I heard on my car radio a news report interviewing hotel and resort property owners on the East Coast that lost virtually all their bookings this holiday weekend due to warnings for hurricane Earl. A direct quote from one of the people interviewed was:
It was the storm that wasn’t
The Shelter Island Reporter in the Long Island area seems to like that phrasing too for their story:
Rain, heavy at times, is all the Island got from Earl, which was downgraded to a tropical storm by 11 p.m. Strong winds did not reach Shelter Island. The rain total on Shelter Island for Friday was 1.71 inches
About the same time, an email from my friend Jan Null, former lead forecaster for the NWS in San Francisco showed up on my phone. He’s railing on about the bad reporting in the media, which I can understand, because TV networks have been chomping at tghe bit to get a new hurricane lead story, and with the holiday weekend mixed in, it was a perfect media storm. Though, with not much actually happening inland, some reporters were perhaps stretching a bit.
Jan writes:
In watching and listening to coverage of Hurricane Earl, I have heard way too many “meteorologists” speak about “hurricane force gusts”! There’s no such thing! The amount of force of a gust is significantly less than the sustained winds that define a hurricane.
Here’s what I wrote for a piece in Examiner.com last year (http://www.examiner.com/sf-in-san-francisco/meteorological-pet-peeves-part-1-of-3 )
“Hurricane Force Winds” It seems that anytime there is a wind gust over about 60 mph the airwaves and other sources, including NWS statements, are rife with the expression “hurricane force” winds. While this might be good for conveying that it’s windy and might be dangerous, it’s both bad meteorology and bad physics! (And calling it a hurricane force gust doesn’t make it right either) Let’s start with some basics. The threshold for hurricane winds is when the 1-minute sustained winds equal or exceed 74 miles per hour.
Please note the word “sustained”! According to the NOAA Hurricane Research Division, peak 3 to 5-second gusts are approximately 30% higher than their associated sustained winds. This means that a 74 mph sustained wind of a minimal hurricane has gusts in the range of 96 mph. Quite a difference. But that’s just the wind speed.
What about the amount of force from the wind onto a surface that is perpendicular to the wind? From high school physics we remember that the force associated with a given speed is proportional to the square of the wind speed. (For the overachievers out there, the formula to calculate this force is: F = .00256 x V^2, where F is the force in pounds per square foot (psf), and V is the wind velocity in mph)
Consequently, the amount of force with a 74 mph gust is 14.0 psf, while the force from a 96 mph gust is 23.6 psf; or 69% higher. The bottom line is that a gust to 74 mph is NOT even close to hurricane force!
Regards,
Jan
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Jan Null
Certified Consulting Meteorologist
Golden Gate Weather Services
Webpage: http://ggweather.com
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ian L. McQueen,
The globe and Mail posted “scary” videos of hurricane hitting Peggy’s Cove in NS… NOT!
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/atlantic/man-drowns-trying-to-secure-boat-as-earl-bears-down-on-maritimes/article1696345/#video
If that video is a hurricane…
Hurricane Humility
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2010/09/hurricane-humility.html
Chris: “Had it tracked 150 miles west, there would be a different story to tell.”
Ric: “Had the storm jogged westward in the last hours, and there are many examples of that happening, there would have been people on the right side in stronger winds, the eyewall would pass over several others.”
You are both talking about a low probability event and even if it did track that far west, it would still have been a glancing blow with the strongest winds parallel to the coast, not perpendicular. It would not have been pretty down there, but a hit like that would have also weakened the storm even more helping out the folks in New England.
To build on what MarkB said – we have now reached the point in our society where all of our hyperventilating attempts to make everyone “safe” all the time actually cause more damage than we would suffer if we simply took the hit and quit trying to make everything better for everyone all the time.
It seems that the hurricane beat a path towards that anomalously warm water around Newfoundland/Greenland.
I suppose that was a coincidence, or was it?
Eric (skeptic) says:
September 4, 2010 at 8:20 pm
You are both talking about a low probability event and even if it did track that far west, it would still have been a glancing blow with the strongest winds parallel to the coast, not perpendicular. It would not have been pretty down there, but a hit like that would have also weakened the storm even more helping out the folks in New England.
===============================
Low probability on this storm, no doubt, Eric.
But it has happened in the past, and will happen sometime again in the future.
You might also benefit from reading of some significant storms that paralleled the coast or hit the SE US and moved up into the northeast.
I give you but a few….there are many more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Hazel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Carol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Donna
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Isabel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1944_Great_Atlantic_Hurricane
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England_Hurricane_of_1938
There are many others, Eric.
It’s not the wind, bud.
It is the energy from the storm in the wind and rain, but especially in the storm surge.
I am glad Earl was a bust. Hope we all dodge the bullet for many more years to come!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
No one enjoys poking fun at the media’s sensationalism and failed prognostications more than I do, but I can sympathize with their predicament somewhat in cases like these. Let’s face it, if they DON’T emphasize the potential dangers of a large hurricane skirting it’s way up the east coast and then it unexpectedly wobbles to the west and makes landfall with massive property damage and loss of life…well, everyone will be furious at them for not providing adequate warning. If they DO hype the potential threat and the hurricane stays harmlessly out at sea and becomes a non-event then everyone can have a good laugh at them for over-dramatizing things again. Better safe than sorry, and faced with such a choice I suppose they would rather be laughed at than despised. But it’s truly a shame the tourism industry lost so much business on a holiday weekend.
The real danger is that each time a potential catastrophe fails to materialize a growing percent of the population will become complacent and ignore future warnings. Anyone who has lived through a direct hit knows all too well that even a Cat 1 hurricane is nothing to be trifled with, but many who lack such a life changing experience will have a cavalier attitude. Until the ability to predict the path becomes an exact science it’s better to err on the side of caution and give adequate warning to those who are willing to listen and take it seriously.
Eric (skeptic) says:
September 4, 2010 at 8:20 pm
You are both talking about a low probability event and even if it did track that far west, it would still have been a glancing blow with the strongest winds parallel to the coast, not perpendicular.
==================================
Glancing blow??
If it had tracked that much farther west it would have put some big stretches of coastline in the right front quadrant of the cyclone.
Hardly a “glancing blow.”
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
wws says:
September 4, 2010 at 8:24 pm
To build on what MarkB said – we have now reached the point in our society where all of our hyperventilating attempts to make everyone “safe” all the time actually cause more damage than we would suffer if we simply took the hit and quit trying to make everything better for everyone all the time.
=============================
Extremely well said.
Chris
jack morrow: September 4, 2010 at 5:53 pm
Nothing can describe the damage to Mississippi. I drove through the same area after after hurricane Camille in 1969. It was very bad also-but I think Katrina was worse. The media only reports about New Orleans.
I was down there coordinating generator transfers from the Army to the local ARNG units. The folks in Mississippi had the common sense to evacuate, thus depriving the media of thousands of “horror stories.”
Six months later, I was in Ft. Lewis, WA, coordinating the return and repair of those same generators — half the local motels still had “Katrina refugees” living in them…
Concur – And now people – in Italy – are sueing because an earthquake wasn’t correctly predicted.
News media hype//hopes (?) and their forecast thoughts for a disaster due to CAGW – and ratings from thehurricane coming up “their” neck of the woods.
This wasn’t a “safely distance” Gulf coast or Florida or Mexican coast storm in largely unpopulated areas. This was in their backyard, and their backyard can’t be effectively evacuated because of the millions of people living right on the coast all the way up from Norfolk through Massachu.
But – It was hyped. They don’;t know enough not to hype it. And their jobs depend on their hype. Not the calm rational “Let’s wait this one out … It won’t be too bad. You can survive this one, and you’ve seen worse. You’ll see worse in the future.”
Say that? You’re fired.
RACookPE1978 says:
September 4, 2010 at 9:38 pm
But – It was hyped. They don’t know enough not to hype it.
=================================
The crux of the matter. Did you catch that? They don’t know enough “not to hype it.”
So very very true. Well said!
With stupid people at the reins, who needs an enemy?
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Why do people have it in for the media?
After all, – they have to make a living selling advertising space, – and if it requires a bit of alarmism at other peoples expenses, well that’s just too bad for them isn’t it.
I live in Rhode Island so I can tell you firsthand about what was going on here, at least in the northern half of the state.
I used Stormpulse.com to track the storm from when it began to approach the U.S. As it grew, I watched the track path and noticed inconsistencies from the reported path on StormPulse and the one on the local news – the news had it swiping us, but the website had it simply passing by. As the path remained nearly exact, they began running more and more scare tactics to get people to tune in “in case the path changes” and warned of disaster if Earl tracked more westward than they’d predicted.
Since I’ve lived here my entire life, I know that you require well over our ocean temperatures to sustain a hurricane. When it began heading NNE, the cooler water began cooling it from 140 mph to 115, then 105, and so on. By the time it passed us it was a category 1 hurricane and then became extra-tropical. As far as the impact here on Friday? No wind. No 20-40 or 40+ mph gusts. We did receive some rain but even then, it wasn’t the excessive rain they had predicted. Earlier in the week they claimed a trough of colder air would be pushing it north and eastward away from us, and then suddenly they began changing their tune when the storm headed towards N.C although there was no proof to substantiate that.
I am not saying that there isn’t danger, for sure, but a deadly hurricane hit attracts more viewers than a hurricane passing below us with some slight wind and rain. The media bias these days is absolutely unbelievable.
Graeme says:
September 4, 2010 at 10:14 pm
Why do people have it in for the media?
===========================
You are being sarcastic, right?
Ric Werme says: September 4, 2010 at 7:55 pm
I guess it’s easier to rescue people from a blown over bus on an interstate highway than a train derailed by a washout miles away from good roads
Ric, I’ll forgive you, being up there in the wilds of New Hampshire with the constant threat of Huron raids out of Canada…. but in civilized Southern New England the New York to Boston rail line is never more than a mile from good roads and is often far, far less. The roadbed may have been improved since the late sixties when I was a brakeman for the old NYNH&HRRC, but it hasn’t been changed. Canceling the trains was stupidity.
All that being said, I’d resent a “don’t frighten the peasants” approach. The Weather Channel and Fox News both hyped the storm. Here in Southern New England we had (no, zero zilch, nada) rain, wind or storm surge. Damned if you predict, damned if you don’t.
The BBC as part of its reporting yesterday on Earl said there are another 2 Hurricanes following and it is expected to be a record Hurricane season.
DOH!!!
Ric Werme says: September 4, 2010 at 7:55 pm
I guess it’s easier to rescue people from a blown over bus on an interstate highway than a train derailed by a washout miles away from good roads
Robert E. Phelan says:
September 4, 2010 at 11:13 pm
Ric, I’ll forgive you, being up there in the wilds of New Hampshire with the constant threat of Huron raids out of Canada…. but in civilized Southern New England the New York to Boston rail line is never more than a mile from good roads and is often far, far less.
=================================
So you think you are invincible??
There were major rail disasters and yes, by the 1938 hurricane.
OK try not to laugh at the dated melodrama. But just look at the real disaster at hand.
And let’s not even talk about 1935.
Point is….major hurricanes happen.
Just because this one did not happen….does not mean…in any way shape or form, that another 1938 might not again occur.
Or a 1954. Geez that was a bad year for New England.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
All that being said, I’d resent a “don’t frighten the peasants” approach. The Weather Channel and Fox News both hyped the storm. Here in Southern New England we had (no, zero zilch, nada) rain, wind or storm surge. Damned if you predict, damned if you don’t.
============================
Just because you did not have it (hurricane conditions), does not mean it has not occurred in the recent past….or will not occur in the recent future.
For people that are stupid enough to be “frightened peasants” and who can not discern the times and the weather….then I say big bl**dy deal. I really don’t care about their stupidity or the negative net effect that their stupidity brings upon the rest of us.
If the peasants are frightened….who really cares??
In more clear, succinct words: Only the strong survive.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
They should be called “a politicians outburst” force gust of wind- very strong but very short lived and not doing much after the first outburst.
The met office in the UK got loads of stick for their predictions of hot summers for the last few years as their computer is programmed to find them. This year they didn’t bother to save themselves another kicking. It is sad to see an organisation that was at the forefront of weather research and forecasting become a laughingstock because those in charge have a fixed agenda.
The ability of commentators here to be wise after the event really is something to take note of, no doubt about that.
But, given the views expressed here, I don’t recall a WUWT post here saying ‘Hurricane Earl is no threat’. Perhaps I missed it?
Is That Earl There Is?
Better to be warned of a really bad storm and not get it than not be warned and get it!
Meanwhile, there’s apparently bad flooding in Guatamala and Mexico that we aren’t hearing much about…
Why have I not heard anyone say, “They often call me Speedo…”?
Best,
Frank
The rule is that hurricanes roll around the edge of the Azores (“Bermuda”) high, which hooks them out to sea. The exception-to-the-rule has a hurricane “phase” with low pressure to the west, and slices the storm inland. The exception-to-the-rule makes a huge difference, for if the eye passes just to your west you experience a true hurricane, which can spoil your hurricane-party with a flood or tree through your living room.
The last real exception-to-the-rule in New England was Carol in 1954. That means that for fifty-six years meteorologists have been on guard, awaiting what hasn’t reoccurred. (Carol was actually forecast to hook out to sea, as was the 1938 hurricane.)
I think meteorologists did a good job with Earl. The ones I watched never predicted the eye would get west of the outer banks of North Carolina, or Nantucket in Massachusetts. You could tell they were on the edge of their seats, keenly watching the maps for any sign Earl might “phase” with the approaching front to the west, but signs of “phasing” never occurred, so they never forecast the hurricane would slice inland.
The hype and hysteria therefore is due to the media. I can see only three reasons for this.
1.) There is a wierd over-reacting going on which seems designed to ruin the economy. Closing down the east coast on Labor Day Weekend seems a bit like closing down oil rigs in Alaska due to the Gulf Oil Spill.
2.) The media puts ratings over reason.
3.) People fear lawyers. (Many slides and swings have vanished from playgrounds, and in some cases recess is forbidden, not because children are less inclined to scratch their knees, but because people fear being sued by a lawyer for a child’s scratched knee.) In the same way people practically evacuate all land east of the Missisippi at the slightest hint of a hurricane. The true danger is not hurricanes, but lawyers.
Remember in November.
To criticise the use of the term ‘Hurricane Force’ gusts solely on the basis that “The threshold for hurricane winds is when the 1-minute sustained winds equal or exceed 74 miles per hour.” is somewhat disingenuous as it confuses definitions from two different measurement systems. The definition of a Category 1 hurricane on the Sahhir-Simpson Scale does, indeed refer to a sustained wind of 74 mph with gusts up to 95 mph. However, the definition of Force 12 (‘Hurricane Force’) on the Beaufort Scale does not include the same requirement for a sustained wind and a report of ‘Force 11, gusting 12’ (i.e. gusting to hurricane force) is perfectly in order.