2 things I think should be eliminated.

[Category 5]

1. The term "Major Hurricane". It is a completely misleading term to the public, Ike will be the poster child for that point. The difference between a 95 and 100kt Hurricane is negligible, the term serves no purpose IMO. And remember, Isabel, Floyd, Frances, not "major hurricanes" when they struck the U.S.

2. The surge section on the Saffir Simpson scale. There are too many factors that determine surge. Katrina, a Category 3 produced a 28 foot surge, the scale lists cat 3 surge as 9-12 feet. Category 2 surge? 6-8 feet. Lets see how true this holds. The little surge scale is very misleading and has been tragically wrong on many occasions. Due to the many factors involved (location, size, etc) surge should be taken on a storm by storm basis.

Ok, let the flaming of me begin.

[Squarethecircle]

I think that major hurricane is an accurate distinction IF AND ONLY IF the second part of your statement is not accepted. However, I believe that a separate system for surge is necessary, so the MH borderline really should be changed to incorporate those two systems.

Really now, can we say with 100% certainty that Ike will cause "moderate" damage? The surge suggests otherwise.

[RL3AO]

We need a new scale. The SSHS is not good enough. A scale like IKE needs to replace, or be used in tandem with the SSHS.

The public doesn't understand that there is more to a hurricane than wind. The public and the media needs a number or rank to assign to a storm. The SSHS isn't good enough and I think Ike is the posterchild of that.

[Jason_B]

Should the scale be changed or should the public just be better educated? JMO but changing the scale is only going to make things even more confusing for people. I say just keep it the way it is but make it clear that surge has nothing to do with the category.

[RL3AO]

Should the scale be changed or should the public just be better educated? JMO but changing the scale is only going to make things even more confusing for people. I say just keep it the way it is but make it clear that surge has nothing to do with the category.

You can try, but theres always that 20 percent who go "its only a category 2".

[Jason_B]

Should the scale be changed or should the public just be better educated? JMO but changing the scale is only going to make things even more confusing for people. I say just keep it the way it is but make it clear that surge has nothing to do with the category.

You can try, but theres always that 20 percent who go "its only a category 2".

That's true but I don't think altering the scale is going to eliminate that percentage either.

[RL3AO]

Any scale that including size or surge would be very high. I think the IKE scale was 5.6/6 earlier today.

[digitaldahling]

Should the scale be changed or should the public just be better educated? JMO but changing the scale is only going to make things even more confusing for people. I say just keep it the way it is but make it clear that surge has nothing to do with the category.

You can try, but theres always that 20 percent who go "its only a category 2".

That's true but I don't think altering the scale is going to eliminate that percentage either.

This may be the wrong forum, but I have to ask the unanswerable question. How in the world can 20+ thousand people think the same thing? That they'll be safe in the face of over 100 mph winds and possibly a 20' storm surge when they are at sea level?? How can they think that? It is beyond my comprehension that that many people can be that ignorant in the face of almost certain death.

[somethingfunny]

The scale ought to be called simply the IKE Scale. Ironic, but the storm that proved once and for all the need for an I.K.E. rating system for public use was named Ike....and I think anybody warned about a storm with a SSHS rating of 2 (or even 1) but an IKE of 4 or 5 will know exactly what's coming.

[VeniceInlet]

1. The term "Major Hurricane". It is a completely misleading term to the public, Ike will be the poster child for that point. The difference between a 95 and 100kt Hurricane is negligible, the term serves no purpose IMO. And remember, Isabel, Floyd, Frances, not "major hurricanes" when they struck the U.S.

2. The surge section on the Saffir Simpson scale. There are too many factors that determine surge. Katrina, a Category 3 produced a 28 foot surge, the scale lists cat 3 surge as 9-12 feet. Category 2 surge? 6-8 feet. Lets see how true this holds. The little surge scale is very misleading and has been tragically wrong on many occasions. Due to the many factors involved (location, size, etc) surge should be taken on a storm by storm basis.

Ok, let the flaming of me begin.

Absolutely no flaming, I could not agree more. I think perception is reality, and you've nailed where a large percentage of the public's perceptions are consistently flat-out wrong.

[Ixolib]

This same discussion took place after Katrina.

I believe hurricane forecasts should actually be reversed in terms of wind and surge. IOW, the surge potential ought to take the lions share of the forecast, with wind being secondary in the advisory. As it stands now, the opposite continues to be true...

For some really strange reason, the "officials" can't seem to get this figured out. In my opinion, the SURGE ISSUE is significantly more important than the WIND ISSUE for a landfalling storm. Apples and oranges, actually.....

That being said, it does - in fact - seem that this time around with Ike, the surge issue was getting more attention even when Ike was days away from landfall. This both at the official level and at the media levels. So perhaps a new awareness is slowly going to become the norm in terms of the surge issue with a landfalling hurricane.

AND... I agree with the OP. The term MAJOR ought to be eliminated as well and be replaced with something more concrete that clearly identifies the intensity and damage potential of a hurricane (with the emphasis on "damage potential").

[Jason_B]

This same discussion took place after Katrina.

I believe hurricane forecasts should actually be reversed in terms of wind and surge.

Which would make storms like Charley and Andrew tropical storms.

[jinftl]

One thing to keep in mind is that all of these storms would have done the damage they did regardless of what category we had given them. The question is i think more, would the public have responded differently with a different storm categorization? In the case of Katrina, the forecast anticipated nothing short of a Cat 4 or 5 moving over New Orleans....what more could have been done to mobilize evacuation than that in terms of storm category? The reasons people stayed had more to do with economics and logistics in new orleans i think.

With Ike, there may have been more of a response to the evacuation order with a higher category of storm, but there was a clear forecast of a larger and more deadly surge than a Cat 2 even 2 days prior to landfall. People who had tuned in enough to hear the storm category would have no doubt heard that as well...let's make sure the 'only a cat 2' is not an after the fact excuse...at least in some cases...i would want to know how many also had heard the higher than normal surge warning as well and still chose to stay. When you gamble, you sometimes lose....bottom line.

Also...and this is key...what category of storm did ordered evacuations correspond to with ike in texas? If the areas ordered evacuated were only for a Cat 2 storm, that is one thing....if the areas ordered corresponded to more than a Cat 2, that is another.

[VeniceInlet]

This same discussion took place after Katrina.

I believe hurricane forecasts should actually be reversed in terms of wind and surge.

Which would make storms like Charley and Andrew tropical storms.

You're being far too literal about what ixoib said. He didn't say to downplay the wind, just that communicating the surge part clearly needs more emphasis and improvement.

One thing to keep in mind is that all of these storms would have done the damage they did regardless of what category we had given them. The question is i think more, would the public have responded differently with a different storm categorization?

If it saves even one life that might have been lost otherwise, it would be well worthwhile.

Even if just 20% more people evacuate and 20% more people who evacuated but didn't need to change their behavior, and 20% more people were truly, adequately prepared for the storm, it would be well worthwhile.

Choosing not to go about it because 100% will never comply is not thinking about it the right way.

[jinftl]

That may work in the context of a single storm....but then you risk a situation like rita, where many evacuated and suffered little actual damage...even though rita evacuations may very well have saved some lives. What happens with the next storm, when the majority who evacuated and then came home to no damage from a prior storm are faced with another order to leave? Would high complicance from one storm that missed result in low compliance regardless of category or warnings for the next storm?

An area's actual experience may matter more than category a storm is given in terms of behavior with the next storm that threatens....i.e., if my area which evacuated for but missed a cat 4 by 150 miles.... what will my area's evacuation response be with the next cat 4 that threatens? what if it is a cat 2?

[/quote]
If it saves even one life that might have been lost otherwise, it would be well worthwhile.

Even if just 20% more people evacuate and 20% more people who evacuated but didn't need to change their behavior, and 20% more people were truly, adequately prepared for the storm, it would be well worthwhile.

Choosing not to go about it because 100% will never comply is not thinking about it the right way.[/quote]

[Steve]

Dr. Steve Lyons was on local radio (Garland Robinette/Think Tank show) today discussing the Safford Simpson Scale and how we're looking at it now. He agreed that we have to start looking at storms in a whole different light. He discussed the four major aspects - water rise, wave action, rain and wind - and how different aspects affect different systems. Major points of discussion included rainfall rate (function of the speed at which a circulation is moving) and water rise which is a function of the size of the storm. For instance, the "benchmark" Camille and it's historic Cat 5 surge on the Gulf Coast in 1969 was destroyed by Katrina, a Cat 3 (he argues possibly 4 but...) which was a much larger storm. Segued (sp?) into Ike and the water rise it brought because of its enormous size (flooding everything from the Panhandle to the Central Texas Coast). They discussed some local points apropriate to Louisiana, but the key was that the SSS only reflects winds. He did mention some modeling he created that they use on TWC to describe impacts (we've all seen those scales at one time or another).

Steve

[jinftl]

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.


If people did not leave because of the rita fiasco, past storms that missed, or the 'i will never leave' mindset...storm category may not have mattered.

Dr. Steve Lyons was on local radio (Garland Robinette/Think Tank show) today discussing the Safford Simpson Scale and how we're looking at it now. He agreed that we have to start looking at storms in a whole different light. He discussed the four major aspects - water rise, wave action, rain and wind - and how different aspects affect different systems. Major points of discussion included rainfall rate (function of the speed at which a circulation is moving) and water rise which is a function of the size of the storm. For instance, the "benchmark" Camille and it's historic Cat 5 surge on the Gulf Coast in 1969 was destroyed by Katrina, a Cat 3 (he argues possibly 4 but...) which was a much larger storm. Segued (sp?) into Ike and the water rise it brought because of its enormous size (flooding everything from the Panhandle to the Central Texas Coast). They discussed some local points apropriate to Louisiana, but the key was that the SSS only reflects winds. He did mention some modeling he created that they use on TWC to describe impacts (we've all seen those scales at one time or another).

Steve

[AJC3]

I think there are two potential obstacles in trying to develop a comparable scale to the SSHS.

1) Trying to get a scientifically uneducated public to understand a more complex scale - and let's face it, the SSHS is about as simple as you get: 1 to 5 based upon one parameter - wind, and wind alone. Any other parameters tied to the SSHS are merely rough guidelines (e.g. SLP). Will the public even understand a multi-parameter scale?

2) Rating a hurricane not solely based upon an analyzed parameter of the storm (i.e. wind speed), but also on a forecast parameter (e.g. storm surge) of an effect that the storm is expected to have. Also, keep in mind that a storm surge forecast is not just based upon the storm itself (i.e. MWS, RMW) but also upon where the storm is and where it's forecast to go. For example, have Ike make landfall along the east central coast of Florida, and the storm surge would be much less. So does a storm get a higher "new scale" rating just because it strikes an area more vulnerable to surge (or flooding for that matter).

Just for some background info, keep in mind that specific storm threat information is not only conveyed in NHC advisories, but also are assessed and communicated in greater detail locally by the WFO's. Here's an example...

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/mlb/ghls/index.php

The Graphical Hurricane Local Statement (G-HLS) is a product that was developed by our office starting about eight years ago, http://www.srh.noaa.gov/mlb/PDFs/floodsymp1.pdf) and many offices in the NWS southern region have adopted this format. Each threat is objectively assessed and ranked on a scale which goes from 0 (none) through 5 (extreme).

I think the public understands tropical cyclone threats when each threat is explained to them, as is currently done in NHC advisories and NWS Hurricane/TS Local Statements. So, if the specific threat information is already out there, is there even a need for trying to compartmentalize all these threats into a new multi-parameter scale? And is there a neat, tidy, and above all, simple way to do it?

Not saying that it can't be done, but I don't think it's as easy as some may think.

[jinftl]

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.

[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.