ATL: SARA - Remnants - Discussion

[Hurricane2022]

Bye Sara. See you, Milton and Helene again in hell.

[cycloneye]

A new burst over Yucatán.

[N2FSU]

Convection has held together remarkably well on the trek across the Yucatan:




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Blown Away]

Nice burst of convection. Don’t see the models showing this burst, maybe the HAFS-A…

[cycloneye]

Is over, bye. However, rain is falling in parts of Central-America that is causing floodings.

[ChrisH-UK]

Sara now swirling out over the the Gulf of Mexico. I don't think much will happen it will either get swept up by a front or might loop around back into the Caribbean.

[Hurricane2022]

Orwell & Goode.....
 https://x.com/MattDevittWX/status/1858554836960051228

[sasha_B]

Orwell & Goode.....
 https://x.com/MattDevittWX/status/1858554836960051228

Not defending AccuWeather here (they don't have a good verification record for their track and intensity forecasts, and their approach to reporting does tend to be an alarmist) - and not to wander too far off the topic of Sara's actual history as a storm - but I think this tweet goes a little too far. An organisation, public or private, that is trying to promote public safety and awareness, shouldn't hold as their primary concern how much "stress" a forecast or warning may cause, and on the 13th, the potential for intensification and a track towards the Yucatan Channel was still there. Overstating forecast confidence at long-range may be irresponsble, but simply acknowledging the potential that a nascent system has isn't. There are plenty of cases in this season alone in which storms met or exceeded the upper end of model intensity guidance; uncertainty goes both ways. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but if a storm had any potential to come my way in a matter of a week or so, I'd take the "unnecessary stress" of being aware of that over being left with inadequate warning and time to prepare.

[HurricaneBelle]

Sara's remnants starting to blow up a bit, we may get some interesting (non-tropical) weather with the front in Florida

[Travorum]

Orwell & Goode.....
https://x.com/MattDevittWX/status/18585 ... cXo2w&s=19

Not defending AccuWeather here (they don't have a good verification record for their track and intensity forecasts, and their approach to reporting does tend to be an alarmist) - and not to wander too far off the topic of Sara's actual history as a storm - but I think this tweet goes a little too far. An organisation, public or private, that is trying to promote public safety and awareness, shouldn't hold as their primary concern how much "stress" a forecast or warning may cause, and on the 13th, the potential for intensification and a track towards the Yucatan Channel was still there. Overstating forecast confidence at long-range may be irresponsble, but simply acknowledging the potential that a nascent system has isn't. There are plenty of cases in this season alone in which storms met or exceeded the upper end of model intensity guidance; uncertainty goes both ways. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but if a storm had any potential to come my way in a matter of a week or so, I'd take the "unnecessary stress" of being aware of that over being left with inadequate warning and time to prepare.

The danger though is that AccuWeather said nothing about potential, they said in certain terms that Sara would become a major hurricane in the Caribbean and make landfall in Florida still as a hurricane. AccuWeather also displayed their own version of a forecast cone in a very similar style to official NHC forecasts in a deliberate attempt to convey the level of authority and confidence that the NHC has. Just this year meteorologists have received death threats for accusations of controlling the weather and sending hurricanes to places and even in this situation that unnecessary panic has a real impact; if that panic proves to be unfounded people start trusting authorities and professionals less. I already have countless neighbors (Zone B in Pinellas) that didn't evacuate for Milton "Because Ian was supposed to hit us too" and "Because we didn't flood from Helene" (never mind that three blocks from us was 5 feet underwater). This type of misinformation furthers that line of thought.

In potentially life threatening situations science communicators have to tailor their message to the lowest common denominator. Us hyper weather aware folks are not the target audience, it's the people that the NHC struggles to inform on the actual meaning of the forecast cone in the first place. People need to be informed about risks to person and property on time scales where there is actually some certainty to that risk, not ten days out. Doing otherwise just erodes trust and decreases engagement in an institution that already struggles with that. Compare the AccuWeather tweet to what Michael Lowry had to say at the same time. His discussion of uncertainty and the call for awareness over alarm is a textbook way to communicate the risk of a storm that had not yet formed to a general audience, even if he was a bit overzealous in calling the potential of a significant hurricane "likely":
 https://x.com/MichaelRLowry/status/1856438729482649609

[cycloneye]

 https://x.com/NHC_TAFB/status/1858852027574681792

[sasha_B]

The danger though is that AccuWeather said nothing about potential, they said in certain terms that Sara would become a major hurricane in the Caribbean and make landfall in Florida still as a hurricane. AccuWeather also displayed their own version of a forecast cone in a very similar style to official NHC forecasts in a deliberate attempt to convey the level of authority and confidence that the NHC has. Just this year meteorologists have received death threats for accusations of controlling the weather and sending hurricanes to places and even in this situation that unnecessary panic has a real impact; if that panic proves to be unfounded people start trusting authorities and professionals less. I already have countless neighbors (Zone B in Pinellas) that didn't evacuate for Milton "Because Ian was supposed to hit us too" and "Because we didn't flood from Helene" (never mind that three blocks from us was 5 feet underwater). This type of misinformation furthers that line of thought.

In potentially life threatening situations science communicators have to tailor their message to the lowest common denominator. Us hyper weather aware folks are not the target audience, it's the people that the NHC struggles to inform on the actual meaning of the forecast cone in the first place. People need to be informed about risks to person and property on time scales where there is actually some certainty to that risk, not ten days out. Doing otherwise just erodes trust and decreases engagement in an institution that already struggles with that. Compare the AccuWeather tweet to what Michael Lowry had to say at the same time. His discussion of uncertainty and the call for awareness over alarm is a textbook way to communicate the risk of a storm that had not yet formed to a general audience, even if he was a bit overzealous in calling the potential of a significant hurricane "likely":
 https://x.com/MichaelRLowry/status/1856438729482649609

Yeah, I don't dispute that what AccuWeather did was uncalled for, and I'm aware that there's been a lot of misinformation and conspiracy theories flying around (in the past & this season more than ever). I don't think there's anything wrong with a "cone" graphic being issued by a private agency, though - different government agencies have different approaches (JMA vs. JTWC vs. PAGASA, for example) and, at least in the US, plenty of privately-owned TV weather programmes make use of in-house forecast models & graphics that may differ from the NHC's, without sinking to the level of alarmism AccuWeather often does. As long as it's coming from professionals and not being pulled out of thin air, I don't think using a cone graphic necessarily implies an effort to co-opt the NHC's level of authority; it's just a common visual format for presenting a forecast. Accuweather acted irresponsibly by (dramatically!) overstating forecast confidence, but this would have been resolved by making a statement with caveats like Lowry's - attaching a disclaimer to their graphics clarifying the level of uncertainty, limiting their forecast to within 5-7 days (as is typical), and so forth. (I don't think Lowry's use of "likely" was overzealous either, except in hindsight, but that's a point on which I think reasonable minds can differ.)
I think we can agree that it's a fine line to walk between keeping people informed and reducing trust through warnings that don't verify. AccuWeather obviously often falls on the wrong side of this line, but different professionals can make different judgements on how to weigh the same sets of data, and will sometimes arrive at different conclusions. Non-RSMC organisations' publication of early forecasts, so long as they're constrained to a reasonable span of time, adequately convey uncertainty, and aren't presented as coming from an agency that didn't issue them, doesn't (in my opinion) constitute misinformation in and of itself. It's when the forecast is presented misleadingly or opaquely that it becomes irresponsible.