[UPDATE: I wrote this post hurriedly and in something of a huff last week. Now that it's getting some attention, let me make myself a bit more clear: I certainly don't regard anyone who accuses the media of "hype" as an idiot or moron or anything of the sort. On the contrary, I agree — as I state below — that the media is often guilty of hyping hurricanes, sometimes egregiously so, just as they're often guilty of hyping all sorts of other stories. The media is a hype machine.
What I'm talking about in this post are the accusations that forecasters hype hurricanes. In my view, those accusations are usually incorrect or at least grossly exaggerated, based on faulty logic and preconceived prejudices. Accusing a weather forecaster of hyping the weather is a serious accusation, and should be backed up with actual facts and argumentation, not mere bluster. If all you've got is 20/20 hindsight and AGW conspiracy theories, that's not enough. If you can't make a good, well-supported argument in defense of the notion that a particular forecast (not just a news report, but a forecast) was "hyped," then you shouldn't level the accusation in the first place.]
* * * ORIGINAL POST BELOW * * *
Hurricanes are inherently unpredictable beasts. Their tracks and their intensities are affected by a myriad of factors, which cannot be predicted with absolute precision — as the National Hurricane Center and other responsible forecasters consistently remind the public.
Thus, when a storm threatens land, there is always a wide range of possibilities — right up until landfall — for what could happen. Maybe the storm will strengthen at the last minute, or maybe it will weaken. Maybe dry air will disrupt the circulation just before landfall, or maybe it won’t. Maybe the eyewall will track over a heavily populated area and cause widespread devastation, or maybe it will just barely miss that area, and will instead track over relatively unpopulated land.
Tiny, last-minute, utterly unpredictable wobbles and atmospheric circumstances determine which course each storm takes. As a result, it is literally impossible for forecasters to know, for certain, exactly what will happen. Hence the NHC’s never-ending emphasis on, for example, the forecast “cone” as opposed to the center-line track. Again and again, they remind us not to treat their intrinsically inexact forecasts as absolute gospel truth.
With each storm, forecasters present the public with a range of possibilities for what could happen. Often times, this range includes a handful of scenarios that would have dire, drastic consequences, and a boatload of other, friendlier scenarios.
Usually, the friendlier scenarios will ultimately occur. But, as anybody with a post-kindergarten education knows, it is generally better in life to assume, and prepare for, the worst — and thus be pleasantly surprised if things aren’t as bad as you feared — than to assume that everything will be just fine and dandy, and thus be caught off guard when the worst happens.
Even if there’s only, say, a 10% chance of a disaster actually occurring, the prudent, responsible course of action is to warn people that a disaster might be coming — notwithstanding that, 90% of the time, that warning will ultimately prove to have been unnecessary.
Only a complete idiot would deny that obvious necessity of disaster planning, right? Only a total moron would say that we should ignore the 10% possibility of disaster, and simply assume that the 90% scenario will occur, right?
And yet, now that hurricanes have become a political football, a bizarre and infuriating phenomenon occurs every single time a hurricane hits land but fails to adhere to the direst of warnings. Out of the blogospheric woodwork come the village idiots, complaining of all the purportedly overheated “hype” and “doom and gloom” predictions that were once again unwarranted. “The forecasters said it would be worse than this!” they jeer. “This proves they’re a bunch of alarmists!”
The distinction between “would” and “could” is totally lost on these people. No, forecasters didn’t say it would be a disaster; they said it could be a disaster. And it could have been. Did forecasters emphasize the worst-case scenarios over the less dire scenarios? Yes — as they should! Only with 20/20 hindsight is it possible to look back at a storm and know exactly which warnings were necessary and which ones weren’t. In real time, forecasters and disaster planners have to assume that the worst-case plausible scenario will occur. They have no choice!
Because worst-case scenarios are just that — scenarios, out of a wide range of possible scenarios — they usually don’t happen. Yet if forecasters were to choose the grossly irresponsible course of ignoring or downplaying the worst-case scenarios, and then one of those scenarios did occur, the forecasters would be rightly pilloried (including by these same village idiots, no doubt) for failing to warn and protect the public!
Critics are holding forecasters to an impossible standard. When it comes to issuing warnings of disasters that are realistically possible but (of course) not guaranteed to occur, forecasters are damned if they do, damned if they don’t.
Why does this make me so angry? Because those who unfailingly, thoughtlessly and relentlessly snark at forecasters (and, ahem, weatherbloggers) for these “incorrect” predictions — never mind that, in most cases, what actually occurred was within the predicted probability cone, so the predictions weren’t actually “incorrect” at all — are more than just ignorant idiots (though they are that). They’re dangerous idiots, because they give aid and comfort to the fools who, when subsequent storms threaten their lives and property, ignore warnings of imminent danger.
Wrongfully debunking “hype” that was actually fully warranted is incredibly damaging because it degrades the credibility of hurricane forecasters in the eyes of the public, for no good reason, and encourages things like this: “Nearly one-fourth of people in areas affected by Hurricane Katrina would refuse to evacuate for a storm if told to, a survey released Wednesday by Harvard University found.” If you ask those people, when a storm is bearing down, why they refuse to evacuate, I guarantee you that one commonly cited reason would be that forecasters overhype storms, and it probably won’t be that bad. This is a meme that has real consequences. Deadly consequences.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not laying the blame entirely at the feet of the “debunkers.” Could forecasters do a better job emphasizing the would/could and will/might distinctions? Absolutely. Of course, in issuing their real-time warnings, they need to be emphatic enough to get the public’s attention. They must strike a delicate balance between vigorous warnings and “crying wolf,” and in my view, they already do a better job than many give them credit for. But is there room for improvement? Sure.
Moreover, there are occasions when hurricane hype gets blown out of proportion — though I would argue that the media, not the forecasters, are usually to blame. Often, news coverage is more driven by the vagaries of news cycles than by the level of the actual meteorological threat. Thus, while some truly dire threats — like Hurricane Katrina on the Friday before landfall — don’t get nearly enough attention, other storms that don’t pose a particularly dire threat get more airtime than they deserve, with overheated, hype-ish rhetoric filling the news vacuum, simply because the cable TV stations need filler. (Think 2005’s Ophelia.) And the same thing can happen in the blogosphere as well. (Think 2006’s Ernesto.) So, yes, in that sense, “hype” is real.
However, demonstrating the existence of unwarranted hype — particularly in a forecast, as opposed to a CNN or Fox News segment or a Drudge Report headline — is far more complex than jumping up and down, screaming, “They said it would be a disaster, and it wasn’t!”
If you feel that a storm has been overhyped, fine — prove it. But you cannot prove it simply by comparing “predictions vs. actual events.” Instead, you need to remove the 20/20 hindsight goggles, ignore your knowledge of what actually occurred, and put yourself in the shoes of the alleged “hypers,” at the time when they gave the warnings in question. If you can demonstrate that, based on the information then available, the statements were unreasonable, then you’ve got a point.
But if you’re just reflexively claiming that a weather forecast was “hype” simply because it was ultimately not borne out, then you are encouraging a deceptive and destructive meme that is quite literally a menace to society. And you need to stop.
UPDATE: Welcome, Pajamas Media and InstaPundit readers!
One other thought occurred to me, in response to the people who insist that the media’s hurricane hype is driven largely or entirely by a global-warming agenda: why would you assume that AGW is to blame, when the media hypes everything? It’s not just hurricanes that are blown out of proportion by Fox News, CNN, the Drudge Report, etc.! They blow everything out of proportion! When they over-hype shark attacks, or celebrity gossip, or some inconsequential political story, or the latest “hidden danger” in your home, are those examples of hype also motivated by global warming?! I just don’t see why it makes sense to blame a behavior on a grand conspiracy when it’s actually completely normal, typical behavior for the people in question (in this case, journalists). They hype hurricanes, they hype Hillary’s pantsuits, they hype Anna Nicole Smith. Why should we assume a different motivation for the first example than the second and third examples? Isn’t it all more likely driven by the same things: sensationalism and ratings?
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
46 Comments
1. K:I was watching a channel about noon the day after Dolly came ashore.
A TV reporter was speaking about the very dangerous surf. Behind him people were on the beach, some wading, and the surf was clearly less than one foot high.
It reminded me of the South Park parody of global warming:
A small town is flooded.
TV field reporter ‘We are reporting six million deaths’.
News anchor back in the studio ‘But there are only 8,000 people in the town.’
Reporter ‘I know. But we are reporting six million deaths.’
Jul 25, 2008 - 7:42 pm 2. K:Brendan:
You might want to check your comment counter. It seems to always be 1 too high.
Jul 25, 2008 - 9:40 pm 3. Pajamas Media » Stop Complaining about ‘Hurricane Hype!’:[...] Read entire post here. [...]
Jul 27, 2008 - 11:29 am 4. TomJW:Media hype is definately out of control. That creates a problem.
Jul 27, 2008 - 3:08 pm 5. gnubi:You also want a more clear explaination from weather predicting services. Don’t hold your breath on that one. All that they predict gets filtered by the media weather services Weather Channel and the networks. They are the major believers in global warming. I don’t see them becoming rational anytime soon as they relate hurricane activity to global warming. They do a great dissevice to people with there beliefs and hysterical reporting.
W.N.
I don’t believe anyone is criticizing fact-based, unbiased meteorologists. The ones that deserve pointing out and ridiculing are the ones appearing in the media who see every hurricane as an opportunity to bolster their weak global warming theories. You know them, they’re the ones who appear to be hoping and wishing for disaster.
Adults recognize danger and potential danger and they take appropriate actions. The children imagining that every tropical storm is a portent of doom need to be comforted with the truth.
Jul 27, 2008 - 6:44 pm 6. katinga:It’s not just hurricaine hype. I don’t know if it’s for commercial reasons or liability reasons or both, but it seems to me that forecasts more often than not err on the side of the sky’s being about to fall. That is why, I no longer listen to radio/TV weathercasting, but go to official sources myself whenever I can, as well as casting my own eye on the sky.
Jul 27, 2008 - 7:21 pm 7. Dave Barnes:the plural of scenario is scenari, not scenarios
Jul 27, 2008 - 7:45 pm 8. Joshua:The phenomenon Brendan describes is by no means limited to extreme weather, Substitute “terrorism” for “hurricanes”, “9/11″ for “Katrina”, and “DHS” and/or “Bush administration” for “forecasters” in Brendan’s post, and it works just as well.
Jul 27, 2008 - 8:42 pm 9. Elizabeth M:That was extremely well articulated. Good job!
Jul 27, 2008 - 8:58 pm 10. shaun fischer:Your’e right about most news service doing a fair to good job….BUT….When all you hear on the national and local news crap about some flavor of the month desease or normal run of the mill human activity that COULD KILLL YOURRR CHILDREN!!!!People tend to no longer listen or at least take seriously any thing reported.A few years ago here in central Tx wewere going to get ice on the road due to a slow drizzle all day and the coming night with temps going below freezing in the early evening.The morning would bring approx 1 or 2 inches of ice on roads and bridges.No biggie just stay home till the sand trucks and such clear the way.BUT flipping back and fourth between the 3 major affilliates the local newscasters got into a oneupmanship contest.Local news 1 maby 1/2 an inch local 2 station, 1 inch, local 3, 1and 1/2, back to local 1, NEWS FLASH UPDATE 2 inches, and so on . Within a couple of hours they were predicting 4 to 5 inches of BLACK ICE,power outages,food shortages,Santa Claus kicking little kids and puppies!(okay that last bit was over the top)And total chaos.The truth? A warm front they all somehow missed in all this breezed in and the temps rose to 50 degrees with no moisture.Next morning dry cool and sunny.So I just get the facts and move on. And ignore the flavor of the month IN DEPTH REPORTS of the various crap they claim will kill your’e children ratings game B.S
Jul 27, 2008 - 10:45 pm 11. RB:I’m a former Red Cross paid/volunteer staffer…so I’ve lived the preparedness lifestyle. Unfortunately, the media hype (mostly by non-weather reporters) has pushed our society over the line between rational, prudent preparedness measures and “woe is me” helplessness.
Jul 28, 2008 - 4:36 am 12. TMLutas:Those who will gamble with their lives have and will always be with us. In a free society that’s just regrettable reality.
The hype machine that tries to manipulate us just increases the number of gamblers and creates debunkers trying to kill the hype. Sure, sometimes the debunkers go overboard but they are a secondary problem because, for the most part I believe, the hype machine preceded them. If serious meteorologists got together and took on the hype machine, they would teach the debunkers how to do the job right and gain credibility when they criticized them. Doing it the other way around gives you no added credibility with the hype pushers so why structure your criticism (as you have done above) in the less effective way?
Jul 28, 2008 - 4:52 am 13. SDN:Brendan, when various watermelon (Green on the outside, Red on the inside) groups stop using every hurricane to justify AGW, then no one will have to counter their misinformation by reminding people that the hype was wrong.
Jul 28, 2008 - 4:55 am 14. Dave:I have a friend that lived in the 9th ward of New Orleans. He told me that they would be evacuated for weather on a regular basis. And every time they got evacuated, someone would break into their home. He indicated that they had nothing really worth stealing and everyone in the area would know that, but it didn’t matter. Therefore, people got resistant to leaving because they were afraid to loose what little they had.
The huricane forcasters are fine. It is the local news and the weather channel that plays up the weather for ratings.
Jul 28, 2008 - 4:57 am 15. David Pruett:Brandon – you look young enough to have never weathered a Hurricane. I have lived long enough to have weathered many. I have lived most of my life along the Texas Gulf coast, been through heavy and light, north-south and eye’s, seen nothing but little tree limbs and as much as my townhouse half torn up. I now live in the middle of Kentucky and could tell from here that this hurricane was no where near the level to deserve the hype you were repeating. Maybe you should develop a hype meeter that listed all the potential damages and for each type of Hurricane. Oh – there already is one: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsshs.shtml
Jul 28, 2008 - 5:31 am 16. Salt Lick:Brendan — The problem isn’t that forecasters hype one specific hurricane, it’s that after Katrina they predicted entire seasons of more intense hurricanes and tied that to Global Warming.
I lived on the Gulf Coast most of my life. I lived through many hurricanes while living in Louisiana (New Orleans, Lafayette, Baton Rouge). My Aunt’s home was leveled by Camille. My Dad’s home was leveled by Katrina. I know hurricanes. As someone noted above, there are many factors that go into the decision to abandon your home because of a hurricane, the course of which is erratic. You want accurate information to make that choice and it’s annoying to think that choice must rely on information calculated to generate television revenue and enhance careers.
In your “Update” you make the point that the media hypes everything, so why pay attention to their hyping hurricanes? Exactly.
Jul 28, 2008 - 5:59 am 17. Fred P:“Did forecasters emphasize the worst-case scenarios over the less dire scenarios? … In real time, forecasters and disaster planners have to assume that the worst-case plausible scenario will occur.”
Forecasters are not disaster planners. Forecasters provide information that disaster planners use. The planners and individual people should prepare for worst-case scenarios but forecasters should NOT emphasize the worst-case. If they constantly emphasize the worst-case, then they will be like the boy who cried wolf.
If every single storm evokes a worst-case forecast then a truly huge storm won’t produce a warning any worse than an average storm. How can there be any forecast worse than worst-case?
Forecasters should report the most likely outcome along with a range of plausible outcomes. Then when a huge Cat 5 storm comes along they can report that the most likely outcome is a huge disaster, much worse than their usual forecast.
Reserving the worst-case forecasts for the truly rare huge storm will make those forecasts stand out as much worse than usual. Then people will pay more attention.
Jul 28, 2008 - 6:02 am 18. Nigel Eccles:There should be a clear line between reporting of potential risk and hype. If you report a potential risk that doesn’t occur then you still remain a credible news source. The problem is when you hype a risk to drive up ratings.
For hurricane forecasts I now track the Hubdub hurricane markets like this one: http://www.hubdub.com/m7846/Will_Florida_get_hit_by_a_hurricane_this_year
Much more objective.
Jul 28, 2008 - 6:07 am 19. DTT:Personally, I have no idea why anyone would read your weather blog since its principal purpose seems to be to “hype” weather in general, and potential severe weather in particular. Your blog has no added-value over the information found at http://www.weather.gov unless one feels hype is needed to entertain the masses and attract “eye-balls.” Honestly, PJM has provided you a platform to produce hype that will attract more readers and profits — just like the infamous MSM that PJM mocks.
As for your mental well-being after just a short-time blogging as the “WeatherJerk,” I would humbly suggest that attacking your readers as “idiots,” “complete idiots,” “village idiots,” “ignorant idiots,” “dangerous idiots,” “fools,” and “moron” does not reflect well on yourself. Calling everyone “debunkers” because they disagree with you and your hype approach will eventually wear thin with PJM readers and hopefully, PJM staff.
Regarding the negative effect of “hype” in general, your own existence as a blogger is literally due to one person’s hype: Glenn Reynolds. (If that sounds far fetched, go to Glenn’s site and do a search of your name and how many times it has been mentioned in the last two weeks; now do that search for Dr. Helen; now for Michael Totten; now for VDH; and, etc.) Wow, you got a lot of “hype” compared to your PJM betters by Mr. Insta-Lanche and what is the result? Your rant against all whom may disagree with you, which probably includes 50% of yours and Glenn’s readership. You wouldn’t even of had these readers unless it was for Glenn’s hype and yet, here you are attacking them in a matter of a few short weeks. Hype is not all what it’s cracked up to be and you’re a particularly egregious example of bad hype.
And to Glenn: “You need to stop.” There are better bloggers who deserve your hype.
Jul 28, 2008 - 6:11 am 20. Mark L.:The problem is that in most cases there is more risk in evacuating than in staying. Unless you live in an area subject to storm surge flooding or live in a mobile home (or other rickety structure — not a 20th/21st century home), the percentage move is to stay put. “Run from the water and hide from the wind.”
With Rita, the hype had people 50-60 miles inland running for cover and places as far inland as College Station boarding up windows. Big time stupid. (By the time a storm reaches Katy, the Houston Heights or College Station it is going to be no worse than a squall line. Unless folks in those areas feel it appropriate to board up their windows or run to Dallas every time there is a tornado watch, then they should not be doing so for a hurricane.
Worst thing that is going to happen if you stay put in those areas is that you will lose power or get hit by a tornado — and that can happen just as easily in San Antonio, Austin, or DFW, if you evacuate there, when the reminants of the storm passes over. And if you do evacuate unnecessarily you add in the risk of getting injured in a car accident or trapped on a clogged highway with 10,000 other loons evacuating unnecessarily.
What is worse, is that due to all those loons, I — who have to evacuate — along with the rest of my family will *also* be trapped on that highway unless we leave a day or two earlier (which is what we have to do).
I can see the motivations of weather channels, websites, and blogs to overhype hurricanes — and to defend themselves when people point out that they are overhyping. They are just trying to *inform* people. That’s all. The extra rating/hits they may get, that’s just incidental.
And those excess deaths cause by people unnecessarily evacuting — that’s not *their* fault. I mean think of what could have happened had those people stayed put. (Nothing, actually, but WTH.)
As for those folks that needed to evacuate but could not because the highways were clogged by unnecessary evacuees? Well, they just prove the necessity of overhyping hurricane so that people take the threat seriously. It’s heads I win, tails you lose for the hurricane hypers.
Jul 28, 2008 - 6:12 am 21. DoDoGuRu:“When they over-hype shark attacks, or celebrity gossip, or some inconsequential political story, or the latest “hidden danger” in your home, are those examples of hype also motivated by global warming?!”
Actually, yes; those things are motivated by global warming.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Jul 28, 2008 - 6:21 am 22. Giftzwerg:The theory proposed here is self-refuting. The main cause of complacency in the face of an approaching hurricane is *exactly* the professional alarmists who treat every tropical storm as though it was going to destroy the USA from the east coast to the Mississippi.
Ever hear the story of the Little Boy Who Cried Wolf?
Sheesh.
Jul 28, 2008 - 6:22 am 23. Susan:Two more reasons for non-evacuation:
1. Pets. Evacuate and leave family members behind? Absolutely not. Thankfully in many areas, shelters are beginning to provide accomodations for pets, too.
2. Too many scenes on the TV in the past of angry evacuees trying to get back into their neighborhoods after the storm and being turned away by authoritees.
Susan from central Florida
Jul 28, 2008 - 6:37 am 24. joe:I think hurricanes are over-hyped.
Next time one’s rolling in, check the near -real time wind speed/gusts observations from ships and data buoys from the NOAA web site.
http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/
As with most hurricanes I’ve watched, the NOAA data never comes close to the “reported” wind speed/gust info. As Dolly was rolling ashore, they were reporting sustained winds near 90 mph, with higher gusts. Yet none of the NOAA data was reporting anything over 50 knots, much less anything near minimum hurricane strength of 65 knots. There was a NOAA land data station very near where the eye came ashore, so any inaccuracy from bouncing around in the waves is probably nil.
I don’t get it.
Jul 28, 2008 - 6:40 am 25. WR Jonas:We live on the Texas Gulf coast as well and the hype is only part of the problem. The zeal for this kind of alarmism is staggering. We begin to receive warnings on the hurricane season in March. The local papers and radio/tv bombard us constantly as though we will forget if they fail to scream it in our ears.
Jul 28, 2008 - 6:52 am 26. GM Roper:The community planning for evacuation and relief efforts have become funded career choices for the public sector. So when we have a long period without a storm the people involved in this process become restless and crave action as justification for their efforts. A great deal of money and public relations ride on the promotion of the storm . It becomes obvious as we see weathermen standing in the tossed seas and driving rain that the storm is the redeeming culmination of all of their hopes and dreams.
The tracker planes . hurricane hunters and storm watchers are just like tornado thrill seekers who crave an encounter with the great beast.
To the rest of us the storm is a huge threat to our homes , lives and properties and it is disgrace for storm worshippers to try to capitalize on that stark reality.
Gives us some sanity and far less hype.
@ K. “I was watching a channel about noon the day after Dolly came ashore.
A TV reporter was speaking about the very dangerous surf. Behind him people were on the beach, some wading, and the surf was clearly less than one foot high.”
K, the danger is not the height of the waves, but the rip tides and undertow. I live in the Rio Grande Valley and rip tieds and undertow (the same thing?) are dangerous and claim lives almost every year.
Jul 28, 2008 - 6:55 am 27. celebrim:I went through David, Frederick, Lili, Katrina, and Rita (and alot of others I forget). So, while I’ve never experienced the full force of a cat 4+ hurricane, mostly because I know to get the heck out of the way if I’m in the way, I think I can say I know something about hurricanes.
I think there is some merit to your argument, but that ultimately it collapses because you don’t take into account human nature. For me and you, we have the mental skills and inclinations necessary to grasp the seriousness of the situation by examining the data and deciding what the potential risks are for this situation. We are able to read between the lines and gather what the range of outcomes are and how fearful the forecasters are. And we stay on top of the information and act while we still have oppurtunity to do so.
But that’s not how at least 30-50% of all people actually handle data. Alot of people judge the data by apparant emotional content. If 90% of the time you ask people to take extraordinary action against an eventuality that ends up not actually occuring, pretty soon people being what they are will discount everything you say. In fact, on the ‘boy who cried wolf’ principle, you get about only 2 chances and after that people stop listening regardless of the facts you can present.
Debunking hype isn’t what causes hurricane forecasters to lose credibility. Hurricane forecasters issuing statements that lead to large evacuations when no significant wind or surge damage actually occurs is what causes hurricane forecasters to lose credibility. The reason alot of people choose to ride out Katrina is that they weren’t able to process from the data just how much more likely a disasterous outcome was than with Hurricane Ivan. Combine that with the disasterous mismanagement of the Hurricane Ivan evacuation (if Ivan had actually been bad the evacuation would have killed more stranded motorists than would have been killed by staying home), and the fact that those people who did evacuate were subject to looting, and the fact that the city level management of the Katrina evacuation was nearly as bad as with Ivan and you get alot of lower income people choosing not to evacuate (and no city wide attempt to force evacuation in a mandatory evacuation or to marshall city transportation resources), and you get the Katrina situation.
The truth is that in most smaller hurricanes, evacuation kills more people in transportation related accidents than not evacuating does. Even people without a scientifically inclined mind soon pick up that the risks and costs of evacuating are usually greater than risking the storm.
Alarm should really only be sounded when the risk is serious for most scenarios. If there is a 5% chance that the stars could align and a catastrophe occurs, that’s actually better ignored so that when there is a 5% chance that the stars could align and it won’t be a catastrophe (as with Katrina) people will listen to you. The main danger in a hurricane is storm surge. That’s the real killer. And storm surge is far more predictable than wind speed. The reason Katrina was so obviously going to be a monster is that it had been a class 5 storm for so long, that even if it did fall apart coming in (and it did) it was still going to be pushing a class 5 storm surge (which in Mississipi at least, it did). The fact is that it was obvious that even if New Orleans dodged a bullet (which it did), Katrina was still going to chew it up, and it was obvious that whereever on the coast Katrina made landfall (ultimately, the Mississipi coast) it was going to wipe it clean.
I’ve never yet seen a storm that suddenly intensified from a minor storm to something scary. The closest I’ve ever seen to that was Lili, which I stayed up watching until 1 AM the night before landfall trying to decide whether to evacuate. Lili did a sudden rapid intensification over a 6 hour period in the afternoon and evening, and most residents just failed to notice it. We went from predicted 40+ mph winds to predicted 120+ mph winds in just a few hours. But then, the storm fell apart again just as quickly. That was the one storm I’ve seen that actually paniced the forecasters and you could read it literally in their announcements, because they knew that they were going to be ignored. Ultimately, it didn’t matter. I’m still waiting for the storm that is worse than predicted, and I think we ought to consider it an acceptable risk to not hype the worst possible scenario every time.
Jul 28, 2008 - 7:15 am 28. mr tall:Excellent explication of an increasingly important dilemma, i.e. preparedness vs. hype. I live in Hong Kong, and it’s also a real problem here. I’ve written about it here if anyone’s interested.
Jul 28, 2008 - 7:23 am 29. mr tall:Celebrim’s comment is full of good points.
One other example of a storm that intensified rapidly and unexpectedly was Typhoon York, which hit Hong Kong in 1999. You can read about it here.
York was not a super typhoon, but it was scary enough. The main danger was that it wasn’t expected to be particularly strong, but it stopped overnight off the coast, intensified, and then roared onshore early in the morning. There was little time to get the message out.
Jul 28, 2008 - 7:43 am 30. 49erDweet:Brendan, I don’t think you’re going to like this, but maybe you should step back a little and look at what you’re doing a little more realistically. People are looking for the “averages”, not the “possibilities”. Imo your professional development would be better enhanced if your reputation became one of successfully forecasting “probable” results, and being “overwhelmed” by worse results less than 10% of the time. Oh, briefly mention the range of what could occur, but express your opinion more conservatively about what will happen. Be prepared to acknowledge the times when you fall short. Deliberately fall short occasionally. That way you’re more human and ultimately more believable. In my view. I know, not what you studied for, is it?
Jul 28, 2008 - 7:44 am 31. mr tall:Celebrim’s comment is full of good points.
One other example of a storm that intensified rapidly and unexpectedly was Typhoon York, which hit Hong Kong in 1999. You can read about it here.
York was not a super typhoon, but it was scary enough. The main danger was that it wasn’t expected to be particularly strong, but it stopped overnight off the coast, intensified, and then roared onshore early in the morning. There was little time to get the message out.
Jul 28, 2008 - 7:44 am 32. Navytech:An important distinction needs to made between the track of any 1 storm and the overall level of hurricane activity in a season.
Individual hurricanes are dangerous and unpredictable beasts. It only takes one to ruin your day. It’s the media’s fetish with overall hurricane activity/global warming etc that has many of us hype-weary. Well, that and the guy standing in the wind/rain trying to talk into the mike. Sweet Jesus, that just looks stupid.
It really doesn’t matter if there’s 1 hurricane or 20 in a particular season, if that one tracks right over your home.
Jul 28, 2008 - 7:45 am 33. mr tall:Sorry about the double post! My link was bad in the first one . . . .
Jul 28, 2008 - 7:45 am 34. Maureen:I’m from near Xenia, so we are all okay with weather watches and warnings erring on the side of paranoia. What we don’t like are all the DUM DUM DUM! “The sky is falling!” type commercials and newsbreaks. (Usually not from our local people, who know better; but a lot of newschannels do it. Oh, yeah, and so do some of your DISASTER! WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE! tv series on Discovery Channel or, alas, the Weather Channel.)
If something serious is possible, it’s better to encourage calm preparedness than hysteria. If I see something that seems likely to bring on a panic attack being played again and again, I’d rather turn off the TV and possibly go unprepared than subject myself to it. (Not to mention ad after ad after ad after ad, trying to make me afraid to go outside ever, anywhere, in any weather.)
Jul 28, 2008 - 7:57 am 35. Spider79:Sorry Brendan, but I gotta agree with DTT. Are you Glenn’s love child?
Your fame in the blogoshere is due to blogging hurricanes (that and Instapundit), so I can see how you’re a little sensitive to any bashing of hurricane hypers.
I live in extreme SE Texas right on Lake Sabine. We got hammered pretty good by Rita 3 years ago, and that freaky little storm Humberto last year. As a matter of fact I am waiting on a call from an attorney right now to settle a claim from damages due to Rita. Responsible folks that live on the coast know when it’s time to stay and when it’s time to go. We don’t need Mayor Nagin to come pick us up in a school bus. Has the hyping of hurricanes increased in the last few years? Without a doubt it has. Before Rita hit we had Geraldo broadcasting from the top of every levee around here speculating which one would break. Since none did and no lives were lost he left the next day.
Jul 28, 2008 - 8:15 am 36. tr:The article has an interesting imbedded assumption: part of what forecasters are trying to do is get people to evacuate in the face of a possible but perhaps unlikely disaster (e.g., your 10% example). In fact, you express anger that the debunkers cause people to stay because they encourage people to disregard forecasts. I am not sure I buy it.
People have been riding out storms for a long time. It was a bad idea when the forecasts were bad. It remains a bad idea now that the forecasts are much, much better. But I see no evidence that people have held forecasters in lower regard in the years since storms because a political football.
I think some people don’t like being told to leave their houses. They resist having an expert tell them what to do. If the goal is to get those people to leave (and I think they are most of the people who try to stick it out), trying to argue about the credibility of the forecasters isn’t going to change things.
I think you are right that forecasters get unfairly critisized, but I don’t think that sparing them that criticism will encourage people to do the right thing.
Jul 28, 2008 - 9:03 am 37. Conguera:Brendan, I thought your “rant” was very clear and well-expressed. Judging from the comments, some of your readers have a bit of trouble with reading comprehension. One in particular can’t even spell your name. What are you doing on PajamasMedia?
I live in South Florida and have been in three hurricanes since 2004, as well as Andrew in 1992, so I know that even a Cat 2 can do tremendous damage, even when you’re prepared. I also know that blogs such as yours are invaluable resources. Please keep it up, and maybe find a more appreciative host.
Jul 28, 2008 - 9:20 am 38. k:GM Roper: The way I remember it from school a rip tide and an undertow are not the same thing. A rip tide depends upon the shape of the shoreline and the fundamental currents past it. An undertow depends on the slope of the beach and the winds.
And that could be wrong too. I’m not an expert.
But people drown everyday, or at least every summer day, in the calmest conditions imaginable. Once a storm has passed and conditions are calm I see no reason to avoid the water. Authorities know how to close beaches when they wish.
Wading can be dangerous beyond the low water line. There may be a pit hidden by the water. A wader can’t see it, steps in, and is suddenly immersed. The bottom is sand and he lacks traction to get out.
Jul 28, 2008 - 11:10 am 39. Navytech:My understanding of “undertow” is what many people call “backwash” and is the outflowing current underneath the incoming tide. Rip tides are on the surface and are relatively narrow.
Jul 28, 2008 - 11:51 am 40. Dan:Dave Barnes:
“the plural of scenario is scenari, not scenarios”
If you consult a dictionary you will find the plural is scenarios.
Jul 28, 2008 - 2:48 pm 41. Louisiana Guy:I agree that there is too much hyping of some storms. Having gone through both Katrina and Rita, I can tell you that I was focused on Dolly from the time she started going over the Yucatan to the time she hit Texas and Mexico. I don’t want hype from reporters. I just want to know if I need to get worried or not. People down here are afraid. We won’t always admit it to each other, but you can see people getting worried. Just thought I would throw my 2 cents in.
Jul 28, 2008 - 5:59 pm 42. Ed:Brendan – the NHC itself enagaged in hurricane hype last year by naming two storms that, in the past per veterans of the NHC, would never have received named status. One was entirely extra-tropical for its entire life.
I wrote about this on your previous IT blog.
We can argue the “pressures” that led to this change in NHC policy. I would argue (and did) that a below average 2007 season would impact funding levels for various entities and would serve to hurt the case for AGW that is directed at the ignorant. You see, the ignorant vote. Another consideration in the change is the degree to which the plaintiff’s bar has caused unreal hoop jumping (aka ludicrous safety warnings, eg. McDonalds’ coffee is hot) among agencies and businesses. God help NOAA if a few morons die because they took no heed of common sense forecasts that did not include DANGER WILL ROBINSON warnings.
You want to defend the scientific community at-large, and the NHC forecasters in particular, you go right ahead. Your admonition/challenge at the top of this post cuts both ways. I want answers as to why NHC criteria were changed and an acknowledgement that these changes were, of themselves, an engagement of hyperbole by your “sainted” (ever so unbiased) forecasters.
Jul 29, 2008 - 12:31 am 43. Robert:“Thus, when a storm threatens land, there is always a wide range of possibilities — right up until landfall — for what could happen. Maybe the storm will strengthen at the last minute, or maybe it will weaken. Maybe dry air will disrupt the circulation just before landfall, or maybe it won’t. Maybe the eyewall will track over a heavily populated area and cause widespread devastation, or maybe it will just barely miss that area, and will instead track over relatively unpopulated land.
Tiny, last-minute, utterly unpredictable wobbles and atmospheric circumstances determine which course each storm takes. As a result, it is literally impossible for forecasters to know, for certain, exactly what will happen. Hence the NHC’s never-ending emphasis on, for example, the forecast “cone” as opposed to the center-line track. Again and again, they remind us not to treat their intrinsically inexact forecasts as absolute gospel truth.”
Thank you!
I live in Harlingen, Texas, which got nailed by Dolly and let me tell you that morning before the storm hit I was like everyone else thinking it was gonna go in on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande and maybe batter Brownsville. Instead it shifted north-west and hit just above us. Everyone thought the storm would be over quickly cause it was so fast moving but as it came closer to land it slowed down. When it hit, it practically sat on top of us and just pounded us with wind and rain. I went to bed that morning (I work overnights) thinking one thing and was totally unprepared. Didn’t board my windows or nothing (totally lucked out, none broke). Yeah, some storms get hyped, but that doesn’t mean that they should be ignored.
But we also get lazy. We’ve had lots of close calls in the past and everyone expected that with Dolly. We expect it to go north of us or south of us which is usually the case. No such luck this time.
David Pruett: “I now live in the middle of Kentucky and could tell from here that this hurricane was no where near the level to deserve the hype you were repeating.”
True, this wasn’t a major storm. Also true, this thing powered up very quickly. I’m not sure if anyone expected it to become a category 2. Not exactly a blow-down-your-house kind of storm, no, but I think you missed Loy’s point. The expectations and the results don’t always match. Sometimes the expectations are worse, but sometimes the result outdoes the expectations. Dolly defied expectations and became a bigger problem then expected. Not a Buehla sized problem, but if you only want to hear about something that will create massive destruction and body counts, then folks like you are the reason news organizations overhype to begin with. Loy posted information, not predictions of the apocalypse. If you only want to hear about the big killer storms, cat 4 and up, that’s fine with me. Just browse on towards the next page, change the channel, whatever. Hey, you live in Kentucky after all, not like it matters for you.
Jul 29, 2008 - 2:12 am 44. Robert:“K:
I was watching a channel about noon the day after Dolly came ashore.
A TV reporter was speaking about the very dangerous surf. Behind him people were on the beach, some wading, and the surf was clearly less than one foot high.”
Well, yeah, the day after the storm everything was nice and calm. I think you missed something in that report, bro.
Jul 29, 2008 - 2:21 am 45. stormin1961:classic video of Today Show anchor doing her best to hype a flood
Jul 29, 2008 - 9:27 am 46. K:Robert: what did I miss?
Jul 29, 2008 - 11:20 am