Hence, I believe it is important that this reality be pointed out by those who have some understanding and knowledge of such storms so that information that is not credible nor sources that are not authoritative should be recognized and discounted as such.
Rita is "Falling Apart Rapidly"
On September 23, 2005 just before 20z Reuters reported: "The latest satellite photos are showing Rita falling apart rapidly. The eye is almost non-discernable. The whole hurricane structure looks ragged," said Charlie Notis at Freese-Notis Weather, a private weather forecasting firm based in Iowa.
Such a comment was meteorologically incorrect. It was also potentially reckless. Let's take a closer look.
At the time Rita was supposedly "falling apart rapidly," it was merely undergoing an eye wall reorganization that is fairly commonplace in major hurricanes. The reality of such reorganizations is actually quite basic knowledge. Nonetheless, it was not deteriorating substantially.
∙ Current intensity rating at 9/23 18z: 6.0/6.5: Translation: some weakening was occuring but Rita was a very strong hurricane and not "falling apart rapidly."
∙ If one examines the satellite pictures--that were described as the basis of the conclusion--between 18:15z and 19:45z at 30-minute intervals, one finds a near steady state/weak erosion situation. In fact, the eye seemed to be growing better toward the end:
Of course, if it were I who was making a diagnosis, I'd also look at other data, too. Relying on a single piece of data creates an unnecessary risk of error. In my view, it is good practice to look for support from multiple pieces of data.
∙ Pressure or the hurricane's proverbial "pulse:" fluctuating but relatively constant:
9/23 11 am: 929 mb
9/23 2 pm: 931 mb
9/23 5 pm: 930 mb
∙ Wind speed had dropped but not sharply:
9/23 11 am: 135 mph
9/23 2 pm: 125 mph
9/23 5 pm: 125 mph
CI estimate of 6.0 suggested a higher wind speed than 125 mph at 2 pm, so I would have been cautious about assuming that the winds were rapidly falling off.
I'd also look at the environment ahead:
∙ Modest shear: generally 10 kts - 15 kts. Not great for intensification but not a killer.
∙ SSTs: An important patch of 30°C-31°C water lay just in front of Rita. Hurricane Heat Content per the NRL site was 50.000 for that patch of water.
That suggested that any weakening would likely level off. Hence, even if one went with a 5 mph - 10 mph reduction at landfall, that would still imply a major hurricane landfall.
The bottom line is this:
1) The methodology behind the hypothesis--stated as a conclusion to the international media--that Rita was "falling apart rapidly" was not, at least in my view, very sound. It did not take into consideration some of the more basic parameters one would or should look at in estimating the evolution of a hurricane's intensity at a given point in time. Yes, intensity forecasting is difficult. But in this case, I'm not commenting on an intensity forecast. I'm commenting on an observation that very clearly was not consistent with the satellite imagery nor the actual data being reported by satellites, the NHC, etc.
2) Such a message could have had the unintended effect of encouraging complacency with a dangerous hurricane. It could also have created confusion as it contradicted the NHC.
3) If this message was intended to serve as a news "scoop," that's a very bad way to go about garnering publicity. Needless to say, now one can look back and rightly ask, "I thought it was 'falling apart rapidly.' If so, why did a major hurricane make landfall?"
4) In cases where dangerous storms threaten, and this is my main point, people should be particularly cautious that any facts that are set forth as facts--stating that Rita is "falling apart rapidly" as opposed to the more conditional "I believe Rita is falling apart rapidly" or "I expect that Rita will fall apart rapidly"--are reliable. Check to see if a fluctuation is, in fact, a trend. Not every wobble is indicative of a track change. Not every fluctuation in the central pressure, wind speed, condition of a storm's eye is indicative that the changes are of a permanent nature. With Rita still more than 12 hours from landfall, it would not have been unreasonable to wait for the 5 pm data before reaching such conclusions.
In this case, as I noted above in my dissection of the situation, I do not believe a reasonable person could suggest that statement of fact was reliable. Of course, later data demonstrated that it was not.
The National Hurricane Center reported that Rita came ashore as a Category 3 hurricane. Excerpts from its 4 am CDT advisory:
ZCZC MIATCPAT3 ALL
TTAA00 KNHC DDHHMM
BULLETIN
HURRICANE RITA ADVISORY NUMBER 27
NWS TPC/NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
4 AM CDT SAT SEP 24 2005
...RITA MOVES ONSHORE NEAR SABINE PASS AS A DANGEROUS CATEGORY THREE HURRICANE...CURRENTLY NEAR PORT ARTHUR TEXAS...
AT 4 AM CDT...0900Z...THE CENTER OF HURRICANE RITA WAS LOCATED NEAR LATITUDE 29.9 NORTH...LONGITUDE 93.9 WEST OR NEAR PORT ARTHUR TEXAS.
RITA IS MOVING TOWARD THE NORTHWEST NEAR 12 MPH. A GRADUAL TURN TOWARD THE NORTH AND A DECREASE IN FORWARD MOTION IS EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT 24 HOURS. THIS MOTION SHOULD BRING THE CENTER OF RITA FARTHER INLAND OVER SOUTHEASTERN TEXAS TODAY.
REPORTS FROM AIR FORCE RESERVE HURRICANE HUNTER AIRCRAFT AND NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DOPPLER RADARS INDICATE THAT MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS ARE NEAR 120 MPH...WITH HIGHER GUSTS. THIS MAKES RITA A CATEGORY THREE HURRICANE ON THE SAFFIR-SIMPSON SCALE. RITA SHOULD WEAKEN TODAY AS THE CENTER MOVES FARTHER INLAND.
Later, though, the individual responsible attempted to "spin" the assessment possibly to make it appear that his misdiagnosis was, in fact, reliable. He termed Rita perhaps "one of the biggest duds of all time."
Again, Reuters reported: "From what once was a super hurricane, this could turn into one of the biggest duds of all time," said Charles Notis at Freese-Notis Weather, a private weather forecasting firm.
I'm sorry to say it, but with all due respect, based on the two Reuters stories, I believe this individual knows little or nothing about hurricanes. Furthermore, his post-landfall comments demonstrate that he has no perspective into the damage past hurricanes have caused and out of this lack of perspective appears to subscribe to the idea that if a mega-disaster along the lines of Katrina has not occurred, then the event is a "dud."
Nothing could be farther from the truth. A multibillion dollar figure for damage, which appears highly likely for Rita, is not "one of the biggest duds of all time." A landfalling Category 3 hurricane--just the 93rd to have made landfall since 1851 and 95th to have brought major hurricane conditions to the U.S. since that time--is not an everyday event, even if 2004 and 2005 have seen 3 such hurricanes make U.S. landfall. A hurricane that comes ashore with 120 mph maximum sustained winds does not deliver merely a lazy light breeze to those in its eye wall. By no reasonable criteria is a landfalling Category 3 hurricane that brought with it a 10-15-foot storm surge "one of the biggest duds of all time."
Katrina was a Category 1 Hurricane at Landfall:
Even before a wide range of data was available and the preliminary H-Wind Analysis (with its inherent limitations) did not support a landfalling Category 1 hurricane, the October 4, 2005 issue of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported:
Robert Howard, an assistant professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Louisiana at Monroe, said Katrina might have been a Category 1 at landfall.
In the same area were the hurricane center found 145 mph winds, he said a 2-meter tower near Buras showed gusts of 114 mph and sustained winds of about 94 mph, or strong Category 1 status.
First, Mr. Howard should know that a single data point is meaningless from a statistical perspective. That's very basic statistics.
Second, he should be aware that wind equipment can be destroyed as winds reach very high levels. The NWS New Orleans noted on October 3:
Code: Select all
EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTERS...PEAK GUST OBSERVED BEFORE WIND EQUIPMENT WAS BLOWN DOWN. PASCAGOULA -JACKSON COUNTY MS EOC - PEAK 108 KT POPLARVILLE - PEARL RIVER COUNTY MS EOC PEAK 117 KT Third, one should refrain from making premature judgments before a comprehensive set of information is available.
Unfortunately, Mr. Howard showed no such discipline and made his sensationalist claim that Katrina was a Category 1 hurricane at landfall even as the early data strongly suggested otherwise.
What to do?
Bad information, sensationalist claims, and reckless inaccurate observations of how a tropical cyclone is evolving do not serve the public interest. While the temptation to see one's name in print might be high and sensationalist claims might open the door to such opportunities, I very strongly believe that those who apparently lack basic knowledge or willingness to bring rigor to assessments of tropical cyclones should refrain from making unfounded, inaccurate, and misleading statements. Such statements are not constructive. Instead, they can be destructive.
Those who have understanding/knowledge of tropical cyclones should actively debunk sensationalist, unfounded, or badly flawed assessments. Leaving them unchallenged can only create an unintended perception of authority or accuracy. Such perceptions can, eventually, have adverse public consequences.
Furthermore, it might be good practice for the Media to rely more heavily on the NHC or NWS accounts in determining whether or not a piece of information is reliable. Post-storm assessments can wait for the NHC's preliminary report.
Clearly, this was a very blunt--perhaps not popular--assessment. However, I am very concerned about this issue and its long-term consequences if it is not noted and addressed. Certainly, given my historical knowledge of major hurricanes, I believe it would have been irresponsible on my part to avoid commenting on two very clear examples of bad, unsupported information that passed muster with the Media.
