NHC Bias

[c5Camille]

i believe the NHC has a bias... either political or media driven... to forcast
the bigger city hit.... ie. if it's 50/50 to make landfall in New Orleans or
Biloxi... Bias towards New Orleans... we've all seen it... media gets much
more viewership if the storm is forcast to New Orleans, Tampa, Houston...
rather than Pascagoula, BigBend Area, Brownsville. That's all well and
good for the big cities... Keeps then on there toes. But leaves the little
cities caught with there guard down... like Charley Just my opinion...

[GalvestonDuck]

I say bull hockey. Brownsville and Freeport have been (successfully) listed as landfall targets.

[Derecho]

Bias from what?

The consensus of the model guidance was NORTH of Tampa for a landfall; any "big city bias" moved the track CLOSER to where it actually hit.

[c5Camille]

that's because there was no other big city in the
area to hit... they are the big dogs... i shouldn't
have listed brownsville...

georges was a great example... they kept saying New Orleans... showing
graphs about how vulnerable the city is... flood tables etc...

they did show that graph for Punta Guorda... did they...

3 days ago Tampa was just as likely a hit as Ft. Myers....
the media gave us all the data we needed for Tampa...
Tampa Tampa Tampa... they had us all convinced...

[Frank P]

Hi my good neighbor to the east Camille... interesting screen name... a storm I remember quite well.... my opinion is that they go with what the feel is the most targeted area, no bias.... and if that happens to be a large city (like NO or Tampa) then as expected, it gets much more coverage and hype by the news media, which may give that bias perception you mention.... remember that the NHC tells every one in a warning area that they can expect hurricane conditions within 24 hours.... bottom line, if you're warned then you should take action, geesh this was a Cat 4 storm, .... MOST especially if you are in a low lying area or living is a weak type structure like a trailer....

[perk]

c5CAMILLE you can't possibly believe that!

[wjs3]

Hi, all, first-time poster.

Camille, I have to agree to with Frank and others. While I would agree that the NHC could have done a better job handling things yesterday, i disagree with the "they said Tampa"--or anywhere else specific--argument.

In fact, I just went and read all the public advisories the NHC put out yesterday. You know how many times the advisories mention the word "Tampa"?

None.

The idea of Tampa came elsewhere. Now, the NHC does mention Tampa in their discussions regarding the forecast. Here's a quote from THursday's 5 AM discussion:

MOST
OF THE GUIDANCE CURRENTLY SHOWS A LANDFALL FROM THE TAMPA AREA
NORTHWARD THROUGH THE BIG BEND AREA. BECAUSE CHARLEY IS EXPECTED TO
APPROACH THE WEST COAST OF FLORIDA COAST AT A SHARPLY OBLIQUE
ANGLE...IT IS UNUSUALLY DIFFICULT TO PINPOINT CHARLEY'S
LANDFALL...AS SMALL ERRORS IN THE TRACK FORECAST WOULD CORRESPOND
TO LARGE ERRORS IN THE LOCATION AND TIMING OF LANDFALL.

So, there you go...as far as I can tell, the NHC never said "Hurricane Charley will hit Tampa". At best, they described it as part of a range of possible landfall areas, and did not do so in their public statements other to make it--as well as other areas--part of a hirricane warning area. The only time I see they mentioned it Instead, as others pointed out above, when a lot of people--on TV, in newspapers and so forth--saw the official track, with a high probability of Tampa, they jumped all over the idea, because it's news. It's not the NHC who's driving the media bias you describe, it's the way the NHC info is filtered and interpreted by others.

I wish the media would focus ona different part of the usual official message from the NHC (as I've read many on the board correctly do): A HURRICANE WARNING MEANS THAT HURRICANE CONDITIONS ARE
EXPECTED WITHIN THE WARNING AREA DURING THE NEXT 24 HOURS.
PREPARATIONS SHOULD BE RUSHED TO COMPLETION. Frank P is right...a hurricane warning means PREPARE--not watch the news and say "oh, CNN says it's going north of here, so we don't have to prepare."

According to the professional mets on this board and others, I guess we can fault the NHC for not upgrading winds when recon at 11 AM made the case to do so. I guess we can also fault them for not describing a more Easterly track as radar, etc. suggested at that update. However, we can't fault them for saying "Tampa" for political and/or other reasons. That just didn't happen.

[Guest]

The facts are, if you're in a hurricane warning, you need to prepare. Even if the media says it's not going to hit, even if YOU think it won't hit. It's your life on the line.

And #2, when there is NO model concensus, except for outlier ETA, mm5, NGM, you simply cannot just discount it. I have been preaching this for days and very few people listened. Anyway, I hope there are more lessons learned here, although It seems like every tropical event the ignorance continues.

Anyway I will be on Cape COd this evening watching 30-60mph gusts and large swells, maybe even go for a swim. ahhh, the beach. Enjoy.

[Agua]

Does anyone believe that it would perhaps be a better course for the NHC to quit using a distinct "track" with a pinpoint landfall destination and rather use something akin to the more amorpous "zone of uncertainty"?

I'm not bashing the NHC, but where people mention that "The NHC never said it was going to tampa", there can be no dispute that the official track squarely indicated that Tampa was the landfall point.

[PTPatrick]

I understand what he saying...although I dont think they really do it intentionally. But if you had been through Georges you would know what he talking about. Once that thing was through the Keys, it looked pretty clear(from models and my own, somewhat amateur analysis) that Georges was going to hit somewhere from Pensacola, FL to Gulfport Mississippi. But what happened once the storm had enough latitude to miss Pensacola?...they started harping on New Orleans. The track literally jumped 2 states. Now I am not saying we didnt have warning...BUT if I had been waiting for the media and NHC to really say ok, we think this going to hit Mississippi, it would have been too. All I can say is thank goodness I did not wait around on the bayou to find out.

Also I want to point out that this is all about the NHC...the media also sensationalizes the big city hits. Having said that...the models pretty much all pointed to Tampa, and the media works with what the NHC and weather services give it, and the fact is that forecast track of there was right over pinellas county. I think this is more about the shape of Floridas coast though...if you turned the coast more pependicular...the margin of error would have been much smaller.

[The Big Dog]

I don't know why the NHC would intentionally bias its reports. That wouldn't serve anybody. It would only force people to evacuate when they don't need to, while duping people into sticking it out who actually are in danger. Those people are scientists who have little need for or interest in creating train wrecks for the sake of ratings.

That brings us to the media. If there is a problem, it's media driven. I agree with you on this point -- I think certain media outlets believe that their ratings go up when they put lots of people in harm's way (and unfortunately, it's probably true). Some local stations will keep the arrow pointing directly on them as long as they can, and even when they can't justify it anymore, they'll throw hints out like "you never know where these things will head." I remember one local station using a 9-hour old forecast track, just so they could keep the arrow pointing on Palm Beach during Erin '95, even though it had already passed. But the NHC can't control the media.

As for Georges and New Orleans, that possibility was definitely something that needed to be addressed. FEMA has identified the New Orleans Cat 5 scenario as the #1 worst-case natural disaster this country faces, even worse than the 8-point St. Louis earthquake scenario. In short, a Cat 5 coming from the southeast would push a 25-30 foot surge into Lake Pontchartrain, well over the seawall and into New Orleans, which is five feet below sea level. "Filling the Bowl" is what they call it, and anyone stuck below the 4th floor is probably dead.

Bottom line is that the media will continue to distort and sensationalize, so the best we can do is to educate ourselves. The NHC will miss from time to time, but I see no evidence of conscious bias in their forecasts.

[seaswing]

Some of the most affected areas besides Punta Gorda were also hit by very high winds, but they were inland. And the consensus has always been that inland is not affected in the way the coastal areas are. That may be true when considering storm surge but sustained winds are also felt inland in a storm like this. Yes, people should heed the warnings, but people here are so complacent, and they just do not understand what these storms can do. They are usually miles and miles wide, unlike tornados, the sustain winds for hours sometimes. Not to say that tornados aren't as bad, I experienced a bad one when I was in the midwest for a couple of months. But these storms contain tornados as well! In the inland areas that were affected by Charley, a lot of retired folks lived in mobile homes and they were hit, hard. IMO there is not enough emphasis on inland preparations. Local mets do not make an emphasis on what destruction can happen inland. I hope people get the message after this storm! There should be stricter codes for mobile homes in an area that is so volitile!

[c5Camille]

the big dog wrote "I don't know why the NHC would intentionally bias its reports. That wouldn't serve anybody. It would only force people to evacuate when they don't need to, while duping people into sticking it out who actually are in danger. Those people are scientists who have little need for or interest in creating train wrecks for the sake of ratings."

wow... that kinda sounds like what happened... yikes!

[The Big Dog]

the big dog wrote "I don't know why the NHC would intentionally bias its reports. That wouldn't serve anybody. It would only force people to evacuate when they don't need to, while duping people into sticking it out who actually are in danger. Those people are scientists who have little need for or interest in creating train wrecks for the sake of ratings."

wow... that kinda sounds like what happened... yikes!

Yeah, but not because of NHC bias. The media might take the ball and run with it, but the NHC certainly isn't drawing arrows at big cities and saying the hell with Punta Gorda. Not to mention how that would affect their credibility.