2 things I think should be eliminated.

[MiamiensisWx]

Any new scale would face the same issues as the current one as well as terms of forecasts verifying..if a cat 4 or 5 surge is forecast using some new parameter and only a cat 1 or 2 surge actual took place...either because a storm track shifted some from forecast or a storm weakened...there would be the same 'it missed last time' or 'it wasn't bad with the last storm' resistance.

Weakening storms do NOT reduce surge values. However, if the wind radii is smaller than forecasted or contracts, it would reduce the surge.

[jinftl]

Fair enough....you are right.

Storms not effecting all areas in the hurricane warning area....i.e., rita experience for those who evacuated in houston....is something any system of storm categorization...including surge forecasts...would have to deal with. At the time hurricane warnings are issued, there is not any way of saying who will be on the right eyewall, for example, and therefore see the max surge predicted. Ike 25 miles west...rita 125 miles west would have seen even higher surge values in houston/galveston.

People in a warning area who don't see the predicted worst case surge complying in future storms...simply because of errors in ultimate track at the time warnings are issued...would have to be considered the next time a new surge-type warning is issued as well....

What will be tough to reconcile and explain with ike is that 36+ hours to landfall, the NHC stated...and this is when houston/galveston was on the right side of the forecast track...but close enough to the 'black line' to have the following be very understandably applicable...

NWS TPC/NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
1000 AM CDT THU SEP 11 2008

COASTAL STORM SURGE FLOODING OF UP TO 20 FT ABOVE NORMAL TIDE
LEVELS...ALONG WITH LARGE AND DANGEROUS BATTERING WAVES...CAN BE
EXPECTED NEAR AND TO THE EAST OF WHERE THE CENTER OF IKE MAKES
LANDFALL.

Any new scale would face the same issues as the current one as well as terms of forecasts verifying..if a cat 4 or 5 surge is forecast using some new parameter and only a cat 1 or 2 surge actual took place...either because a storm track shifted some from forecast or a storm weakened...there would be the same 'it missed last time' or 'it wasn't bad with the last storm' resistance.

Weakening storms do NOT reduce surge values. However, if the wind radii is smaller than forecasted or contracts, it would reduce the surge.

[MiamiensisWx]

Informed two cents:

Personally, I believe the modern Saffir-Simpson Scale (based solely on 1-min winds) is necessary, indispensable, and astutely accurate; it should be retained. The sea level pressure guidelines (per category) are merely long term climatological averages based on a "base state" (average size TC with average pressure gradient/ambient pressures) - obviously, everyone knows that the individual cases vary, depending on the surrounding synoptic environment. Therefore, the pressure guidelines could be retained as well. However, the general surge guidelines for each wind based category should be eliminated. Surge should be separated from the Saffir-Simpson Scale; regardless of the exact location of a TC, it is very clear that maximum sustained winds are one of the LEAST important factors that determine surge and wave effects. Coastal topography (which is poorly studied in some regions), seafloor/offshore topography, wind radii, angle of approach, intensity at one point, etc. are much more decisive quantifiers. Integrated Kinetic Energy and Carvill Hurricane Index are two recent examples of methods that partially improve surge analyses/forecasts, especially along the Gulf Coast.

In summation, I believe the Saffir-Simpson Scale (with its wind based background and general pressure guidelines) should remain in place. However, storm surge should be completely eliminated from the scale's general supplemental guidelines. A separate surge scale or advanced analysis of surge impacts (based on a very wide combination of factors) should be compiled and utilized. If it is implemented properly, it can be easily interpreted among the general public, though it helps if the public can educate itself and become more knowledgeable (particularly in regards to the math aspects of meteorology). For example, based on the hypothetical surge index, Hurricane Katrina's high Integrated Kinetic Energy/Carvill Hurricane Index values, large wind radii (TS/hurricane), movement/duration, angle of approach, and fetch would generate a storm surge in excess of 25 feet. These factors could be utilized in NHC products and advisories, and it could be dissemiated among NWS offices and OEM officials. In addition, coastal/offshore topography and development/coastal trends (i.e. the loss of wetlands in Louisiana/Mississippi via systems such as MRGO) could be incorporated as well. If this set-up existed, we could have consistently forecasted surge values as high as 25-28' feet prior to Katrina's landfall. This type of scale would be more detailed than the previous "cookie cutter" surge values per wind category on the Saffir-Simpson Scale.

Are there any thoughts on this solution's feasibility as an addendum/ultimate supplement to the Saffir-Simpson Scale's surge classifications?

[jinftl]

If the author of "Corpus Christi: Stories" Bret Anthony Johnston is correct in his observation, any revised scale of storms is going to face an equally tough road to acceptance and following by some as the current....

Listen, I'm not discounting the misfortune and trauma that often rolls in with storms like Gustav and Ike — and the unimaginable, unforgivable tragedy that followed Hurricane Katrina is nothing less than an affront against our very humanity.

But you have to understand — it's not stupidity or insanity or even pride that keeps most people in their homes during a storm: It's hope.

You hope the life you've built can sustain what's bearing down on it; hope that if a window cracks or a leak opens up, you'll be there in time to fix it; hope that if someone calls for help, you'll be close enough to offer what they need. Mostly, though, you hope you'll get lucky, hope that when those who fled ask about the storm, you can think about raising a cold one with your friends and dancing with your wife and watching your son play in the rain. You hope you can smile and say, "Oh it wasn't that bad. It wasn't that bad at all. Nothing more than a little wind."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94634480

[Steve]

>>The surge with ike clearly was not typical of what we would expect with a cat 2....but this was known to forecasters and communicated in advisories and warnings up to 2 days in advance. What needs to be determined is that did the storm category make a difference in repsonse to evacuation orders that were clearly worded and communicated as a much more dangerous surge event than the cat 2 status of the storm? The answer may be yes....but it may be no.

Fair point.
--------------------------------------
Good points AJC. Those of us who dig a little deeper than Joe Newswatcher can find that stuff. There is tons of quality information out there for those of us who want the education, and thanks for your contributions to developing that information.
--------------------------------------
Miami,

I pretty much agree with your proposal. That was the angle that Garland questioned Dr. Lyons on. And he said that the current generic surge indicators affiliated with their respective declared categories weren't truly indicative of the real threat. I got the feeling that he wants that overhauled as well, but they didn't have time to go into great detail. Obviously if a Category 2 with a very large windfield will bring maybe not the highest surge but one that covers an extreme area (e.g. Ike), then it's more than your typical Cat 2 surge. Similarly with a Katrina that carried in a Cat-5 type water rise, you can't just call it a Cat 3 surge. So whatever scientists end up agreeing on down the road (be it the Carvill Index Values or whatever), they will have to take into account the scope of the surge/rise threat as well as the area. In our case down in the Bayou, it used to be that hurricanes 200 miles away heading to Texas didn't mean much. With erosion as a negative influence, something like 15,000 homes flooded in Terrebonne Parish which is still on the eastern side of the Louisiana Coastline on a map.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... sh.svg.png

I think a lot of SE/SCLA has land similar to tree roots now with little fingers of land surrounded by water that used to be surrounded by marsh. It's all pretty open once you get out of the canals and small lakes. So we have special considerations as do other areas of the coast depending on their susceptibility. Gonna be interesting to see what they come up with as a means of quantification and how they choose to release it/address it with the public.

Steve

[tolakram]

Based on interviews with people who stayed and survived the Saffir-Simpson scale may have killed people this time.

No flames, no it's not the scales fault, but lets face reality. We have a scale that while scientifically accurate for what it measures it can be incredibly misleading. I said it before in the Ike thread and I'll say it again now.

If you don't want people focusing on the line then don't draw a line. If you don't want people focusing on just wind speed then don't grade the hurricane on wind speed.

People like catchy names and numbers, it works, it gets people moving. The solution therefor should be plainly obvious.

A hurricane strength scale that combines all danger factors and produces a danger index that people can use to judge the danger of a storm. If Ike used an index like this he would have been rated a 4, most likely, and people will evacuate for a 4 because 4 means trouble.

My method for determining hurricane category would be fairly simple.

The hurricane index would be the greater of the Saffir-Simpson category and a surge category. The surge category would be scaled similarly to the Saffir-Simpson category; damage potential.

Looking at Ike again.

Windspeed category 2
Surge category 4

Hurricane Category 4

[SapphireSea]

Everything in life is dynamic and the science of nature is not very exact, to make a scale for a storm that is 100% cost-effective and 100% safe is impossible. The very same people that would tell you that they would have evaced for a Cat 4 or 5 after Ike hit, would have stayed to ride out a Cat 5 BEFORE Ike. I hate to be grim, but we could never know with perfect accuracy the circumstances of death of those who perish in a storm, their own psychological processes (fear/love/greed) could have been involved, or more likely a natural phenomenon in the storm like a tornado or a micro-burst of wind far exceeding the storm's general strength, this factor would be considered luck or translating down to 'it was their time'.

I think what it boils down to is: How prepared are you; Exactly? Do you think it's wise to stay at the beach for a Hurricane (regardless of cat)? A person's preparedness is not just boarding up their house and stocking on food and water, but also having the knowledge of what the effect of a disaster COULD or WOULD have on their area, and plan accordingly.

If people could take a few hours of their day to understand how WIND and WATER could affect their property and their own lives individually you would see a decline of deaths in a storm. Having a tree in the NW of your property knowing the winds will be from the NW, perhaps ahead of time of a storm you should dispose of heavy branches or tie the tree down as to manipulate a fall trajectory away from life and property, of course this is foolish, but the point is that, the family would be aware that the tree is a hazard and re-evaluate a safe-room in the home, and to avoid the tree AFTER the storm if it still stands.

So my point is..... It's not the Scale that kills people, it's personal responsibility... rather lack of that kills people during a storm, and I know a handful of people who are just screaming to be victims; Yes, these people would not evacuate if the strongest Cat 5 was headed this way 100%, or so they say now.

[tolakram]

So my point is..... It's not the Scale that kills people, it's personal responsibility.

There is mounting evidence that people who stayed looked at the weather forecast long enough to get the category of the storm and tuned out. This isn't the time to argue personal responsibility, it's time to focus on making the best alert system possible and then letting the cards fall where they will. There will always be idiots who stay, throw them out with the surge water, focus on those who may not be smart enough to make a nuanced decision but can react to danger grades.

[Sihara]

I like the idea of a Surge Category and a Windspeed Category. Because surge is obviously not going to be a problem in higher areas away from the immediate coast, but wind could be lethal. Example: Andrew 10 miles inland was catastrophic, but it wasn't from surge. OTOH the worst of Ike's damage was surge - with so much of the area low-lying and vulnerable.

What gets me is, why don't people who live away from the beaches know their elevation? The danger of flooding is well-known, so you'd think people would want to know what their vulnerability is, but truth is, so many can't be bothered to find out. An earlier post mentioned an uneducated public and I think that's at the heart of the matter. So many people haven't much exposure to anything scientific and really don't care. The thought it could save their lives never enters their minds. How in the world do you motivate such people?

The NWS couldn't have made the danger clearer: "Certain Death" is not a mild phrase. But how many people even read the NWS alerts?

[jinftl]

that's really the question i think...will a new scale make more of an impact on that portion of the population who is not inclined to evacuate but is in harms way?

and if a cat 5 surge event is forecast and people do leave, what happens if landfall is 50 miles east and no serious surge occurs in someone's neighborhood...how do they react the next time a cat 5 surge warning is given?

I like the idea of a Surge Category and a Windspeed Category. Because surge is obviously not going to be a problem in higher areas away from the immediate coast, but wind could be lethal. Example: Andrew 10 miles inland was catastrophic, but it wasn't from surge. OTOH the worst of Ike's damage was surge - with so much of the area low-lying and vulnerable.

What gets me is, why don't people who live away from the beaches know their elevation? The danger of flooding is well-known, so you'd think people would want to know what their vulnerability is, but truth is, so many can't be bothered to find out. An earlier post mentioned an uneducated public and I think that's at the heart of the matter. So many people haven't much exposure to anything scientific and really don't care. The thought it could save their lives never enters their minds. How in the world do you motivate such people?

The NWS couldn't have made the danger clearer: "Certain Death" is not a mild phrase. But how many people even read the NWS alerts?

[VeniceInlet]

What gets me is, why don't people who live away from the beaches know their elevation? The danger of flooding is well-known, so you'd think people would want to know what their vulnerability is, but truth is, so many can't be bothered to find ou

But even some people who know their elevation don't understand what it means. I have a friend, an educated retired man from New York, who lives on the island of Venice. He's at 14 feet about a mile from the Gulf, and thinks he's safe no matter what.

The thing that trips him up, and what tripped me up also, is knowing how far inland a surge can come, and at what height. (What you think is that, even if a surge is say, 16 feet, by the time it gets inland to you, it's down to a lesser number of feet so you'll be safe. So far there's nothing we have that can help us know otherwise.) The other thing that tripped me up is that I didn't realize that there also can be pretty big waves on top of a surge. I just assumed it was this gradual rise of water, like a tide.

I think the things that impressed in my mind how bad things could be included Katrina at Mississippi, the recent Tsunami, and Ike at Galveston.

I still have questions about surge that nobody around here can answer. I hope that NWS comes out with their new Slosh model in time for next season because I think it will answer my questions. I'd like it to be interactive so that I can test out some "what if" scenarios, but that is maybe asking for a bit too much. I'd just be happier with a better model for now.

[Derek Ortt]

what we need to do is rewrite the SS scale based upon INTEGRATED KINETIC ENERGY, or some toher metric that takes into account the wind velocity AND storm size

[Category 5]

what we need to do is rewrite the SS scale based upon INTEGRATED KINETIC ENERGY, or some toher metric that takes into account the wind velocity AND storm size

That would be very good but can you make it understandable to the public?

[VeniceInlet]

I think you could. It would just be a new way of calculating 1 through 5. Maybe Ike, for instance, would have been a 4 instead of a 2 under a new system based on what Derek suggests. I think it's a good idea. It takes the storm away from just being calculated on wind speed alone.

I still think surge also needs to be split out though. There needs to be some way to better understand surge potentials.

[jinftl]

Remove the use of categories for surge and just go with the clearest, most understandable way to assess risk....high how the water will get in feet. If I know my elevation (and cities or counties should let people know street by street what that is) and I am on the immediate coast in a designated surge risk zone determined by storm size, strength, etc .,and local officals have alerted the public of....it is simple math at that point.

Inland communities have 'high wind warnings' to use to alert folks of wind danger....why not have a 'high surge warning' that could overlap or go beyond the area covered by a hurricane warning, based on storm size, strength, coastline, etc. If you thnk about, there is only one hurricane warning...it does not depend on storm category. A high surge warning would be the public's cue to get out of harms way from surge, just as a hurricane warning is a cue to board up, etc.

I think you could. It would just be a new way of calculating 1 through 5. Maybe Ike, for instance, would have been a 4 instead of a 2 under a new system based on what Derek suggests. I think it's a good idea. It takes the storm away from just being calculated on wind speed alone.

I still think surge also needs to be split out though. There needs to be some way to better understand surge potentials.

[Hurricane Mac]

The problem comes with the EOCs who base the evacuation zones for flooding on the SSS. So the public sees that they are in a "Cat 3" zone and a Cat 2 comes ashore like Ike and brings in what is typical with Cat 4/5.

[jinftl]

What complicates the picture even more is that the reality is, not everywhere in a hurricane warning sees the max surge that is forecast...and that is often a result of last minute wobbles that puts one city in the dreaded front right quadrant while putting another city on the left. Hurricane warning areas 75 miles west of landfall for ike had a very different surge outcome than areas 30 miles east of landfall. But both were in the 'same' warning area.

The public needs to understand and accept that there is a margin of error in all forecasts, and that even 24 or 48 hours out, it is not possible to say which specific area will see the worst winds, surge, etc.

Dealing with an 'evacuation weary' public is always going to be a huge challenge and obstacle in getting everyone out of harm's way in the future.....often when the decision to leave has to be made, there is still a margin of error in the forecast that could spare any given spot the worst the storm has to offer. Any new system of surge warning or storm classification will have that margin as well.....forecasting is just not able to pinpoint exact landfall when evacuation needs to commence.

The problem comes with the EOCs who base the evacuation zones for flooding on the SSS. So the public sees that they are in a "Cat 3" zone and a Cat 2 comes ashore like Ike and brings in what is typical with Cat 4/5.

[Ixolib]

1. I consider myself to be "hurricane savvy" because:
a. I've experienced every hurricane and TS/TD to hit the MS coast since 1965 - beginning with Betsy and ending with Katrina.
b. I'm relatively well educated.
c. I'm 51 years old.
d. I am a 5-year member of S2K!!

2. With that being said, I was seriously caught with my pants down in Katrina because:
a. I "survived" Camille in that we had NO surge at our house (Katrina gave us 4 feet at he same address).
b. The latest reports said Katrina was coming ashore as a 4/3 (much less than Camille's 5).
c. The advisories kept saying surge potential was 15 to 25 feet, and locally higher (what ever that means...)
d. The advisories kept saying "at and east of landfall". Certainly, they could have been more specific than the general statement of "east of landfall". How about some miles included??

3. My point being this:
a. Had I felt a stronger sense of surgency (<--new word!!) with Katrina, I might have left instead of stayed.
b. Had the NHC forecast stated "surge will be no less than 25 feet, and significantly higher in several areas all along the LA, MS, and AL coastlines, I might have left instead of stayed.
c. Had the NHC pounded in our head that surge (as opposed to wind) was going to be such a significant issue, I might have left instead of stayed.

I've always survived wind, and I believe most others can survive wind too. One can hide from the wind, but one really needs to run from the water.

Wind damage to my home in Biloxi over the years was pretty easy to correct - relatively speaking.

Surge damage to my home in Biloxi during Katrina was (and continues to be three years later) a financial & personal disaster. So extreme were/are both of those impacts that I may go the rest of my life and still never recover to the point where I was pre-Katrina. Of course, that stands also true for thousands of my MS coast neighbors. Surge was the blame... Not the wind!!!!!!!!!!!

Bottom line:
The NHC must fix the alert system!! Amend the SS scale - it's broke!! Make surge a much more apparent part of your forecasts!! Use near absolutes instead of ranges (see 3b above). Use specific distances "east of landfall" (see 2d above). If necessary, make the warnings "region specific" and educate the "region" on what that means. JUST DO SOMETHING to improve on the current scale.

In "almost" (yeah, I know, there are exceptions) any hurricane where the number of deaths is extreme, surge was the problem, not the wind. So why, then, does wind take the lions share of the SS scale (and NHC advisories) if it's not the overwhelming killer?

Aaarrrrgggghhhhh… Very good thread here, but very, very, very frustrating issue.....

[Ptarmigan]

After Hurricane Ike affected our area, I have to agree with you. I was on the western part of Ike and it was just as bad as being on the "dirty side". The "clean side" of a hurricane is an euphemism.

[jinftl]

the NHC pretty much followed through with your recommendations (3a-3c) with ike....still didn't work to get everyone out...i am beginning to think the best way to get people who need to leave out....is a prior landfall living up to its potential....sad but true...fear is a great motivator. At what point does 'those who remain will face certain death' need much more clarification....it is very clear...people are smart enough to know that if the forecast says 20' surge and they stay in an area on the coast under 20' that is clearly evacuating, there is another reason than unawareness that is the reason they are staying. Some people are gamblers and hope for the best. Often, it works out. Once in a while it doesn't. And when it doesn't, boy, does it not work out!

This is not Cuba....where people are calling family members in Miami to find out if a storm is coming (happened to a friend of mine with family in cuba)......we heard police offiicials telling people in galveston to write their social security numbers on their arms to make body identification easier after ike. People knew. If someone is being interviewed on t.v. as to why they are staying, they knew too. Arguing semantics of whether saying 'up to 25'' or 'most areas up to 25' would make a diffrence is insulting to the innate intelligence all humans have...even those not on s2k. If you ask someone what happens if they are 10' above sea level and the forecast calls for up to 20' surge...even a child with basic math skills could figure that outcome out. People knew and stayed. If they wanted to leave but didn't have the resources or money, than that is enough to make some serious changes in who is running the shows in any such area and policies to prevent that have to be enacted. Otherwise, grown adults have a choice....they can gamble. But it is always going to be a 'gamble'. That may be all that alot of folks need to say who stayed...they took a gamble and lost. That doesn't mean they are dumb or ignorant....and there would still be gamblers with a 'triple red level alert epic surge warning'. Just higher risk if you lose.

'

1. I consider myself to be "hurricane savvy" because:
a. I've experienced every hurricane and TS/TD to hit the MS coast since 1965 - beginning with Betsy and ending with Katrina.
b. I'm relatively well educated.
c. I'm 51 years old.
d. I am a 5-year member of S2K!!

2. With that being said, I was seriously caught with my pants down in Katrina because:
a. I "survived" Camille in that we had NO surge at our house (Katrina gave us 4 feet at he same address).
b. The latest reports said Katrina was coming ashore as a 4/3 (much less than Camille's 5).
c. The advisories kept saying surge potential was 15 to 25 feet, and locally higher (what ever that means...)
d. The advisories kept saying "at and east of landfall". Certainly, they could have been more specific than the general statement of "east of landfall". How about some miles included??

3. My point being this:
a. Had I felt a stronger sense of surgency (<--new word!!) with Katrina, I might have left instead of stayed.
b. Had the NHC forecast stated "surge will be no less than 25 feet, and significantly higher in several areas all along the LA, MS, and AL coastlines, I might have left instead of stayed.
c. Had the NHC pounded in our head that surge (as opposed to wind) was going to be such a significant issue, I might have left instead of stayed.

I've always survived wind, and I believe most others can survive wind too. One can hide from the wind, but one really needs to run from the water.

Wind damage to my home in Biloxi over the years was pretty easy to correct - relatively speaking.

Surge damage to my home in Biloxi during Katrina was (and continues to be three years later) a financial & personal disaster. So extreme were/are both of those impacts that I may go the rest of my life and still never recover to the point where I was pre-Katrina. Of course, that stands also true for thousands of my MS coast neighbors. Surge was the blame... Not the wind!!!!!!!!!!!

Bottom line:
The NHC must fix the alert system!! Amend the SS scale - it's broke!! Make surge a much more apparent part of your forecasts!! Use near absolutes instead of ranges (see 3b above). Use specific distances "east of landfall" (see 2d above). If necessary, make the warnings "region specific" and educate the "region" on what that means. JUST DO SOMETHING to improve on the current scale.

In "almost" (yeah, I know, there are exceptions) any hurricane where the number of deaths is extreme, surge was the problem, not the wind. So why, then, does wind take the lions share of the SS scale (and NHC advisories) if it's not the overwhelming killer?

Aaarrrrgggghhhhh… Very good thread here, but very, very, very frustrating issue.....