Changes comming to hurricane warning system

[cycloneye]

This talk of changing the Hurricane Warning system is part of the Hurricane Conference going on in Orlando.I favor to get rid of the cone as it confuses many people. What is the opinion by all of you about this important topic?


ORLANDO - Sweeping changes are in the works for the National Hurricane Center's visual warnings on tropical weather, and this time scientists want to make sure the public understands them.

Within a few years, the cone of uncertainty, which shows a hurricane's predicted path, will likely be obsolete. Too many people misinterpret it as a forecast for hurricane winds. Also, new warnings and maps for storm surge are likely to emerge, a move that will bring the largest change to the hurricane center's warning program in decades.

Hurricane Ike is the driving force behind the changes, said Jamie Rhome, a storm surge specialist with the National Hurricane Center. In 2008, Ike's enormous storm surge trapped thousands of people in Galveston and nearby coastal areas because they did not evacuate, despite pleas from the National Weather Service. Later, surveys of residents in Miami and Tampa also revealed major gaps in the public's understanding of hurricanes, particularly the potential for high winds and surge beyond the forecast cone.

The cone shows where a storm's eye is likely to travel, not the area of hurricane impacts. Further, forecasters expect the cone to be wrong one-third of the time, uncertainty the cone does not clearly convey. It also does not show the hurricane's size.


http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20 ... /120329544

[CrazyC83]

How would it be interpreted though?

What they could do is show a clearer probability, in percent, as well as the 5th percentile winds (5% chance of exceeding) for a worst case scenario all the way to the 95th percentile winds (i.e. 95% chance of exceeding) for a best case scenario.

The cone is a good thing to look at, but in large storms as we saw in Irene, the impacts spread far outside it. Also in small storms like Charley, it creates areas that have to prepare hard only to run the risk of being let off with no impact at all and partly cloudy skies (that will always be a problem).

[WeatherEmperor]

How would it be interpreted though?

What they could do is show a clearer probability, in percent, as well as the 5th percentile winds (5% chance of exceeding) for a worst case scenario all the way to the 95th percentile winds (i.e. 95% chance of exceeding) for a best case scenario.

The cone is a good thing to look at, but in large storms as we saw in Irene, the impacts spread far outside it. Also in small storms like Charley, it creates areas that have to prepare hard only to run the risk of being let off with no impact at all and partly cloudy skies (that will always be a problem).

You make a really good point. I think if they replace the cone, now people will just look at the forecast points and say "oh well the next forecast point is not on top of my house so why should I worry?" I think they should keep some type of cone and do what you suggest and put a probability % of being impacted by winds. That should give people a clearer understanding of WHAT they are preparing for. Good post

[Florida1118]

If people cant understand a cone then I dont know. I dont think they should change it. I dont really think its a difficult concept but hey...whatever works for the majority of people.

[tolakram]

I'll repeat my standard answer to this.

People want a number. How bad will it be in my area? 1 or 2, I stay, 3+ I go.

We already have evidence that people do this, so why not implement a system that assigns a magic number so people can make the decision based off it?

Alert systems need to be designed around the users, in my opinion. In the case of Ike, Galveston would have been under a 3 or 4 on the "magic number" scale and a lot more people would have left.

[Florida1118]

I would find that so disappointing if they changed the magic cone to magic numbers. I mean if people understand it more than fine, but I'll miss the cone. Its like the symbol of Hurricane Season to me.

[vbhoutex]

I'll repeat my standard answer to this.

People want a number. How bad will it be in my area? 1 or 2, I stay, 3+ I go.

We already have evidence that people do this, so why not implement a system that assigns a magic number so people can make the decision based off it?

Alert systems need to be designed around the users, in my opinion. In the case of Ike, Galveston would have been under a 3 or 4 on the "magic number" scale and a lot more people would have left.

I think the addition of "magic numbers" to the already existing system with the cone is the answer. It would need to be emphasized that the local NWS and local media need to make sure that these probabilities are communicated to the public. I don't think people would pay as much attention as they need to to the "magic number" if it wasn't accompanied by a simple graphic such as the cone of uncertainty. Too simple is bad, but too complicated is bad too. Not the easiest thing to figure out what to do to get the public's attention the best.

[KG4HPN]

I think something along the lines of the maps Skeetobite has created in the past that shows the predicted hurricane force winds and TS force winds, maybe combined with a similar storm surge map, would be just about perfect, personally.

[somethingfunny]

A publicly funded organization simply cannot call the public dumb, but I think that is what it's really about. MOST people are smart enough to know what to do and how to interpret the data. Those who can't tell the difference between a Watch and a Warning, who ignore warnings because they've never been hit before, who make fun of weather forecasters for being 50 miles off-target 3 days out but couldn't tell you if a towering cumulus over their backyard is about to unleash a thunderstorm..... you have to focus on helping people who want help, and those who choose to ignore it aren't going to be helped no matter how much you tailor a forecast so they can hopefully understand it. Cannot fix stupid.

edit: Ike is an exception I'll make here. People were prepared to get out of the way, but nobody really anticipated that the surge waters would rise so much over 24 hours before landfall. Although I was reading about Hurricane Carla and learned that the same phenomenon happened before that storm, with significant water rises as far east as Mississippi and surge overtaking the barrier islands 2-3 days before landfall.

[DanKellFla]

Unfortunetly, there is no one number scale that really tells the story. A large diameter Cat 2 whose eye passes 150 miles away can be more dangerous than a small diameter Cat 4 whose eye passes 50 miles away. Then, there is the forward speed that affects the storm surge. I like Skeetobites maps. Maybe a cloud of two numbers would work. One number for wind speed risk and another for storm surge.

[wxman57]

I make dozens of hurricane preparedness presentations each year and I can tell you that very few people (not hurricane nuts) understand what the cone means, perhaps only 1 or 2 percent at most. Most interpret the cone as an impact boundary, thinking they're safe if they're outside the cone. Perhaps projecting the track within the predicted scope of tropical storm force and hurricane force winds (not wind radii circles for each track point). But then, that wouldn't identify the extent of any deadly storm tide, which could be hundreds of miles outside the wind field. I think the cone does far more harm than good.

[JonathanBelles]

I make dozens of hurricane preparedness presentations each year and I can tell you that very few people (not hurricane nuts) understand what the cone means, perhaps only 1 or 2 percent at most. Most interpret the cone as an impact boundary, thinking they're safe if they're outside the cone. Perhaps projecting the track within the predicted scope of tropical storm force and hurricane force winds (not wind radii circles for each track point). But then, that wouldn't identify the extent of any deadly storm tide, which could be hundreds of miles outside the wind field. I think the cone does far more harm than good.

I was thinking of using GIS to overlay a cone onto numerous options such as wind forecasts, wave forecast, surge, ect. Lacking the ability to just view the cone might give the hint that dangerous weather is possible outside the cone.

[Janie2006]

1 or 2 percent?! Good God. NOAA may not have the authority to call people, shall we say, "unobservant", but I sure do.

It'll be interesting to see what they come up with, but in a culture in which people want information in the simplest fashion as fast as possible it's difficult to see anything going over like gangbusters. I mean, if peeps can't even "know the cone", I just don't know.

[RL3AO]

1 or 2 percent?! Good God. NOAA may not have the authority to call people, shall we say, "unobservant", but I sure do.

I prefer "arrogant" and "stupid".

[psyclone]

I make dozens of hurricane preparedness presentations each year and I can tell you that very few people (not hurricane nuts) understand what the cone means, perhaps only 1 or 2 percent at most. Most interpret the cone as an impact boundary, thinking they're safe if they're outside the cone. Perhaps projecting the track within the predicted scope of tropical storm force and hurricane force winds (not wind radii circles for each track point). But then, that wouldn't identify the extent of any deadly storm tide, which could be hundreds of miles outside the wind field. I think the cone does far more harm than good.

This. As much as I like the cone, it is routinely misinterpreted, even by on camera TV mets. that's a problem. people think if they're not in the cone they are exempted from adverse weather. i explain that the cone is just the likely track of the center and a hurricane is a big storm but it still doesn't sink in. my next step is to show a hurricane forecast as a storm nears landfall. i note the large area under hurricane/tropical storm warnings that is OUTSIDE the cone...indicating those areas are going to get drilled even though they may not experience the eye. or i ask them...what happens if the center rides the edge of the cone?...then half of the hurricane is doing its dirty work OUTSIDE of the cone. finally, a hurricane will stray from the cone a third of the time. talk about meterological russian ruoulette. I don't know what the answer is here but one thing we must remember is that there is a good portion of the populace that doesn't care and will never take a hurricane threat seriously. we shouldn't focus on them. but for those non weather geeks that want the info...perhaps the NHC should be placing a greater emphasis on encouraging those folks to reference their point and click NWS forecasts and HLS from their NWS office.

[CrazyC83]

The cones, if impact based, should have 5 levels of impact and what they clearly mean:

* Tropical storm force (> 39 mph) - and give damage description
* Strong tropical storm force (> 58 mph) - and give damage description
* Hurricane force (> 74 mph) - and give damage description
* Category 2+ hurricane force (> 96 mph) - and give damage description
* Category 3+ hurricane force (> 111 mph) - and give damage description

(No need for one for Category 4 or 5 force since those are extremely rare on land)

[tolakram]

A publicly funded organization simply cannot call the public dumb, but I think that is what it's really about. MOST people are smart enough to know what to do and how to interpret the data.

I don't think dumb is the correct way to look at it. It would be nice if people who moved into hurricane danger zones would be aware of the danger and took time to learn how to read the maps, but that's not going to happen. Many people have to move for necessity, and hurricane danger and how to read a map is just not on the top of their list. I would argue most people do NOT know how to interpret data and probably have never uttered the phrase. That does not make them dumb.

[Zarniwoop]

I dunno, I'm no hurricane (or any weather) expert, but I am an engineer and understand the difficulty of presenting complicated information to laypersons.

In my view, I can't imagine that the current information isn't enough. People just make bad decisions.

If you feel you must change it and "dumb it down", so to speak, then create only one chart with maximum possible danger ratings. Make the ratings 1-10 with a key on the side. People love 1-10 lists

Then color the map with the 95th percentile worst case scenario for everyone.

Now the problem is that after 5 straight times of worst case not being close to met, everyone ignores the weather warnings again.

So, to fix that, we need to add other charts with "likely". And we are right back where we started.


The heart of the matter is that human beings are not good decision makers sometimes. You can't fix that with charts. Maybe we can do better, but I lived in Houston when Ike came through. They flat out told people anywhere near Galveston over and over on all possible channels that if they stayed they would die (even going house to house), and they still stayed.

You cannot fix that with a chart.

[brunota2003]

The only "thing" I can think of to make it any easier is to provide two graphics...one for wind and one for surge. Take the 120 hour % forecasts and create a "cone" out of them. For wind, break it down with TS (34 kt and 50 kt) and Hurricane (64+ kt) force winds (much stronger winds are confined to a small area, so graphics could not cover them easily). I would personally use the 20% line for that. You could do similar for surge, or create a different graphic.

Just so you guys get an idea of what I am saying, I created a map for Hurricane Irene's wind probabilities, using Forecast #13 8 am EDT Tuesday August 23rds wind maps.

Here are the 34 kt, 50 kt, and 64 kt wind maps from the NHC:

34 kt:


50 kt:


64 kt:


My forecast cone:

[brunota2003]

One thing I forgot to put is that I would like to see the forecast points kept on the image.