![701204main_20121029-SANDY-GOES-FULL[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/701204main_20121029-sandy-goes-full1.jpg?w=300&resize=300%2C209)
This was quite a circus to watch today. I didn’t bite.
Early this afternoon, AccuWeather reported the National Hurricane Center had announced they were modifying the definition of hurricane warnings becuase of Hurricane Sandy. They made a big deal out of it. Turns out that wasn’t quite right, read on.
Following the criticism of the National Hurricane Center’s handling of Hurricane Sandy and the non-issuance of hurricane warnings north of North Carolina, it has been decided that the NHC will now have more flexibility in their policy regarding the issuance of advisories. Beginning in 2013, the NHC will have the flexibility to issue multiple advisories on post-tropical cyclones for landfalling systems or close bypassers.
According to the NHC, this required a revision of the Hurricane Warning definition.
…
“The main issue is: we want people to get ready for hurricane conditions, and that’s why we are changing the definition of hurricane warning to be a little more inclusive of other things than just a hurricane,” Chris Landsea, Science and Operations Officer at the National Hurricane Center, told AccuWeather.com.
Playing follow the leader, The Weather Channel added a story that built upon the AccuWeather story. TWC wrote:
The National Hurricane Center confirmed Wednesday that changes to their system of issuing hurricane warnings will be altered prior to the start of the 2013 season. NOAA spokesperson Maureen O’Leary said changes to the warning system will be made, but said she was not able to comment further at the time.
A report issued at an annual NOAA hurricane meeting in Miami stated the NHC will now be able to issue a hurricane warning on a post-tropical cyclone.
But wait, not so fast! They haven’t actually made a rule change yet.
Seeing all the excitement, the In an emailed statement to many media outlets today, NOAA’s Chris Vaccaro indicated this change is not final but rather part of an ongoing process:
A proposal was raised during the NOAA Hurricane Conference last week for NWS to have the option to issue hurricane and tropical storm watches and warnings for post-tropical cyclones that threaten life and property.
This is one step in the process required before any proposed change to operational products becomes final. As part of our review of the 2012 hurricane season, including the Sandy service assessment, we will review all policies and changes through the existing and established process.
This sort of reporting is just about what we’d expect.
I think some new categorization is a good idea, because some storms are big on winds, some are big on rain, some are big on storm surge, and some are big on all three. Getting a handle on these to truly rate storm effects would be better. In this case, Sandy happened to just hit a place that isn’t used to hurricanes on a regular basis, and it wasn’t strong enough to rate hurricane strength, so hurricane warnings were not issued. The fact that it was NYC put a microscope on it. If hit Florida, it would have been just another storm.
CCM Mike Smith talks about the warning issue on WUWT.TV here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zu-6NIUNNw0
You can see some of the MSM playing follow the leader below….
Related articles
- Breaking: NHC Modifies Hurricane Warning Definition in Wake of Sandy (livescience.com)
- NHC Modifies Hurricane Warning Definition In Wake Of Sandy (huffingtonpost.com)
- National Hurricane Center re-defines the term hurricane warning (earthsky.org)
- Breaking News: NHC Modifies Hurricane Warning Definition in Wake of Sandy (paramuspost.com)
- Hurricane Warnings : A New Policy (wjla.com)
- Sandy forces change to hurricane warning definition (usatoday.com)
- National Hurricane Center to change alert system to include transitioning storms (sacbee.com)
None of the NOAA/NWS surface stations recorded any hurricane speeds for Sandy. I scanned the buoy network during and after the storm. The maximum recorded sustained wind speed was 28.3 meters per second (64mph) for one minute at Robbins Reef, NJ. at 0112 on Oct. 30
Robbins Reef, NJ
http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/data/realtime2/ROBN4.txt
The next highest sustained wind was 26.8 meters per second at (0000 on Oct. 30) at Cape May station CMAN4. Thats 60mph, well below hurricane threshold.
Cape May
http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/data/realtime2/CMAN4.txt
The majority of the offshore stations showed consistent winds around 24 to 25 meters per second during the peak of the storm. The official NWS land stations showed much lower sustained winds.
This has been covered before. The NHC makes projections and guesses based on aircraft based estimates of surface conditions. They consistently OVER-ESTIMATE winds speeds actually measured at the surface. Radar estimates are also subject to calibration errors, etc. The wind conditions for a hurricane are well defined. If you want to warn people of projected danger, then define the danger properly. Storm surge and flooding do most of the damage, not winds. Warn people that they wil die by drowning if they don’t leave low lying areas. Don’t build entire cities below sea level or on sand bars.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t we witnessing right now the largest/fastest freezing of Arctic Sea Ice ever? No fanfare?
Let’s face it – the people in New York and New Jersey were unprepared for a baby hurricane (that, by the way, had been predicted statistically for 100 years or so) and now want to blame everybody else.
A. Scott says:
December 6, 2012 at 1:39 am
A treat indiex makes sense.
However it still seems like Bloomberg is ducking his responsibilities. He is the one who was responsible for the safety of his city.
There was PLENTY of expertise out there he could have consulted. Heck when the Governor of New Jersey acted Why the heck did he not get on the phone and ask the simple question WHY?
This reminds vid me of Bloomberg:
Tim B says:
December 6, 2012 at 2:30 am
….. If the lights went out, they have kersense lamps and fuel-oil heat. Phone and TV weren’t essential. Now with the entire generation of young people expecting government to protect them and rescue their property, expecting once imaginary services such as internet and cellphones to never be out, let alone electricity, we are completely unprepared.
____________________________________
I must be getting old.
We have kerosene lamps, a generator to run the well and frig a fuel-oil heater and a Coleman stove. I always keep extra water in stock too. We are on a hill 100 ft above the 100 year flood plain and 175 miles inland. We also have a chain saw, ropes and block&tackle to get the trees out of the road which we and our neighbors have done more than once. I also have four sets of chains for ice.
When I lived up north I always carried a couple bags of sand, shovel, extra clothes, sleeping bag, food and water and I was darn glad I did on more than one occasion. If a bad storm was forecast I dumped the cross country skis in the car too.
Bad Weather happens no matter where you live. Hurricanes, blizzards, tornadoes, ice storms and flooding. I have seen it all even earthquakes. (You want a real thrill? Try being in a cave watching the limestone bedding planes shift during an earthquake. I couldn’t believe what I was seeing!)
Have we really insulated people from everything so much they have lost the last vestige of survival skills? That is what it sounds like to me.
Footnote:
Matthew S should have been in the Compostela Valley Phillipines just a short while ago when the Hurricane (typhoon) with winds 130 mph plus (Cat. 4) hit recently. Cleared a 700 km wide path, floods and landslides, wiping out the banana plantations, 200,000 homeless and 475 dead.
Still he reckons you couldn’t find one more severe than Sandy.!
Perhaps add a Category 0 Hurricane……….
bw – your buoy data was not sufficient. First there are many individual data sources showing higher speeds – including the NWS. There is for example the weathernationtv graphic above which showed many gusts from 76-90mph.
The hi-rez Weatherflow data I noted, which was used by the NWS during the storm, showed a number of stations in even a quick review with peak winds into the 90mph range, just as the number of other sources have shown.
http://blog.weathernationtv.com/wp-content/uploads/10.30.12-wind-gusts.jpg
Weatherflow stations are hurricane hardened, designed to accurately report up to 145mph – which is why I presume the NWS is now incorporating their data in their reporting.
Here is data from just one of their stations during Sandy:
http://goo.gl/lgnHd
They show 90mph gusts and 65mph “average” wind speeds. In looking at a lot of the Weatherflow station data the peak gusts are typically within 20-25mph of the “average” wind speed (which averages their peak and “lull” wind readings).”Average” wind speeds are not “max sustained” – which would be higher.
Here is just one NWS report from around time of landfall – this NWS Weather Statement was at 11:00pm EDT well after landfall:
And here is a link to NWS wind reports – where you can look at all parameters of the storm yourself – I pulled in the wind measurements:
http://goo.gl/DsjDt
NWS weather observations report max sustained winds at 75mph hours after landfall. And the mapped observations show a very large number of reported wind gusts from the 70′s well in to the 90′s mph range.
And you have other stations like the Tuckerton Weatherflow station showing average combined speeds of 65 and peak gusts of 90mph.
More ….
NWS uses Weatherflow – and specifically notes this, in some of their advisory’s.
This advisory:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCPAT3+shtml/292058.shtml
… at 11pm EDT 6 hours after landfall – was still reporting “hurricane force” winds – excerpts here:
And this NWS report:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCUAT3+shtml/300101.shtml
… at 9pm EDT shows max sustained winds at 80mph w/gusts up to 90mph
I don’t think the NWS is in the habit of making up numbers.
The proposal makes sense. I believe it was two years ago that the NWS added a “strong storm” notice for thunderstorms that were not severe yet but that could still cause problems for those in the path.
As someone who lives near the DC beltway, Sandy was a bad storm, not as bad as the worst forecasts. Monday most places stayed shut from the week end, and the weather by mid-day justified this. There were some people who woke up Monday morning and said this is not that bad, but upon further thought, asked themselves if they thought they could get back home. I told several people that the schools were closed for two reasons, anticipated evacuations (schools are often used as temporary shelter), and risk of not getting students home safely. Tuesday morning everything was still shut down but the rapidly improving conditions had most people says the second day of closures was overkill, but many of us remember that those closure decisions were mad mid day Monday at the latest, and the forecast was for conditions at least as bad as mid day Monday, at dawn on Tuesday.
Sandy was not as bad near DC as the Derecho, or the storms of reference for people in the area, Isabel, and Agnes. It was still more than sufficiently powerful to require reasonable precautions, and most people in the are took them.
For AScott,
Gusts are not sustained winds. I repeat — Gusts are not sustained winds.
Those NHC reports of sustained winds were based on aircraft estimates and not actual surface measurements. If you look at the ACTUAL measured winds reported from surface stations you will see that the maximum SUSTAINED winds were at the several NDBC stations off NJ and New York Harbor. Land based stations reported lower winds, usually 10 meters per second lower than offshore. Go to “Tidesandcurrents” at NOAA, you can plot the winds around the 28th to 31st of October. For example Cape May NJ
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/data_menu.shtml?bdate=20121028&edate=20121031&metinterval=&unit=0&shift=g&stn=8536110+Cape+May%2C+NJ&type=Meteorological+Observations&format=View+Plot
Clearly shows the winds during Sandy were never more than about 25 meters per second at any time. Gusts don’t count. Hurricanes are defined by SUSTAINED winds over one minute intervals.
I was watching Sandy closely, people were constantly reporting maximum “GUSTS” without regard to duration. If you want to change the definition of how a hurricane is defined then go ahead. You won’t find any reports of sustained winds that meet the hurricane threshold of 33 meters per second anywhere, land or offshore. NHC reports are not observations. If you can find any observed winds from actual anemometers that show sustained winds over 30 meters per second, then show them.
NHC reports of “Hurricane Gusts” are deceptive and dishonest. Gusts are not sustained winds. Claims are not observations. The difference is why Sandy was never a hurricane.
bw – you obviously did not bother to look at the Weatherflow data I provided.
You can also look at Weatherflow or any number of other data sources including NWS and compare gusts vs average or max sustained speeds. You will find at the 70-90mph gust range that there is a consistent, typical spread of 20-25mph – occasionally 30 mph.
And the NHC/NWS does not report made up observations. They clearly differentiate between forecast and observed information. They also clearly differentiate between gusts and max sustained speeds. I suspect they have considerable resources you do not.
The NHC and NWS are far from perfect – but outright lies about observed weather data as you claim are not one of their faults. Your claims they outright liied about observed data – about max sustained speeds – leaves you with little credibility.
I know this is going to sound pedantic, but the former hurricane Sandy was not a hurricane in New York City *NOTWITHSTANDING WINDSPEED*. Although this isn’t Slashdot, I’ll use a car analogy. Gasoline engines and diesel engines operate under the same laws of physics and chemistry, but their internal mechanisms are different. Similarly, tropical storms (including hurricanes) are different internally from extra-tropical storms even though they operate under the same laws of physics. Tropical storms tend to be more compact, attain higher speeds, and require warm air at their cores. Extra-tropical storms are generally much larger, with lower peak winds, and they work with cool air. Sandy was an extra-tropical storm over New York City.
Having said that, I think there is a need for a public education campaign about NWS warnings. “Hurricane Force Winds” or “Damaging Winds” warnings need to be heeded, regardless of the system that causes them (tornado, hurricane, extra-tropical cyclone, or a summertime convective thunderstorm).
Sandy wasn’t a hurricane at landfall because it was no longer a tropical system, not because it lost strength (NHC claimed max sustained winds at landfall of 80mph). That’s of interest to meteorologists, but as far as those on the ground go, it matters not at all. Wind is wind whether the storm has a cold center or a warm, soft, chewy one. A storm surge is a storm surge whether it’s generated by a tropical or extratropical cyclone. So it would make sense to have the warnings to not depend on the type of storm, and just on its strength. I doubt they’ll do anything so sensible.
And as for wind not killing people: not true. Many Sandy deaths were caused by wind, especially by “falling” (that is, blown down) trees. Relatively few by water, because most people had the sense to leave the barrier islands.
Matthew gets it. It was not called a hurricane north of North Carolina due to the transition to post-tropical cyclone status, and would not have been called a hurricane even with much higher wind speeds.
And strength and damage potential is the same no matter what the storms structure or what they call it. The simple issue and concern si that many people were confused when the NHC dropped the hurricane status for Sandy, despite at that time for sure it WAS still a hurricane. Many people (and media sources) reported Sandy had been “downgraded” … when the change from a hurricane to a post-tropical storm occurred. That is the big issue.
Add to that the big increased ALL people in the area will be forced to pay in future for hurricane coverage because the idiot governors made the decisions to unilaterally prevent insurers from collecting hurricane deductible because the storms was not “called” a hurricane at landfall.
Sandy was not a hurricane because the sustained winds were too low. Hurricanes are clearly defined by sustained wind speeds of 33 meters per second using anemometers placed 10 meters above ground. Data are measured continuously, but those data are also integrated (averaged) for each one minute interval. Every one minute averaged data point is recorded and used to define the sustained speed. “Sustained wind” data is used instead of the instantaneous data for various reasons. In a large storm you look at the sustained wind data over many stations to learn what the storm is consistently doing.
If a storm passes over an isolated place without wind instrumentation, then the sustained wind speeds can be estimated post hoc from the resulting wind damage. Say from old photographs of Galveston. Controlled tests can be done on common objects to test these observations.
In the case of Sandy there are many anemometers showing the actual speeds. Not every station has functional anemometers. Plotting the one-minute sustained wind speeds shows Sandy at consistent 25 meters per second from Delaware Bay to Montauk, Long Island. All the buoy data shows the same sustained winds as the peak of the storm passed on-shore on the night of the 29th to the morning of the 30th of October.
Obviously, the NHC posted reports and advisories claiming “sustained hurricane force” winds at landfall. Those claims are directly contradicted by the NOAA/NBDC data recorded by the surface anemometers. http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/
Land data show lower speeds than the buoy data. There is also plenty of video evidence showing damage that is consistent with sustained winds at around 60 mph for some hours on various structures, trees, signs, etc. The media shots of extreme damage were all from storm surge flooding.
If the National Hurricane Center claims that there were sustained hurricane force winds then it is up to them to justify their claims when their own data records show otherwise. One hopes that the taxpayers understand that some of their money is being wasted. I’d recommend an independent review of how the NHC makes their advisory statements, and prosecution of politicians involved.
I want to say that there is a problem getting people to understand HIGH wind. I live in Wyoming. Last week, I believe, there were sustained winds of 40 mph with gusts over 60 in central Wyoming. The Chief Joseph highway had sustained winds of 70 mph. Our highway department struggles to figure out how to get people to understand high wind. They rejected the idea of a sign with a truck being blown off the road, though I think that might help! Right now, they have those lighted, flashing signs. They also have wind socks on Outer Drive here but that only helps some. Few people understand wind strong enough to blow semis off the road in dry weather. I have pictures of trailers blown over, roofs ripped off, trees down. Our camper shell was damaged by a 6 by 15 inch, 10 lb piece of metal that hit it when it was off the truck, sitting on the ground. Small children and the elderly can be injured due to falls. One of my pomeranians was blown about 30 feet by wind, literally rolling along the ground. All due to “normal” winds. Contrary to a claim in the comments, wind related deaths are not uncommon. I was unable to find a link, but I recall our news reported 79 people were killed by wind last year, mostly male, many driving vehicles that were blown off the road. I suspect that on the East coast, once the word hurricane is removed, all conception of “high” was lost.
A. Scott — the hurricane deductibles were probably not applicable anyway, which is why the insurers didn’t squeal much. New York didn’t meet the standards for the deductibles (which vary, but require either landfall in NYS, 100mph winds, or a Category 2 or greater storm: http://www.dfs.ny.gov/insurance/homeown/pdf/awindded.pdf ), and NJ likely didn’t as well — for NJ, it requires measured sustained winds over 74mph in the state (which I believe means over land) — http://www.njiua.org/forms/HurrPolicyHolder.pdf. Also, the vast majority of the damage in the coastal NJ zip codes covered by the hurricane deductible was due to storm surge, which is under the national flood insurance program.