or otherwise)...and if your neighbors are new to the hurricane zone, why not talk to them about what could happen? Look out for each other, and stop totally relying on the government to tell you that things are going to get bad at your house and you should probably leave!

-jumps off my rant box-

[Florida1118]

EXACTLY. Changing the scale won't do squat imo. Unless you make it 1st grade level with many colors and short words, the public will not understand it; just a fact. Combining scales or making surge added into the SSHWS won't do squat either imo. Honestly unless you go door to door and explain to people, they wont care. Its the same old info to them. The current scale is fine, and I see no reason to change it. The ADV from the NHC clearly explain what is going on. But, people don't want to read it; you can change the scale 1000 times and that won't make people pay more attention.

[mitchell]

EXACTLY. Changing the scale won't do squat imo.

If true, pretty strong evidence that the SS isnt a very well crafted, functional scale.

[vbhoutex]

Okay, but what about the systems that produce a lot of flooding, but are weak? Like Allison? Just a TS, surge would most likely be little to none, but flooding was horrific. Would it still be ranked a TS?

If the winds supported it of course it would still be a TS. The inland flooding is a product of the rainfall more than surge even though surge can affect it in the coastal areas or areas close to the coast like Houston. When Allison unleashed her worst rains she was rated a TD. Should there be a rating for rainfall? Not sure I think so since it is usually addressed in any statements issued by the NHC and local NWS offices. My biggest concern is that I feel some changes need to be made to better convey to a normally complacent public what kind of danger they are in from any type of TC. Like it or not MOST of the public is not nearly in tune with what is happening with a storm like we(weather weenies)are. They want to know if there is going to be a TC, how high the wind will be, if they need to evacuate due to surge, and how much rain they will get. Past that they don't care about much else related to TCs. KISS is the way to go while conveying the most important information.

I think a big part of the problem is the media. They love to overhype every little thing the possibly can, an don't explain that most areas only saw 40 to 50 mph winds, so the public assumes they really saw the worst/"I survived the hurricane" mentality. Same with storm surge. They assume it was a 10 or 15 foot surge, when really they only saw 4 or 5 feet. So next time, when they are highlighted in 15 feet, they are shocked when it is "so much higher than it should have been". No it wasn't, it was right where it was forecast to be.

The media needs to not overhype every system, and likewise, they need to stop going "it's just a TS/Cat 1" or "it's just going to be a little bit of wind/rain". Instead, they need to take time educating the public while on the air. People need to start learning that just because they were in the outer bands doesn't mean they survived a Cat 1, or even saw TS force winds.

Unforutnately, try as we might we can't fix stupid, meaning those that don't even check their weather on a daily basis, and just walk out the door to be surprised by what might be happening, no matter what season.
How we get the media to stop hyping and start educating, I still haven't figured out. If you do, let me know. It saddens me that they do what they do when they could do so much good by making minimal changes in how they report it.

[mitchell]

The media needs to not overhype every system, and likewise, they need to stop going "it's just a TS/Cat 1" or "it's just going to be a little bit of wind/rain". Instead, they need to take time educating the public while on the air. People need to start learning that just because they were in the outer bands doesn't mean they survived a Cat 1, or even saw TS force winds.

Amen.
I can't believe how many people here in Delaware along the coast now believe (and say) that they have survived a Category 1 since last year Hurricane Irene skirted us as a cat one, despite local wind speeds in the 30-50 range and storm surge of about 3-4 feet.

The wide use of the SS scale (to the exclusion of local data) by the media, and the fact that we were under a hurricane warning, leads the general public to believe that the "event" was a category 1 hurricane, when in fact it produced nothing of the sort.

[WeatherGuesser]

How we get the media to stop hyping and start educating,

Drama and Hype get ratings. Education doesn't.

Which gets better ratings, SyFy or The Science Channel?

[SouthDadeFish]

I've spent a lot of time looking into this issue over the past few years. In fact, I even came up with my own algorithm to give a numeric rating to any landfalling tropical cyclone, which combines max wind speed, size of the storm, storm surge, and speed of the storm. You can PM me if you are interested for more.

Nevertheless, I've come to realize that I think we are doing more harm than good if we combine all the threats into one. Each storm is different and has different threats. I've heard Dr. Chris Landsea say a hurricane is like a 'hand' of different threats. Each 'finger' on the hand represents a threat: wind, surge, freshwater flooding, and tornadoes. Now notice what the NWS does for each of the threats beside surge: they issue warnings. We have Hurricane warnings, flash flood warnings, and tornado warnings. Why can we not have storm surge warnings?

I propose a five category system (just like the SSHWS) but instead of numbers, use colors. Having two colors will only confuse the public. We can also rework the storm surge zones to fit into these categories. The color categories would be based off the expected storm surge heights. For example, if a Yellow Surge Warnings is for 8-12 feet of surge, then everyone living in a Yellow Surge Evacuation Zone needs to evacuate for anything above this warning level or higher. I also think it would be a great idea to place a symbol of the corresponding storm surge zone on every street sign in the geographic zone. For example, if a warning is issued and you are unsure of what zone you live in, all you have to do is walk to the nearest street sign to confirm your zone. It would be helpful for tourists as well. The symbol could simply be a little sticker or something small. This system would also make it easier to identify what exactly "10-12 feet of surge" means just as the SSHWS helped the public identify that 138 mph winds means "category four" damage.

[mitchell]

Why can we not have storm surge warnings?

The NWS already issues coastal flood warnings for coastal flooding originating from both non-tropical and tropical systems. This includes storm surge effects.

[Florida1118]

Why can we not have storm surge warnings?

The NWS already issues coastal flood warnings for coastal flooding originating from both non-tropical and tropical systems. This includes storm surge effects.

Coastal Flood Warnings are thrown way down on the list. A "Storm Surge Warning" would make more sense, kinda like how there is an "Extreme Wind Warning". Something to get the attention of people, not just coastal flood.

[brunota2003]

What difference does it make if there is a storm surge warning or not? The info is there in plain view either way. A warning for surge just makes yet another bulletin that has to be created and maintained during an extremely busy time period...not to mention it is another bulletin on the NWS or NHC page (I think the Hurricane Local Statement with graphics is the best way). Then people will complain that they were "outside" the warning area, and still received flooding...or they thought it was for the immediate coastline only, etc. "Oh, there was surge way up the river!!! I never expected that! It's the NHC's fault they didn't tell me!"

Plus, what criteria would you use? How high does it have to get? 5 feet in down east NC floods most of the area...while 5 feet elsewhere doesn't even get over the dunes. Are warnings going to be issued for every landfalling system? How about, instead, that money gets funneled into better education about the effects of a landfalling TC?

How about this, instead: All hurricane prone NWS and media offices need to get together and have a fair once a year, just prior to the start of hurricane season (oh hey, wait...there is a week for that in May...it's called Hurricane Preparedness Week!). During the events, the news stations should dedicate 1 hour a night for a week to the dangers of tropical cyclones. At the conclusion of the week, there should be a fair in certain areas, where people who are still curious or need additional help can visit and ask questions, or pick up information. Something to help better teach people that TCs, to put it bluntly, KILL.

[SouthDadeFish]

Brunota, with all due respect most people just don't want to watch 1 hour educational special on hurricanes. Whether that is right or not, we cannot change. We just have to face reality. Also about my system, first of all a storm surge warning would certainly perk people's interest. For example, many people don't take a storm seriously until they are in a hurricane watch/warning.

I tried to explain earlier how they would work. Every coastal community would be rezoned based upon their elevation and computer model simulations to find out what level of storm surge would flood that area. Then the zones could be reworked into five different levels correlating to the five different colors. For example, 2-6 ft, 6-10, 10-14, 14-18, and 18-25. I'm just talking off the top of my head right now. Something like that. The NHC could decide what heights for each level would be best. So to answer your question about five feet, everyone living in the first zone would be under a mandatory evacuation. Therefore, they cannot complain. We have computer model simulations that are getting very good resolution now with their forecasts.

[brunota2003]

That is true, but at least with the shows, you couldn't say the information wasn't readily available for you!

As far as zoning, yes I agree. Take a look at the example I had on the first page and you'll see I had something similar (along with example advisories)...but I personally think it would end up mainly being more of a help to the local emergency management, and more "for show" for the general public...because would they really take the time to learn about what it means and such? Not too sure. I did, however, state that they should evacuate out at least one zone more than is forecast, for the "just encase" moments.

I still disagree with the surge warnings, I think evacuations are handled well as it is...but people just refuse to listen to them. Something stronger is needed, like publicizing giving body bags to people who refuse to leave mandatory evacuation zones...or more of the sharpie stuff (writing your name, next of kin, etc on your arm with a sharpie), something to frighten them and hopefully make them decide to leave.

[mitchell]

Why can we not have storm surge warnings?

The NWS already issues coastal flood warnings for coastal flooding originating from both non-tropical and tropical systems. This includes storm surge effects.

Coastal Flood Warnings are thrown way down on the list. A "Storm Surge Warning" would make more sense, kinda like how there is an "Extreme Wind Warning". Something to get the attention of people, not just coastal flood.

Maybe i'm just thick..it seems to me coastal flooding (for which warnings are already issued) is practically synonomous with storm surge. Its hard for me to imagine a scenario where a "coastal flood warning" would be issued without a hypothetical "storm surge warning" be issued at the same time.

So its seems like we're just trying to create new nomenclature for warning about the same phenomenon, when the problem isnt the name we give the warning, but the action people take once warned. A new storm surge warning might get people to sit up and take notice for a while if it sounds dangerous, but after the 30th, or 3000th event, it will just move as you say "down on the list" so im not sure it ends up helping.

[vbhoutex]

That is true, but at least with the shows, you couldn't say the information wasn't readily available for you!

As far as zoning, yes I agree. Take a look at the example I had on the first page and you'll see I had something similar (along with example advisories)...but I personally think it would end up mainly being more of a help to the local emergency management, and more "for show" for the general public...because would they really take the time to learn about what it means and such? Not too sure. I did, however, state that they should evacuate out at least one zone more than is forecast, for the "just encase" moments.

I still disagree with the surge warnings, I think evacuations are handled well as it is...but people just refuse to listen to them. Something stronger is needed, like publicizing giving body bags to people who refuse to leave mandatory evacuation zones...or more of the sharpie stuff (writing your name, next of kin, etc on your arm with a sharpie), something to frighten them and hopefully make them decide to leave.

If only this would work, we would be "home free" without possibly thousands of deaths from surge. Unfortunately, as I have stated previously, since I know no other way to say it, "YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID". With that said, I still support a separate storm surge warning as well as a wind warning. Then there is no way people can say "we weren't warned". We even heard that here after Ike and that is pure BS as the "surge warnings" were being publicized well before the arrival. Looking back at that, I think part of the problem was the local authorities wavering on issuing evacuation orders early enough.

[wxman57]

One thing to remember with respect to storm surge and wind warnings is that the two events (strongest wind and onset of surge) do not occur at the same time. Remember during Ike (2008) that evacuation roads were cut off on the Bolivar Peninsula 30-36 hours before the onset of tropical storm force winds. Wave setup ahead of slow-moving storms can cut off evacuation routes a day or more ahead of the arrival time of the wind field, which is something that the hundreds of people trapped on the Bolivar Peninsula were unaware of. Separate surge warnings are definitely needed as the times could/would be quite different from the TS or H warning times.

[RL3AO]

Saw a blog post (can't find it at the moment) where the met says take the original SSHS that had the storm surge added on to it and label the storm based on what ever is higher. Ike was a category 2 with wind speed but a category 4 for storm surge (on the original scale before NHC removed surge and pressure). It would officially be a category 4 hurricane. Charley probably would have been a 2 or 3 for surge but was a cat 4 for wind so it would be a category 4.

Either way, I find it absurd that what most people judge the intensity of a storm on is the factor that causes the fewest deaths. If Ike was officially a category 4 hurricane because of the surge, the Texas coast would have reacted much differently.

EDIT: Found it.

http://weatherblog.abc13.com/2012/09/it ... scale.html

[Laplacian]

It's amazing to me how much "energy" has been devoted to the ongoing debate of rating the intensity of tropical cyclones. My goodness, we can't even agree to change to the metric system in this country! Think about it. I think the SSHS is pretty entrenched in the public's psyche.

I recently summarized the debate about classifying the intensity of storms in a section from my tropical online course. It's pretty clear to me that there are enough shortcomings of each intensity index to go around.

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/worldof ... /node/2071

http://www.worldcampus.psu.edu/degrees- ... e/overview

Hope this helps.

[jeff]

And the debate continues on...

There have been many examples in the past 7 years of storm surge events that do not "fit" the category rating system. Isaac was yet another example and as with Ike residents in danger made the wrong decisions based on the category of the system and not what the impacts were going to be. Not sure why this continues to be such a problem besides it is habit and has been around for a long time, many people do not understand what storm surge is, and each event will be different. Storm surge is very complex and hard to explain in a diagram or quick news piece not to mention its heavy dependence on track.

Of even more concern is the fact that many local officials and decisions makers still base their evacuation decisions on the SS scale and not what the impacts are going to be. This was made very clear on the TX coast prior to Ike with great heated debate on a many conference call on if evacuation orders should be given for a category 2 hurricane...it was a very strongly worded 400am NWS con call on the Thursday prior to landfall that finally forced the calls to be made...and the local NWS office took some heat for their use of strongly worded HLS statements to move people to action...but it was very much needed.

New coastal storm surge 100-year levels are going to be released for the TX coast and the increase in the effective FEMA 1% (100-yr) level is significant along the upper TX coast (from currently 12-13ft) to 15-19ft. This still does not define the entire risk of the population at risk of being inundated with salt water in this region (our maximum surge is on the order of 25-30 ft) from a large Katrina or Carla type hurricane...notice I did not say category 4 hurricane. Already for those local officials who have seen the new maps, the question is how can these values be higher than what happened with Ike...Ike was really bad? Once again this shows the lack of understanding of the risk along the coast. Rice University did studies after both Rita and Ike on why and how residents left and the findings were very telling of why people react how they do. The first important finding was that people only respond to warnings and advice if they feel the risk directly affects them. Interestingly, many folks that fled the coast ahead of Ike did not leave due to the potential for storm surge inundation, but because they felt the winds would be the real cause of damage...the correct action for the wrong reason and evidence that residents do not understand the threat of storm surge or why they should be leaving a certain area. Another very interesting finding from the study after Ike indicated that a high number (over 75%) of local residents that did not leave either in or outside of evacuation areas for Ike would have left if Ike had been a category 4-5 hurricane...indicating the power the SS scale has in shaping peoples decisions...wrong or right!

[Laplacian]

Jeff,

I'm probably going to get into a lot of trouble saying this, but I believe the media are also complicit in sending the wrong message to the public about the dangers of landfalling hurricanes. Think about it. When a hurricane approaches, television crews flock to the beach, stand in the roughening surf, brace in fierce winds with debris flying around, and then proudly broadcast that they are where the action is. All for the sake of "good TV." I submit that such actions contribute to some lay people underestimating the danger. Oh, yes, the media has the luxury, in many cases, of vertical evacuation (high rises), but I'm pretty sure there are lay people who don't understand that these professionals have options they don't have. All I'm saying is that the media contribute to the sense that the dangers are not as bad as they might seem. Just my two cents.

[vbhoutex]

The Houston/Galveston NWS shared this on Facebook tonight.
https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/opinion/7834/hurricane-storm-surge-category-its-own