Print
E-mail
Comment
Tim Heller:Change hurricane scale? Not so fast
 |
During the 2008 hurricane season, four tropical cyclones made landfall along the western Gulf Coast between New Orleans and Browsville. That hasn't happened since 1886. One of the hurricanes which hit Texas that year wiped the town of Indianola off the map, just like Gilcrist was destroyed this year by Hurricane Ike.
There was no Saffir-Simpson Scale in 1886, so we're not sure how strong that hurricane was. But would that have helped?
Technically, Hurricane Ike was a category two hurricane. That ranking is simply based on the wind speed observed at landfall. The storm surge and the catastrophic damage along the coast is not considered when calculating storm strength. As a result, Ike was not a "major" hurricane.
Developed in 1969 by Herbert Saffir and late modified by Robert Simpson, the Saffir-Simpson Scale ranks hurricane strength on wind speed. The storm surge is estimated based on the wind but is not used to rank the storm. Most of the time, this simple scale works. But the wind field in Hurricane Ike was so wide, the storm surge was similar to what a category four storm would produce.
This mismatch between the wind speed and the storm surge was stressed in the days before Ike made landfall. Still some people have said they didn't take action ahead of the storm because it was "only a category two hurricane."
Meteorologists within the National Weather Service and National Hurricane Center have already started having discussions about the Saffir-Simpson Scale as it applied to Ike and other hurricanes. These conversations will be ongoing. At next year's National Hurricane Conference in Austin, I'll be participating in a panel discussion along with Bill Read, director of the National Hurricane Center. One of the things we'll be exploring is how effective the threat from Ike was communicated to the public.
Should the Saffir-Simpson Scale be adjusted so the storm surge plays a more important role in the ranking of the hurricane's strength? If so, then why stop there? Should we also factor in the amount of rain and the potential for extreme flooding?
Perhaps the solution is much simpler: Would more people have been better prepared if we had ignored the ranking altogether with this storm?
Saffir said in an interview back in 2005, ""As simple as it is, I like the scale. I don't like to see it too complex."
Of course, hurricanes aren't simple. Every storm is different, and the specific details vary from location to location.
Developing a completely new scale presents additional challenges.
If we change the scale, we lose the history. For example, last year the Storm Prediction Center changed how they assess tornado damage. Now storms ranked using the new Enhanced Fujita Scale can't be compared with tornadoes in the past, before the new scale was put into effect.
Furthermore, implementing a new hurricane scale would require a great deal of public education.
That time might be better spent alerting people of the various dangers all hurricanes present beyond a simple, single number.
Tim Heller is the chief meteorologist at ABC-13 television. In addition to his daily forecasts, he blogs at www.weatherblog.abc13.com.
There was no Saffir-Simpson Scale in 1886, so we're not sure how strong that hurricane was. But would that have helped?
Technically, Hurricane Ike was a category two hurricane. That ranking is simply based on the wind speed observed at landfall. The storm surge and the catastrophic damage along the coast is not considered when calculating storm strength. As a result, Ike was not a "major" hurricane.
Developed in 1969 by Herbert Saffir and late modified by Robert Simpson, the Saffir-Simpson Scale ranks hurricane strength on wind speed. The storm surge is estimated based on the wind but is not used to rank the storm. Most of the time, this simple scale works. But the wind field in Hurricane Ike was so wide, the storm surge was similar to what a category four storm would produce.
This mismatch between the wind speed and the storm surge was stressed in the days before Ike made landfall. Still some people have said they didn't take action ahead of the storm because it was "only a category two hurricane."
Meteorologists within the National Weather Service and National Hurricane Center have already started having discussions about the Saffir-Simpson Scale as it applied to Ike and other hurricanes. These conversations will be ongoing. At next year's National Hurricane Conference in Austin, I'll be participating in a panel discussion along with Bill Read, director of the National Hurricane Center. One of the things we'll be exploring is how effective the threat from Ike was communicated to the public.
Should the Saffir-Simpson Scale be adjusted so the storm surge plays a more important role in the ranking of the hurricane's strength? If so, then why stop there? Should we also factor in the amount of rain and the potential for extreme flooding?
Perhaps the solution is much simpler: Would more people have been better prepared if we had ignored the ranking altogether with this storm?
Saffir said in an interview back in 2005, ""As simple as it is, I like the scale. I don't like to see it too complex."
Of course, hurricanes aren't simple. Every storm is different, and the specific details vary from location to location.
Developing a completely new scale presents additional challenges.
If we change the scale, we lose the history. For example, last year the Storm Prediction Center changed how they assess tornado damage. Now storms ranked using the new Enhanced Fujita Scale can't be compared with tornadoes in the past, before the new scale was put into effect.
Furthermore, implementing a new hurricane scale would require a great deal of public education.
That time might be better spent alerting people of the various dangers all hurricanes present beyond a simple, single number.
Tim Heller is the chief meteorologist at ABC-13 television. In addition to his daily forecasts, he blogs at www.weatherblog.abc13.com.
Submit a Comment
|
You must be logged in to post a comment.
|
Not yet a registered member?
Click here to become one. Comments to stories and articles on the Web site are not edited or pre-approved before appearing online. Readers posting comments are solely responsible for those comments. Comments must be germane to the story to which they apply. Online comments that are libelous, profane or personally attack another site participant can be reported as abuse using the link provided on each comment. Comments reported as abusive will be reviewed and may be removed from view, as will off-topic comments. BE CIVIL. Individuals continually posting abusive comments to the site may have their registrations revoked. |
