Hurricane Center: Millions needed to reduce forecast errors

[jasons2k]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5853633.html

MIAMI — Substantially improving the accuracy of hurricane intensity predictions could take years and tens of millions of dollars, the National Hurricane Center's director said today.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Bill Read said reducing by half the errors made in tasks such as determining whether a storm would remain a Category 1 or grow stronger would be a costly and long-term effort.

Predicting a storm's intensity is much harder for meteorologists than estimating where it will go. Since 1990, forecasters have reduced by more than half their errors in predicting a storm's path, but over the same time the accuracy of their intensity forecasts has remained virtually unchanged.

"To really get after that you're talking tens of millions of dollars, if not more, to reach an ambitious goal," Read said. "We've made a steady gain in the improvement of the track forecasts, and we haven't figured out how to do that yet for rapid intensification."

That could take between five and 10 years, he said.

Read said he's satisfied for now with the $3 million the government is spending this year for research into improving intensity forecasts. Long-term improvement, however, would require a sustained investment.

Read took the helm of the National Hurricane Center in January. The six-month Atlantic hurricane season which officially began June 1 is his first as director. The center monitors the movement and strength of tropical weather systems and issues storm watches and warnings for the U.S. and surrounding areas.

Read said he expects to spend a lot of time talking about preparing for storms, as other directors have. He said it's denial, not complacency, that keeps many people from being prepared. They just don't think a storm will hit, and that's what emergency managers and others have to overcome, he said.

Read also talked about the sensitive issue of a suggested link between global warming and hurricanes, acknowledging it carries "so much emotional baggage" it can be "really hard to sift out the science."

Read said he agreed with others at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and that the link between global warming and hurricanes "is still to be determined." While people who model climate largely believe "global warming is real and it's going to get worse," Read said, there is much more disagreement about the effect of warming on tropical storms and whether the number and intensity of storms will be affected.

"All of that comes out as different numbers. I think there are a lot of unresolved issues in the science," Read said.

[vbhoutex]

I'm glad to see Bill Read talking about the numbers and the amounts that will be needed to advance the forecasting science. Perhaps, just perhaps someone in the government will start to listento a voice of reason.

[srainhoutx]

I am thrilled to see some very positive steps by Bill Read to overhaul the NHC with reason and purpose. Now if NOAA will just listen and request the funding.

[wxman57]

From what I've seen at the various AMS conferences this past spring, that dollar figure is closer to billions than millions.

[Ed Mahmoud]

My latest edition of Offshore Magazine has a story about improvements Shell is making on ASOS sensors on various platforms in the Gulf of Mexico, working with the NDBC, for a system that will continue transmitting information, including water temperature profiles from surface to considerable depth, even when the platforms have been evacuated ahead of a potential storm.

Besides helping NOAA, the system will record wave, current, and wind info that will help Shell better design platforms for conditions in the Gulf.

[Meso]

I don't get why more money isn't being put into something that could effectively save lives.When one looks at the budget that's been spent on war each year.100 million dollars a year for something that could do so much for peoples lives as well as science is a small amount.Dwarfed by figures for other things that run into the tens of billions of dollars per year

[Skyhawk]

In order to make progress you need talented researchers. You've got to lure people with a talent for research into meteorolgy. Unfortunately there are a limited number of such people in the world, and they are usually drawn to other higher paying fields.

[Derek Ortt]

this needs to be considered a matter of national security, not a matter of science (since it has a direct effect on lives and the economy).

If we were to spend 500 million per year on forecasting improvements and we only reduce damage by 10%... the reduction of damage in Katrina would have been enough to have payed for the research for 16 years

[Ed Mahmoud]

In the case of Katrina, how would a more accurate intensity forecast have reduced damage?

The idea of a major hurricane hitting in the general vicinity was pretty widely understood several days in advance.

[Meso]

But if forecasts became more accurate the public wouldn't get sick of evacuating for no-shows and there would be a lot more evacuations instead of the ignorant "They've given warnings before and nothing happened"

[ncweatherwizard]

It's nice to get more money, but it's got to come from somewhere. There's lots of relevant (and not so relevant) research topics out there, and when everyone asks for money, someone has to be completely disappointed and/or everybody has to be at least somewhat disappointed.

Even if we have a perfect forecast, it doesn't change the intensity of a storm, and it won't change the damage done by the storm--no matter how much money we put into research. Instead of putting too many eggs in the "improve forecasts" basket (and don't get me wrong: that basket is extremely important), we need to focus heavily on people. Read is absolutely correct about denial as the reason people are unprepared: we see this in research on preparedness for tornadoes, tropical cyclones, and other severe weather. Surveys of people after a severe weather event indicate that many people say, "I just didn't think it was going to hit," or something to that effect. But denial is, in some cases, rooted in complacency, which does necessitate the need for improved forecasts.

No matter what the case, we can save all the lives (in a perfect world), but not all the property.

[Derek Ortt]

yes, Scott, improving forecasts will reduce damage and reduce the overall cost

It costs 1 million per every mile of coastline. Could easily save 100 million on average each year by reducing the evacuation requirements by 50 miles per storm.

Also, the level of preparations for a 2 are vastly different than for a 4. If we know it is going to undergo RI... we could somewhat reduce the damage through preparation (maybe little things like moving a car to a parking garage... but the little things add up quick).

In Katrina, a better intensity forecast on the whole would not have reduced damage. However, forecasting the rapid weakening and expansion would have saved $$ in the following 2 ways.

1. Excess money was spent on preps in some areas preparing for a cat 5.
2. Better preps could have been mad ein Alabama and Florida

It is simple to get this money... place it in the DEFENSE budget, since this is a matter of national security, not science research

[ncweatherwizard]

All valid and good points.

Here's my thought: Track forecasts are greatly improved, and much better than intensity forecasts. This will likely remain the trend for years to come. Most simply, the basic things that a single person can prepare for, like moving a car, or boarding your windows, are normally things you should do regardless of if a storm is predicted to be a Cat 1 or a 5. The big things--the house itself and such, obviously you can't do anything about. When you prepare for a Cat 4, you'll move property that you want safe to a safer haven and then evacuate (ideally). With a Cat 2, you might still move property, but just inside of a sound structure, and perhaps you would not evacuate. So regardless of the intensity, with a reasonably good track forecast, individuals can make these sound basic preparations. The key is getting them to do it.

When local EMs prepare for an impending natural disaster, a main focus is people, and in the case of a TC, evacuating them to safe haven. Evacuation is costly and this is a very good point--if you evacuate too large an area, you'll obviously spend more money than necessary, and evacuation is the main difference from an EM concern between a weak hurricane and a strong hurricane.

I intentionally leave out other preparations (like sandbags, or preparing levee management, moving government facilities or any other plethora of things) because I'm actually interested in the cost of, other than evacuation, for preparing for a stronger hurricane as opposed to a weaker one--since I don't really know any numbers.

It is simple to get this money... place it in the DEFENSE budget, since this is a matter of national security, not science research

Interesting perspective, but if it is a matter of national security, it still is a scientific endeavor. And in a government budget, that's already set up in NOAA, which we both know is DOC. That's a political thing, far more difficult for scientists to control, but defense certainly gets a nice chunk of money these days. Maybe something through FEMA in Homeland Security?

[Category 5]

This is a mandatory investment IMO.

[MGC]

This would be a double edged sword. Had the decrease in intensity of Katrina and Rita been accurately forecasts many more people would not have evacuated. I imagine the death toll by these hurricanes would have been exponentially higher because of the opinion that "it will only be a 3" and I can handle that.....MGC