Saffir Simpson Scale is inadequate

[logybogy]

We need a new system that incorporate the following dynamics:

1) Wind Field - A Cat 5 storm that is the size of Charley that has Cat 5 winds in one band around a 5 mile wide swath will not do as much damage and distruction as a Cat 4 that has a 100 mile hurricane wind field.

2) Speed - A slow moving storm that dumps massive amounts of rain and allows hurricane force winds to pound an area for hours and hours will do more damage than a fast moving storm.

3) Storm Surge - damage is heavily dependent on the hurricane's size, winds during the past 48 hours, and coastal geography. A weakening storm may weaken its winds but maintain the storm surge component from 24-48 hours ago.

The various different components could be rated on a scale of 1-10 and then averaged together by formula to determine a storm's true strength and damage potential.

[Terry]

I think we'll see some changes or a new system. It is definitely needed.

As I recall, the S-S scale wasn't intended to be used in the ways in which we use it. As long as the new scale doesn't have the name Bastardi in it...

[JQ Public]

Very good point guys. Size and speed does make a difference! I wonder what it would take to change the requirements. Sad to say a storm like this is what caused us to change it

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

Katrina caused cat5 damage in the surge. It looked like the Tsunumi!

[cancunkid]

I have been saying this for a couple of days. Could not agree more. Also they should take in factors like speed and rain rates since inland and coastal flooding are big contributing factors to deaths but I have to say more surprising is the surge not being a factor. This is a factor which makes the shallow Gulf coast regions killers. We can only hope that the NHC and NOAA or who ever the powers that be make changes to update the warning system.

[therealashe]

We've been discussing this here for a couple of days. This just did not look like a 4 storm. It was so much more a 5. We've wondered whether or not it would be reclassified a la Andrew at a later date

[soonertwister]

This is an outstanding discussion. It wouldn't be all that difficult to look back at well-recorded landfalls to look at historical precident regarding this, and we could continually refine as the database increased.

It's obvious that a hurricane that was category 5 for a sustained period not very long prior to landfall is going to have closer to a category 5 impact in terms of storm surge (and possibly elsewhere) than a storm that spun up to category 5 just before landfall.

I'm betting that some research has been done on the issue of storm surge versus increasing/decreasing intensity of winds. That would of course be part of the whole issue.

[Windy]

I think all CAT 5 warnings should be accompanied by illustrations of cows flying through the air!

Seriously, though, I'm not sure how they can further classify hurricanes. Surges are hard to predict until they arrive, though they tend to lag behind wind speed. Thus you got a Cat 5 surge with a Cat 4 storm. It would have been helpful for this to have been mentioned in a product, but remember the dire warning the NOLA NWS put out -- they basically described Armageddeon -- and still people didn't leave.

[slowjoe]

We need a new system that incorporate the following dynamics:

1) Wind Field - A Cat 5 storm that is the size of Charley that has Cat 5 winds in one band around a 5 mile wide swath will not do as much damage and distruction as a Cat 4 that has a 100 mile hurricane wind field.

2) Speed - A slow moving storm that dumps massive amounts of rain and allows hurricane force winds to pound an area for hours and hours will do more damage than a fast moving storm.

3) Storm Surge - damage is heavily dependent on the hurricane's size, winds during the past 48 hours, and coastal geography. A weakening storm may weaken its winds but maintain the storm surge component from 24-48 hours ago.

The various different components could be rated on a scale of 1-10 and then averaged together by formula to determine a storm's true strength and damage potential.

Perhaps a 4th item is the local geography of the expected landfall. For instance the New Orleans scenario. Also, when even a weak hurricane moves slowly over mountainous terrain and causes widespread mudslides.

[Shinyhead]

Well, I am not by any means a weather guru, but for the sake of a smooth transition keep the SS Cat rating, but add an "impact factor" such that a very slow moving cat 1 with intense rainfall over a flooding prone area may have an impact factor of 8 (out of 10 say), and a very fast moving cat 3 sweeping over south florida (a reletively well prepared area) may havc an impact factor of 3 or 4. Give the items like geography, preparedness, flooding potential (rainfall), storm speed, storm intensity, recent storm/weather (already soaked ground causing saturations, or a very long time since a strike leading to massive tree falls) all a factor of 1 to 10, then average them. You should have a much better idea of the storms actual impact on the area affected.

Thats just my .02.

[Shinyhead]

Actually I have thought more about it and I really really like the idea.

One very good thing it can do is factor in the local readyness level. If an area keeps coming up red the NWS can tell people to look to the local politicians as to why that is.

Another thing is it may enable us to unfocus on the path (for the general population). Instead of focusing on a path or cone, a map showing the areas of impact factor (nice green for out of the danger zone, to red for areas of high impact factor potential). That way folks will think more of, my area is a danger spot. Get people to stop looking at that damn line where the eye may be and focusing on the fact that these are massive storms causing areas of damage not a narrow line of damage like a projected path suggest. People see the cone, but are thinking that that line can move in the cone. I know people here know better, but we are talking the general populace, not weather nerds like us.

I emailed Max Mayfield the idea, maybe it will at least set the groundwork for a new train of thought on the issue.

[ChaserUK]

...I have been thinking about this too. To be honest, a potential damage scale from 1-10 would be far better IMO. The damage and affects caused by the Katrina Event are far greater than Cat 5 - as some have said along the MS coast it looks like a Tsunami went through there...

[weunice]

I work on software that deals with pressure equipment at chemical plants and refineries. Several years ago, in order to reduce the of inspecting ALL equipment and focus the manpower on critical equipment they came up with a method of inspection called risk-based inspection. Clearly it makes sense to inspect something carrying highly pressurized and dangerous material more often than a pipe carrying water. Factors include population density, projected cost of failure etc. I think the same type risk factors need to be looked at and calculated for all coastal areas based on almost every conceivable scenario that we can come up with. Computers are ideal for that type of work. Obviously with this the inputs are different but the result should be similar. New Orleans is one of the most high risk areas. Every landfall should have a projection cone and the risk factors for the worst case projections, in lives and dollars, should be presented to local officials and the public.

Something like this could be done ... even if the data is only crude to start. It would be a start in the right direction.

[Shinyhead]

I am a former navy nuclear operator and we did similer things based on how critical an item or system was to reactor safety and operability. It was common sense that the primary pressure relief systems were inspected a bit more often then the drinking fountains.

[oneness]

Hey, the antiquated Richter Scale is not the best measure or indicator of earthquake energy-release nor damage levels and area of geographic effects but it is the one the public knows, thus it is the one communicated via the media. Good luck trying to 're-educate' the public mind beyond the current scale for tropical storm types, which they already know. The reason you use a qwerty keyboard today is because the general public know it, and familiar entrenched habits like that are hard to overturn or replace.

[Shinyhead]

When many hundreds or more likely thousands lie dead in the aftermath of a strom, it is worth the cost of re-education.

[Shinyhead]

Just a note, Mr Mayfield responded and said there is a team currently assesing how the prediction products are constructed and issued, so this is not falling on deaf ears. I will be following up and any ideas should be posted. Once I get a contact point with the assesment team I will point them to this thread.

[Cookiely]

I would like to know when warnings are issued why they can't show the damage to areas already hit by a specific category storm. Pictures would impress people of the dangers. That little graphic they show on TWC showing wind damage potential, surge potential and rain makes me ill. Show pictures of the damage produced by Ivan, Katrina or an Allison, and say this is the potential damage that you face. I would have liked to have seen one emotional met get up close and personal in the camera and say "You will DIE if you don't leave".

[SkeetoBite]

Actually I have thought more about it and I really really like the idea.

One very good thing it can do is factor in the local readyness level. If an area keeps coming up red the NWS can tell people to look to the local politicians as to why that is.

Another thing is it may enable us to unfocus on the path (for the general population). Instead of focusing on a path or cone, a map showing the areas of impact factor (nice green for out of the danger zone, to red for areas of high impact factor potential). That way folks will think more of, my area is a danger spot. Get people to stop looking at that damn line where the eye may be and focusing on the fact that these are massive storms causing areas of damage not a narrow line of damage like a projected path suggest. People see the cone, but are thinking that that line can move in the cone. I know people here know better, but we are talking the general populace, not weather nerds like us.

I emailed Max Mayfield the idea, maybe it will at least set the groundwork for a new train of thought on the issue.

These are all great ideas, many of which we will be incorporating into our maps.

Our frustration has been that people just don't understand what they are looking at. This week we have had hundreds of messages asking us to explain the windfield we added to our maps. We're working hard to make our maps as informative as possible utilizing real time data delivery. This is an enormous task.

Some have asked us to send examples of our 2004 and 2005 maps to the NHC. The truth is, the NHC does indeed look at our maps as our system tracks their access to our server. We have tried over and over to make contact with the good people at the NHC to share the feedback we have received from the general public, but cannot get a return call and finally gave up on this effort.

Make no mistake, I will be the first person to jump up and defend the efforts of the NHC. I view that organization as the most advanced weather source in the history of the planet. Their 72 hour forecast record is amazing

My company specializes in the graphical dissemination of information. Most people can tell at a glance that 1)thats a "Skeetobite" map and 2)OMG that's coming right at me (or not).

Should anyone from the NWS or NHC happen upon this message, I will donate ALL of the resources, time, feedback, software and graphics needed to create better maps. The simple truth is, combining the massive data and forecasting resources of the NHC with a better way to present the data will indeed save lives.

I can be contacted via the contact form found at skeetobiteweather.com.

P.S. Many more enhancements to our map products are in progress.