how would you revise the SS scale

[docjoe]

For starters if this is already a thread i apologize. I know there has been discussion recently about limitations of the SS scale. This made me wonder how people here would go about changing it. Here is my idea. Apologies if I am repeating something already here on this board.

I would take three major components of a hurricane. The wind, the surge and rainfall. I would classify each component on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being the low end and 5 being the high end. This would then lead to a score of 3-15. A score of 1-3 would be a cat 1, 4-6 a cat 2, etc. For example let us suppose that Hurricane Cornbread was approaching the Western FL panhandle. It has sustained winds of 120 MPH. We could score this a 3 out of 5. Let us suppose that similar to Ivan it had been a stronger storm prior to land fall and would generate a storm surge of around 14 feet. We could score this a 4 out of 5. Finally let us suppose that due to increasing foward speed it would be a fairly dry storm rain wise so let us give a score of 2 out of 5. This gives 3+4+2=9. This storm would be an upper end cat 3. Although this is simplistic it does account for rain, surge, and wind more equally and would also allow for local variables (like certain areas being more prone to surge). I would love to hear the ideas of other people on the board.

docjoe

[Derek Ortt]

from a science standpoint, I'd leave it alone. It has worked just fine for scientific purposes; thus, it should not be changed.

Now, if one wants to create a seperate scale for public use, then go ahead as the SS scale does not totally address public impacts for all storms

[seflcane]

Agree on that point. The SS scale is fine. The scale includes what pressure to expect and what storm surge is possible. As for a seperate scale for the public Joe Bastardi of Accuweather is forming his own hurricane scale that combines history of past storms and the pressure of a hurricane to come up with it's correct windspeed.

[docjoe]

I am not really suggesting that it be changed. I am just curious what others think of the current scale and what other viewpoints are out there. Besides after experiencing Dennis and Ivan and from what I have seen from Katrina I have a healthy respect and better understanding of the destructiveness of hurricanes regardless of the scale or description used.

docjoe

[Recurve]

A public scale with the descriptiveness of the Beaufort scale, but geared toward tropical systems, with separate rankings of damaging aspects -- rain flooding, surge flooding, wind damage, tornado and lightning danger maybe -- might be useful. Or it could be a piece of crap that people never understand or pay attention to, like the food pyramid.

One idea: A 1-10 scale with storms starting lower. After all, a hurricane designation is a meterological distinction; people should be aware of the damage from any system with winds above 30-40mph, in a Storm Danger Level (SDL) system, that would be a Level 1. I think there's a definite problem where tropical storms that could kill people don't even rate a 1. Maybe a lot of people start thinking a S-S Cat 2-3 was only moderately bad; many may have known that 5 is the worst, but assumed that "worst" meant a regular ol' hurricane, not a near-nuclear catastrophe.

Off the top of my head, a few ideas how a Storm Danger Level 1-10 system would sound. Levels 1-3 would for tropical waves, lows coming ashore, or TDs and TSs with light effects expected -- which can still cause a lot of headaches, especially in low places. Wind might be predicted at Level 1 but rain flooding at Level 3, for a particulary system, for example. Descriptions can help highlight effects, such as...

Level 1 (winds): Small to medium branches break, some large trees may be felled and crush house and cars. Boats at anchor may drag or break free without chain anchor rodes; boats at dock may sustain light to moderate damage from contact with pilings...(etc).
Level 1 (rain): Accumulations under x inches. Ponding of water in depressions, some small creeks and canals may overflow, street flooding up to 6 inches...(etc)
Level 1 (surge): Water rises onto beaches, coastal roads, waves may move furniture and cars near coast, flood ground-floor structures below x-foot elevation, beach structures sustain light damage, some beach erosion...(etc)

In general by level 4, you'd be talking typical category 1 hurricane effects. But it might be level 5 winds, level 2 rain and level 4 surge for a particular system. I'm thinking this could aid in preparedness (if it isn't too complicated), so people don't say "well it's not even Category 1" or "it's not yet a hurricane" when there could be damaging wind, rain, or surge effects.

Hate to go into wild speculation, but you have to think what would such as system do with a Katrina? It'd have to be a "Level 10+" surge event.

Note: None of this is criticism in any way of NWS/NHC and the type of advisories and warnings they now do. As a weather student informally and a technical writer and reporter professionally, I can't help but think about how the basic S-S Category system used now in advisories and by the media might be extended.

[seflcane]

Only think I wish they would so better is relate the pressure to the windspeeds better. Such as we saw with Dennis with a ridiculis pressure yet they did not up the winds.

[wxmann_91]

I know I've ridiculed the SS Scale before, but I say that I really can't change it. But I could add a new scale for damage or projected storm surge.

[george_r_1961]

Just my 2 cents worth here..anything over say 170 mph could be called a superhurricane...they have supertyphoons right?

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

If I remember right the Navy calls anything over 150 mph. A super hurricane.

[docjoe]

In light of recent post i wanted to get this started again to get more viewpoints...hope no one minds.

docjoe

[deadcities]

I'd leave it alone for the most part. I think I'd add a Category 6 for storms over 175mph sustained winds.

[Stratosphere747]

from a science standpoint, I'd leave it alone. It has worked just fine for scientific purposes; thus, it should not be changed.

Now, if one wants to create a seperate scale for public use, then go ahead as the SS scale does not totally address public impacts for all storms

Until reading between the lines of the SS scale.

Just a quick question for you or any of the pro-mets...

The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale is a 1-5 rating based on the hurricane's present intensity. This is used to give an estimate of the potential property damage and flooding expected along the coast from a hurricane landfall. Wind speed is the determining factor in the scale, a[b]s storm surge values are highly dependent on the slope of the continental shelf and the shape of the coastline, in the landfall region. Note that all winds are using the U.S. 1-minute average.[/b]

With the discussion we have in your thread about the landfall intensity of Katrina.

How can we continue to use a scale that is based solely on "Wind speed" as the determining factor, when the storm surge what by most experts is the ultimate danger?

Scientifically is it not as important to understand the dynamics of surge compared to wind?

Scott

[timNms]

Is there a way to accurately predict storm surge? Although I'm not 100% certain, but if memory serves me correctly, Katrina's predicted surge was off by several feet.

I'd leave the scale as is, but would stress in advisories the potential for a catastrophic storm surge in light of what has happened in recent storms.

[wxwatcher2]

I would revise it by leaving it AS IS.

You can try to place other criteria into the mix which in a sense we already to by Devorak T numbers etc etc etc

It would serve no public good to do this.
All the public needs to know is one and one = two.

[linkerweather]

from a perspective for the public this idea of a 3-15 scale, IMO, is not a good idea. And here is why. John Q Public already has an issue when a cat 1 is approaching because it is just a minimal hurricane. John Q ignores that it is a hurricane but knows that it is minimal. So, now on this scale to 15 you could have a 6 or 7 and the same ignorant John Q would be not leaving because there are 8 or 9 categories that are worse.

[docjoe]

from a perspective for the public this idea of a 3-15 scale, IMO, is not a good idea. And here is why. John Q Public already has an issue when a cat 1 is approaching because it is just a minimal hurricane. John Q ignores that it is a hurricane but knows that it is minimal. So, now on this scale to 15 you could have a 6 or 7 and the same ignorant John Q would be not leaving because there are 8 or 9 categories that are worse.

Point well taken. however there will always be the John Q Publicfactor who will always find a reason to ignore a storm. Some people just cant be told anything. To be clear I dont mean to eliminate the SS scale but perhaps use the 3-15 scale to better illustrate potential damage.

docjoe

[Frank2]

There was a news item in the last year or two about the possible inclusion of a Category 6 to the scale, and, it seems to be needed, since we've had at least two hurricanes this season that would have been classified as a "Strong Category 6".

However, one likely argument against concerns the damage assessment of this type of hurricane - since a Category 5 hurricane is defined as one that will likely cause catastrophic damage, any category above that would only be duplication, though higher categories would be helpful in a statistical sense.

What might need to be better defined in the public advisory is the storm surge potential of this type of hurricane, since this caused the most loss of life in Hurricane Katrina. For brevity, the NHC leaves the responsibility of providing local storm surge information to the local NWS offices in the form of issued "Hurricane Local Statements" and other local products, (this does not include storm surge information given directly to individual Emergency Managers by the NHC), however, due to the widespread use of cable television in today's world, it seems that many citizens usually hear only the public advisory read by national media outlets (TWC, CNN, FOX, etc.), which normally omit any vital local information, and, in my opinion, that's the problem.

Frank

[terstorm1012]

I'd leave it alone. Adding layers would confuse the public. . . . well meaning yes but in terms of your average lay person, they'd be like "what?"


KISS principle.

[HurricaneGirl]

I'd leave it alone for the most part. I think I'd add a Category 6 for storms over 175mph sustained winds.

Yes, that could be the HC Category!

[Nancy]

I'd like to see a scale of hurricane size, in addition to the ss scale.

1 = small; size of Andrew, Charley
2 = medium; size of __________ (what was a medium-sized hurricane?)
3 = large; size of Katrina, Floyd
4 = extra large; size of Gilbert

They tell us how far out the tropical storm and hurricane-force winds go, but it's very hard to visualize or compare the size with only that information.