I'm going to gripe right now

[Sanibel]

If you think that is bad wait to see what happens if Emily hooks north as a category 4 into Texas...

[DoctorHurricane2003]

To whoever said the rest of the world uses 5-10 minute averages....you are quite incorrect.

In fact, the 1-minute average probably gives the best indication of damage because of the gusts.

United States: 1-min average
Australia: Highest Gusts
Fiji: 10-minute average
La Reunion: 10-minute average

[caribepr]

Let's presume I am some "normal" American with a hurricane bearing down on me. I would like to know what intensity of winds I need to prepare for. It does make a difference in the preparation needed if one is preparing for 150 mph winds vs 75 mph winds. Admittedly both can do enough damage, but I'm not too sure most "normal" Americans would board up for a CAT1 storm.

Not to pick on you, vbhoutex, as this applies to everyone here...

I think that Emily is proving that you'd darn sure better board up (or leave if you're in a surge zone) for ANY hurricane that approaches, even a strong tropical storm. Unless you can forecast intensity better than the models or the NHC, then how can you be sure that Cat 1 in the Gulf at 3pm one afternoon won't be a Cat 4/5 bearing down on Galveston the next afternoon? You just can't! Now there are cases where we can identify strong wind shear along the coast that will definitely weaken a storm prior to landfall. But without such a strong indication of wind shear, you need to treat every single tropical cyclone like it can become a major hurricane in 24 hours, particularly in the NW Caribbean or Gulf of Mexico.

That's why I have such a gripe about those who say they'll ride out a Cat 1-2 but leave for a 3-4-5. That kind of thinking assumes we mets have some kind of skill in forecasting intensity. Clearly, without more data, we're clueless when it comes to forecasting intensity much of the time. Are any of you better at forecasting intensity?

Maybe it's because I'm old, maybe it's because I've watched technology as a sailor produce people who can't use a paper chart in their reliance on GPS and computer models (point A to point B is this way, gosh, there it is - not reading charts that say, hey, in between is a really big bad reef, oopsy)...but the reality is that the best of the best are using technology to the very best of their reasoning and ability and the results may be close or far but ultimately, the above post states the case. Be as prepared as you possibly can be - pay as much attention as you can, and then do what you think is best to do, what YOU think is best for the safety of yourself and your families. In the islands, many don't have the choice of evacuation...we say, whose house is the safest and hope for the best. I am thrilled with the technology that gives us a relatively good idea of where the damn storm IS, let alone the intensity, because being ready means being READY, 100 percent. To go on about seriously knowledgeable and dedicated people being *wrong* about a nature driven event because you might not know whether to be SERIOUS about that event impacting you borders, IMO, on an absurd reliance on what those VERY SAME PEOPLE readily admit is an imperfect science. Has common sense died?

[HurriCat]

Dang, people. This is for the "Waa! They can't tell me everything perfectly" crowd. We are dealing with NATURE. We understand the mechanics of weather, but that's about it.

The GOOD thing is that we are good at getting it CLOSE. At least you don't have to look at a cloudy sky and wonder if it's a hurricane or not. The best way to be, is to be prepared, period. Assume that you will have a major storm. Have house and evac-plans in order for quick decision-making.

If a big storm IS getting closer, then our forecasting is good enough to warn you. You have to make up your own mind about evacuating. If you live on a coast, then weather is just a fact of life. It would be nice if they could give you everything 100% - but not yet. Maybe not ever.

Myself, here in Orlando, feeling like everything I have can be severely damaged any given season - well, this is a merry-go-round that I WILL get off of someday. I'll brave the winter in Minnesota any day.

[EDR1222]

When the NHC issues hurricane warnings, don't they also tell officials in the warning area to prepare for one category higher than the category that is forecasted due to their problems with intensity forecasts? I remember reading that somewhere, or maybe hearing it on one of Mikes interviews on Talkin Tropics. Can't remember exactly where

[BLHutch]

When the NHC issues hurricane warnings, don't they also tell officials in the warning area to prepare for one category higher than the category that is forecasted due to their problems with intensity forecasts? I remember reading that somewhere, or maybe hearing it on one of Mikes interviews on Talkin Tropics. Can't remember exactly where

I don't know for sure, but during my firefighting days, our department policy was to do just that.....prepare for one category higher. Now, I'm not sure if that was just our policy or if it came from the NHC. But yes, that is something that we did on a local level.

Brady

[senorpepr]

To whoever said the rest of the world uses 5-10 minute averages....you are quite incorrect.

In fact, the 1-minute average probably gives the best indication of damage because of the gusts.

United States: 1-min average
Australia: Highest Gusts
Fiji: 10-minute average
La Reunion: 10-minute average

Well, actually, WMO standards are 10-minute average. The US is the only nation that uses 1-minute average. Even Australia, which gives highest gusts in their advisory, uses a 10-minute average in their sustained reporting in all observations.

[DoctorHurricane2003]

Weren't we talking for classification purposes though?

[senorpepr]

Weren't we talking for classification purposes though?

Right, but the base for the Australian reports are still 10-min avg. Granted, I agree that a consistent standard would be better. It should be in 10-min avg sustained winds. I doubt I'll never see that day happen. Personally I feel the 1-min winds are a better resolution, but either way, nobody is going to change.

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

I tihnk the one minute is the best...Its easy to understand in workable.

[Brent]

IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE FORECAST FROM NHC/TPC DON"T USE IT. You can always use your gut feeling or accu wx but please stop the BITC*ing, they are doing the best they can and are improving.

I don't always agree with the NHC 100%... but they are the best out there. I don't mind people pointing out criticism(I agree, their intensity forecast has been horrible), but track has been EXCELLENT which is really what counts. People who don't prepare just because a hurricane is "forecast" to weaken deserve what they get IMO.

[Derek Ortt]

I believe that the Canadians also use a 1 minute average as well

[Robert]

It's true that the NHC freely admits that it's intensity forecasts are subject to wide error. I guess to me the question is: why publish a number if it's probably going to be wrong? At some point publishing a number becomes misinformation. The public at large doesn't understand anything about the wide gulf between forecast and reality when it comes to intensityy... all they see is the number.

I totally agree. I think they should get rid of it, and just focus on the track of storms. The errors in the intensity forecasts are just too great.

I totally disagree. I have seen numerous times the NWS admit that they are having trouble with intensity, often pointing out what different models say, and why they chose a certain intensity.

How do they get better? By doing it, messing up and trying to figure out why they did not predict what would happen. I am sure that they do this over and over with tracks of storms (which is why they have gotten better). Well, a high here will do this to a storm, so it will probably move this way, a low here will do this.

Many here predict tracks and intensity (probably all of us do to some extent). Many (or most) of us have really messed up at least once (I never thought the storm woudl do that!). But we try and try again, learn from our mistakes and get better each time (or at least most of the time). Most of the general population do not look really clossely at the forcast intensity, they see a minor or major hurricane heading their way, and do what they need to do. I would guess that at least 75% (maybe more) of the population do not really understand the scale (I would guess that 25-50% would not be able to tell you if a cat 1 or a cat 5 is stronger).

I say that the NWS continue to post their forcast for intensity, with disclaimers. Most of the litature I have read about preparation say to prepare for one catagory above what is forcast, as a margin of error. As long as the public understands that tracks can change, and intensity can change, I think we are better off then if we abandon all intensity forcasts.

Robert

[HurryKane]

It's true that the NHC freely admits that it's intensity forecasts are subject to wide error. I guess to me the question is: why publish a number if it's probably going to be wrong? At some point publishing a number becomes misinformation. The public at large doesn't understand anything about the wide gulf between forecast and reality when it comes to intensityy... all they see is the number.

I totally agree. I think they should get rid of it, and just focus on the track of storms. The errors in the intensity forecasts are just too great.

I totally disagree. I have seen numerous times the NWS admit that they are having trouble with intensity, often pointing out what different models say, and why they chose a certain intensity.

How do they get better? By doing it, messing up and trying to figure out why they did not predict what would happen. I am sure that they do this over and over with tracks of storms (which is why they have gotten better). Well, a high here will do this to a storm, so it will probably move this way, a low here will do this.

Many here predict tracks and intensity (probably all of us do to some extent). Many (or most) of us have really messed up at least once (I never thought the storm woudl do that!). But we try and try again, learn from our mistakes and get better each time (or at least most of the time). Most of the general population do not look really clossely at the forcast intensity, they see a minor or major hurricane heading their way, and do what they need to do. I would guess that at least 75% (maybe more) of the population do not really understand the scale (I would guess that 25-50% would not be able to tell you if a cat 1 or a cat 5 is stronger).

I say that the NWS continue to post their forcast for intensity, with disclaimers. Most of the litature I have read about preparation say to prepare for one catagory above what is forcast, as a margin of error. As long as the public understands that tracks can change, and intensity can change, I think we are better off then if we abandon all intensity forcasts.

Robert

*applause* Very well said.

[Windy]

It's true that the NHC freely admits that it's intensity forecasts are subject to wide error. I guess to me the question is: why publish a number if it's probably going to be wrong? At some point publishing a number becomes misinformation. The public at large doesn't understand anything about the wide gulf between forecast and reality when it comes to intensityy... all they see is the number.

I totally agree. I think they should get rid of it, and just focus on the track of storms. The errors in the intensity forecasts are just too great.

I totally disagree. I have seen numerous times the NWS admit that they are having trouble with intensity, often pointing out what different models say, and why they chose a certain intensity.

How do they get better? By doing it, messing up and trying to figure out why they did not predict what would happen. I am sure that they do this over and over with tracks of storms (which is why they have gotten better). Well, a high here will do this to a storm, so it will probably move this way, a low here will do this.

Agreed. This is why they have products that they call "Experimental", which are not available to the public. I honestly think that politics has some part in why they continue to put out "exact" intensity forecast bullitens.

I say that the NWS continue to post their forcast for intensity, with disclaimers. Most of the litature I have read about preparation say to prepare for one catagory above what is forcast, as a margin of error. As long as the public understands that tracks can change, and intensity can change, I think we are better off then if we abandon all intensity forcasts.

Robert

Take a look at this:



According to this, the uncertainty envelope around the intensity forecast at 36 hours is more than 60 knots - the NHC isn't really sure whether the storm will be a tropical storm at this point or a CAT 4 hurricane. That's a biiiig margin of error.

Now, look at their forecast product in the forecast advisory:

FORECAST VALID 19/0000Z 22.2N 91.6W...OVER WATER
MAX WIND 85 KT...GUSTS 105 KT.
64 KT... 30NE 15SE 15SW 30NW.
50 KT... 75NE 25SE 25SW 75NW.
34 KT...125NE 80SE 50SW 125NW.

All it says is "85 KT". Nothing mentioned about the fact that they're really not all that sure if it the winds will be 70 or 130 KT -- just a reassuring 85KT.

If the NHC is going to do public intensity forecasts, I'd much prefer that they always stick to a scale. i.e., "Maximum sustained windspeeds: 70-130KT; best guess: 80 KT"

The NHC does admit what it knows and what it doesn't know, it just doesn't do that for all of its products. And not everyone out there is a big weather weenie who checks the Wind Table.

[mike18xx]

If I understand it correctly, a more intense hurricane will naturally TEND to move poleward.

Regardess of (any?) science behind that, the climatology of the few cat-5s on record disputes that. Invariably, the strongest storms are those which stubbornly track WNW, bucking recurvature until shear weakens them.

[Stormtrack]

"Now you are saying that Emily will drop from a category 4 hurricane to a category 2 hurricane on a 50 mile transverse over land." -Soonertwister

I haven't seen a NHC forecast that would have the storm over the Yucatan for less than 150 miles, so if you believe their track, it doesn't seem unreasonable to believe that Emily could lose 2 categories.

[mike18xx]

How do they get better?

For starters, they should expect hurricanes to behave like other hurricanes in similar data-sets. If WNW-tracking Caribbean hurricanes normally reach cat4 or 5 when uninhibited by land or El Nino shear, then they should forecast the minimal end of such.

[orion]

Throw in the fact that the NHC also produces probabilistic forecast products to better handle the potential error...and the fact that they have been indicating their intensity forecasts may have been conservate and more strengthening was likely. Looks like you are focusing the one thing that the NHC has asked folks not to do over and over again...on the deterministic forecast intensity values at the bottom of the discussion instead of the entire range of products available for the public to consider.

MW

I agree... well said Mike.

I constantly see the same thing in my job (secondary education) with teachers comparing averages on tests. If we only know that one piece of data - the average - and not some other information, such as how many people are included, are there any outliers which can greatly shift the average, etc.... then the average really doesn't give the whole picture at all.

The intensity forecast is another piece of data made available to us to use along with all the other information they make availabe. It is then up to us to look at the whole picture and make the best decisions we can from all the data we have.

-orion