Editor’s Note: Today, May 9, is Day 4 of National Hurricane Preparedness Week. Today’s theme is “Get an Insurance Checkup,” and two hurricane experts talk in this blog post about why they decided to get flood insurance for their homes. For more information on flood insurance, you can visit http://www.floodsmart.gov or re-read our previous blog post on securing an insurance checkup.
By now, billion-dollar flood disasters in the U.S. are something of an overlooked seasonal rite-of-passage. The Midwest flooding of April 2017 feels like a distant memory, as does the California flooding two months before it, Hurricane Matthew’s historic flooding the fall before that, the devastating floods in Louisiana the summer before that, and Texas and Louisiana — again — the spring before that. Some 500,000 homes damaged or destroyed at a cost of more than $150 billion in two years from those events alone. No one expected that kind of flooding to affect them. They never do.
For Hurricane Harvey, its Category 4 winds at landfall were just a prelude of things to come. Harvey wasn’t even a hurricane by the time its heaviest rains reached Houston. Though the tropical storm’s still-high winds hampered rescue efforts, the winds were not at the forefront of the minds’ of residents living through the unimaginable. The magnitude of the flood nightmare caught even Houston, no stranger to big floods, by surprise. Three to five feet of rainwater poured down from the skies above in what would become the worst freshwater flood in United States history. The residences of nearly one-in-three people in America’s fourth-largest city were under water.
In Harvey’s wake lay a dizzying disbelief of devastation. More than 120,000 homes in Harris County, where Houston is located, were damaged by floodwaters. What’s more, an estimated 70 percent of those homes were uninsured for floods., That meant the majority of Houstonians, not the insurance companies, were on the hook for the bill. The best-case scenario for uninsured survivors was Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) disaster assistance (typically ranging $3,000–$8,000) or a U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) low-interest federal loan (up to $200,000 for home repair). In reality, covering the cost of repairs for most came from a combination of federal assistance and personal finances, which for many meant adding to or incurring new consumer debt.
It was never intended for the federal government to bail out the uninsured after a disaster— in fact, quite the opposite. When the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was established 50 years ago, its goal was to help insure the uninsured before a disaster. Flooding is the most common and expensive type of disaster, and insuring high-risk flood areas often demands an astronomical price tag. Back in the 1960s, private market flood insurance simply wasn’t available. This is where the NFIP came in. Through the NFIP, the federal government began offering largely affordable policies to the residents of participating communities who adopted and enforced floodplain management ordinances in high-risk flood areas to reduce future flood risk. In theory, securing and insuring high-risk communities reduces the reliance on federal post-disaster assistance and saves the government (and U.S. taxpayers) money, which is a good thing.
Flood insurance, once voluntary, is today required for all properties with federally-backed mortgages in high-risk flood areas. To define these high-risk flood areas, FEMA routinely conducts flood hazard analyses to identify land areas at risk of being inundated by a flood that has a 1 percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. Since 1 percent is interchangeable with 1-in-100, these high-risk floods have become known as 1-in-100 year (or 100-year) floods. FEMA designates these so-called 100-year floodplains as Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs).
Which brings us back to Houston. When Harvey’s floodwaters receded, some 2-in-3 survivors had no insurance to cover their flood losses.1,2 The vast majority of flooding during Harvey happened outside of the SFHA. The storm widened rivers and reservoirs to a point where roads became riverbeds. When everything’s flooded, flood zones feel a little meaningless. But one of the lessons Harvey taught is that flood zones, and our understanding of them, do matter — more so today than ever.
The so-called 100-year floodplain can be understandably confusing. A 1 percent chance of anything happening in a given year feels remote, but most of us don’t live in our houses for a single year. Consider, for example, a 30-year mortgage. The odds of one of those 100-year floods happening over the period of a 30-year mortgage is about 1 in 4. A 25 percent chance of a devastating flood over the period of your mortgage are higher than the odds of a devastating house fire, and you probably wouldn’t go 30 years without installing smoke detectors in your home.
It’s easy to see the need for flood insurance when it’s required; it’s not as clear when it isn’t. So what about those living in high-risk areas without a federally-backed mortgage? Or what about those living outside the high-risk, 100-year floodplain? After all, a moderate chance of flooding hardly implies you’re safe. In fact, FEMA estimates that nearly 1 in 4 of all federal flood claims occur outside of high-risk areas. As every billion-dollar flood disaster shows, floods can be some of the most egregious rule breakers.
Financial decisions, including whether to insure your home and belongings from a flood, are deeply personal family issues. They often aren’t easy decisions, even for those most familiar with the threat. Below, two of the nation’s leading hurricane experts discuss their own experiences living in places where water is a stark reality. Though the aim of their livelihoods is piecing together the clues of Mother Nature’s next step, they’ve each lived through the unpredictable moments. The billion-dollar floods don’t get any easier, and as coastal populations soar, neither will the decisions that shield us from Mother Nature’s most unpredictable moments.
Bill Read, Former Director, National Hurricane Center
I think a big problem people have is differentiating between “requiring” and “needing” flood insurance. My first exposure to the issue of “needing” flood insurance occurred when we moved from Maryland to League City, Texas, in 1992. The house we decided to purchase was (barely) outside the floodplain indicating the 100-year elevation. However, I was concerned about the risk mainly due to storm surge, as data indicated a Category 3 hurricane or above would bring water levels above the level of our home’s foundation. Our realtor and our lender were both adamant in telling us we didn’t “need” flood insurance. I asked our insurance agent at USAA and he was spot on in differentiating between “required” and “needed”. We chose to follow our insurer’s advice. When we decided to move to a new house in 2005, I found a development on the lowest flood risk land in League City, a parcel that sat outside the 500-year elevation. While no longer in a storm surge risk area, I was concerned about flooding from an “off the charts” rain event. Interestingly, my realtor for this move was savvy about flooding along the Gulf coast and advised us to keep flood insurance, as did USAA, which I had already decided I would do based on the many floods I had witnessed outside the 100-year risk areas in Houston since 1992. Along came Harvey, and although we did not flood from the 45 inches of rain we received, the water reached our porch and was one inch from entering the house. Six of my friends were not as fortunate, and two of them did not have flood insurance. Needless to say, when my policy came up for renewal in February, I quickly did so!
Jamie Rhome, Storm Surge Specialist, National Hurricane Center
I recently purchased a home in South Florida, and while going through the mortgage approval process, was informed that the home was outside of the high-risk area (aka the 100-year flood zone) and thus flood insurance wasn’t “required.” I’m also far enough inland to prevent storm surge (saltwater) inundation. However, the home is situated near a freshwater lake, and South Florida often experiences very heavy rains, sometimes exceeding 10 inches in a day. One can easily envision a scenario where debris, from heavy rains or winds, clogs the storm water drains and water pools in the street, eventually coming up the driveway and ultimately wetting the bottom floor of my home. Indeed, South Floridians are very accustomed to this very issue as it frequently occurs during our rainy season. Without flood insurance, I as the homeowner would be responsible for all the damage, which can easily climb into the thousands of dollars. Imagine replacing floors, walls, furniture, possessions, etc., and then taking steps to prevent mold. Given the small cost of flood insurance, the decision was an easy one and I determined that flood insurance was “needed” even if it wasn’t “required.” I was also lucky enough to have a realtor who was well-informed on flood insurance and overall flood risk. He encouraged the purchase of flood insurance citing his experience living in Florida and personal experience with freshwater flooding. Not all home buyers benefit from such well-informed or well-intentioned realtors and home buyers often navigate these complicated waters on their own. If in doubt, it’s better to be safe than sorry.
— Michael Lowry (UCAR Visiting Scientist), Jamie Rhome and Robbie Berg (NHC)
 Preliminary analysis of Hurricane Harvey flooding in Harris County, Texas. California WaterBlog. Available at https://californiawaterblog.com/2017/09/01/preliminary-analysis-of-hurricane-harvey-flooding-in-harris-county-texas/
 Hurricane Harvey: 70% of home damage costs aren’t covered by insurance. CNN Money. Available at http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/01/news/hurricane-harvey-cost-damage-homes-flood/index.html
The State of Hurricane Forecasting is . . .
The National Hurricane Center (NHC) has the responsibility for issuing advisories and U.S. watches/warnings for tropical cyclones (TCs), which includes tropical depressions, tropical storms, and hurricanes, for the Atlantic and east Pacific basins. NHC has a long history of issuing advisories for TCs, with the first known recorded forecast being in 1954, when 24-hour predictions of a TC’s track were made. Since then, we’ve expanded our forecasts out in time and added predictions of TC intensity, size, and associated hazards, such as wind, storm surge, and rainfall. In addition, the lead times of tropical storm and hurricane watches and warnings have increased to give the public additional time to prepare for these potentially devastating events. Since we’re at the time of year when the U.S. President and state governors have just given their “State of the Union” or “State of the State” speeches, we thought this might be a good time to give our own “State of Hurricane Forecasting” speech. This blog entry takes a look at the accuracy of NHC’s forecasts and quantifies how much more accurate they are today compared to decades ago.
Track Forecasting (a.k.a., Where the Storm Will Go)
We are usually more confident in predicting the path of TCs as compared to predicting the strength or size of a TC. The primary reason for this is because the track of a TC is governed by forces larger than the tropical system itself, since the surrounding steering currents cover a much larger area than the hurricane. Because these nearby weather patterns are big, we can usually “see” them easily, and the global weather models do a fairly good job in predicting how these steering features might evolve over the course of a few days.
The figure below shows the average NHC track forecast errors for tropical storms and hurricanes by decade beginning in the 1960s. You can see that there has been a steady reduction in the track errors over time, with the average errors in the current decade about 30-40% smaller than they were in the 2000s and about half of the size (or even smaller) than they were in the 1990s.
If that doesn’t seem impressive, let’s look at another example. The next graphic shows two circles centered on a point near Pensacola, Florida, with the blue one representing the average 48-hour track error in 1990 and the red one showing the average 48-hour error today. What it shows is that if NHC had made a forecast for a storm to be over Pensacola in 48 hours back in 1990, the TC would have ended up, on average, not exactly over Pensacola but somewhere on the blue circle. If NHC makes the same forecast today, now the storm ends up, on average, somewhere on the red circle. You can easily see that the NHC forecasts for the path of a TC today are much more accurate, on average, than they were decades ago, and these more accurate forecasts have helped narrow the warning areas, save lives, and make for more efficient and less costly evacuations.
So, you might be wondering why the track forecasts are more accurate today than in the past. Well, the primary reason is the advancements in technology, specifically the improvements in the observing platforms (satellites, for example) and the various modeling systems we use to make forecasts. The amount and quality of data available to the models so they can paint an initial picture of the atmosphere have increased dramatically in the last 20 to 30 years. Also, the resolution and physics in the models we use today are far superior to what forecasters had available in the 1990s or prior decades, in part due to the tremendous improvements in computational capabilities. In addition, NHC has found ways to even beat the individual dynamical models by using a balance of statistical approaches and experience.
We often hear a lot of questions asking which model is the best one. Although some models are usually better than others, no model is perfect, and their performance varies from season to season and from storm to storm. Two of the most well-known models for weather forecasting are the U.S. National Weather Service’s Global Forecast System (GFS) and the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF). The figure below shows a comparison of the NHC forecasts (OFCL, black) and forecasts from the GFS (GFSI, blue) and ECMWF (EMXI, red) models for Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria, and Nate in 2017. In all of these cases, except for Hurricane Irma, OFCL performed as well as or better than GFSI and EMXI. Among the two models, EMXI beat GFSI for Harvey, Irma, and Nate, but GFSI beat EMXI for Maria.
Over the past decade, the average track errors of GFSI and EMXI models have been quite close, so even though EMXI was the best-performing model most of the time in 2017, it does not mean that it will always be the best for every storm. The models that typically have the lowest errors are consensus aids, which blend several models together. Forecasters construct their own forecasts of how the storm will evolve, aided by model simulations and their knowledge of model strengthens and weaknesses.
Even though our track forecasts are much more accurate today – in fact preliminary estimates are that the 2017 Atlantic track forecasts set record low errors at all time periods – typical track errors currently start off at 37 n mi at 24 hours and then increase by about 35 n mi (40 mi ) per day of the forecast. This means that our 5-day track error is on average around 180 n mi (210 mi). So, keep that in mind and be sure to account for forecast uncertainty when using NHC forecasts next hurricane season.
Intensity Forecasting (a.k.a., How Strong the Storm Will Get)
Predicting the intensity of a tropical storm or hurricane is usually more challenging than forecasting its track. This is because the intensity of these weather systems is affected by factors that are both big and small. On the large scale, vertical wind shear (the change of wind speed and direction with height) and the amount of moisture in the atmosphere greatly affect the amount or organization of the thunderstorm activity that the TC can produce. Ocean temperatures also affect the system’s intensity, with temperatures below 80° F usually being too cool to sustain significant thunderstorm activity. However, smaller-scale features can also be at play. One of the more complex phenomena that affects a TC’s intensity is an eyewall replacement cycle. Initially, when two eyewalls, one inside the other, are present, the hurricane’s wind field will begin to expand, and as the inner eyewall dies, the hurricane’s peak winds start to weaken. However, if the second eyewall contracts, the hurricane can often re-intensify. The radar image below of Hurricane Irma (2017) was taken at the beginning of an eyewall replacement cycle, when the hurricane had a double eyewall structure.
Given these complex factors and the fact that errors in the track can also affect the TC’s future intensity, we have not made as much progress in this area as we have for track forecasting. The next graphic (below) shows NHC average intensity errors for Atlantic tropical storms and hurricanes by decade starting in the 1970s. Note that only small improvements were made in the intensity predictions from the 1970s through the 2000s. A much more significant reduction in error has occurred in the current decade, which could mean that the recent investment in new models and techniques is beginning to pay off. Today’s intensity errors are close to 15 kt (17 mph) from 72 to 120 h. This number is on the order of one Saffir-Simpson category, so we often encourage those who could be affected by a TC to prepare for a storm one category stronger (on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale) than what we are forecasting.
Although the GFS and ECMWF models are skillful for track forecasting and help us understand the environment around the TC, did you know that these models are typically inadequate to predict how strong a TC might become? Both the GFS and ECMWF are global models, and they cannot “see” sufficient detail within the storm to represent and predict the core winds in the hurricane’s eyewall. Therefore, we use different models to predict intensity, some that are run at high resolution specifically for TCs (e.g., Hurricane Weather Research and Forecasting [HWRF] model, Hurricanes in a Multi-scale Ocean-coupled Non-hydrostatic [HMON] model) and some that are statistical in nature (e.g., Statistical Hurricane Intensity Prediction Scheme [SHIPS], Logistic Growth Equation Model [LGEM]). The statistical models tell the forecaster what typically occurs for a TC in a specific location and environment based on past storm behavior. Even though the intensity models are improving, the gains in these models are much smaller than what has occurred in the models we use for track forecasting.
If you want more information on the models, please visit the following page for details: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/modelsummary.shtml
Will the errors keep decreasing?
The short answer is they likely won’t forever. At some point the forecasts made by NHC and other forecasting centers will likely reach the limits of predictability. No one knows for sure what those limits are or when they will be reached, but researchers are still providing great information that is helping NHC make steady advancements as discussed above.
For more information on the NHC and model verification please visit the following page: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/verification/
— John Cangialosi
It’s been an extremely busy hurricane season, and even though there are still two months left, we’re already starting to get ready for the hurricane “off-season.” It’s no surprise that the National Hurricane Center (NHC) spends the hurricane season issuing forecasts, watches, and warnings for tropical cyclones to protect lives and property, but people often wonder what we do when it’s not hurricane season. An earlier blog entry discussed some of the main activities during the “off-season”. However, one item that was not discussed was NHC’s interaction with students and the general public. To engage and educate students and the general public, NHC organizes and is involved with numerous outreach events.
One of the largest public turnouts was in April 2017 for an open house at NHC and the Miami NWS Weather Forecast Office (WFO). Over 1,000 people showed up to learn more about NHC and WFO operations and how to be hurricane ready. Similar experiences were provided during several office tours that were open to the public and schools outside of hurricane season. NHC forecasters also make efforts to interact with students and teachers at career days at schools in South Florida, and participate in outreach events at local museums, boat shows, and colleges to help get the message out about weather hazards and preparedness. For a virtual tour of NHC’s operations, visit http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/nhctour.shtml.
Since many areas in the United States and internationally are affected by hurricanes, the NHC takes their outreach efforts on the road to reach more hurricane vulnerable locations. NHC plays a critical role in two annual Hurricane Awareness Tours (one in the Caribbean/Mexico and one in the United States/Canada). The Hurricane Awareness Tours are an opportunity for NOAA and its partner agencies to visit locations that are vulnerable to tropical storms and hurricanes. At each location along the tour, the public can get an up-close look at the NOAA and U.S. Air Force Reserve Hurricane Hunter aircraft and meet some of the crew that fly into hurricanes. In addition, NHC and other partners discuss the importance of having a personal hurricane plan at each stop of the tour, including knowing whether or not you live in an evacuation zone. The events provide an opportunity for NHC to spread the hurricane preparedness message through local media and emergency managers, with the main goal being to increase public awareness of hurricane threats and ensure that communities and families in hurricane prone areas are better prepared to face the next storm. Over 13,000 people showed up for the 2017 U.S./Canada Hurricane Awareness Tour, the most successful turn out in its history.
To take advantage of today’s high-tech society, NHC has moved a portion of our outreach efforts into the virtual world. To reach students, NHC has teamed up with the University of Rhode Island and NOAA’s Aircraft Operations Center to conduct educational webinars for 4th, 5th, and 6th graders. These webinars provided an overview of hurricane history and hazards, and we quizzed students on their hurricane knowledge. The webinars also featured videos of the Hurricane Hunters and allowed students to directly ask questions. During the past five years, the webinars have reached more than 40,000 students from around the country and beyond. For more information please visit http://www.hurricanescience.org/resources/nhcwebinar/.
During the past few years, NHC has also partnered with NOAA’s Southeast and Caribbean Regional Collaboration Team to offer a series of webinars that are intended to improve the understanding of NHC and local NWS Weather Forecast Office tropical-cyclone-related products and services. These webinars are geared toward the general public, emergency managers, and media partners. Recordings of these webinars can be found at http://www.regions.noaa.gov/secar/index.php/highlights/noaas-2017-hurricane-season-awareness-webinars/.
These are just some examples of how meteorologists at NHC interact with the public and students. It has been one of the most rewarding parts of my job, as I know that I am providing a valuable education to those that live in hurricane vulnerable locations. In addition, some of these events have inspired students to want to learn more about weather, hopefully encouraging the next generation of meteorologists. So if you are interested in attending some of these events for the next “off-season”, stayed tuned to hurricanes.gov for updates.
— John Cangialosi
The hurricane season had yet to see its first named storm in August 1992, but that changed dramatically with the arrival of Hurricane Andrew.
South Florida and NOAA’s National Hurricane Center in Coral Gables took a direct hit from Andrew.
We’re going to take you behind the scenes for a glimpse of what it was like to be on duty during that fateful week twenty-five years ago.
The disturbance that had rolled off the coast of Africa became Tropical Storm Andrew on Aug. 17. But three days later, it almost disappeared.
“It looked like the storm had dissipated, but we hung onto it just a little bit longer”, said hurricane forecaster Dr. Richard Pasch, who was working the midnight shift. “The aircraft couldn’t locate the center, and Bob Sheets, the NHC director, came in and I told him I don’t think it’s going away. Bob said ’I don’t either‘, so we went ahead and hung onto it.”
It was a wise decision.
Just two days later, the Hurricane Hunter aircraft found a lower air pressure and better organization. On Saturday morning August 22, they found hurricane-force winds.
Later that same day, Hurricane Research Division (HRD) scientists James Franklin and Dr. Mark DeMaria boarded the NOAA Hurricane Hunter WP-3D aircraft in San Juan as part of a dropwindsonde mission to better sample the winds around the hurricane. The mission ended in Miami about midnight and both went to NHC to see if the new data had an impact on the forecast models. “The models now showed Andrew’s path much farther south and a direct threat to Miami-Dade County,” said DeMaria who, along with Franklin, would go on to become part of the NHC management.
Andrew continued to rapidly strengthen as it approached South Florida.
In the pre-dawn hours of August 24, its eye, with winds screaming at more than 155 mph around it, neared the Dade County coastline.
Hurricane forecaster Dr. Ed Rappaport recalled how tense that night was, but he and many others were oblivious to the chaos outside. They were all focused on the analysis and typing out the 5 a.m. advisory with the updated forecast and warnings.
“When the advisory went out, somebody came up to me and said, ‘What do you think?’ I said, ‘about what?’ And he said ‘Well, the building’s swaying!’ A few minutes later, the anemometer measured a wind gust to 164 mph,” Rappaport said.
And then there was the time the whole building shook.
No one knew what it was, but NHC radar meteorologist Martin Nelson noticed the Miami radar, a WSR-57 (Serial #1), quit working.
“We believe another antenna broke loose and hit the fiberglass dome. Once that happened, the actual radar antenna was exposed,” Nelson said.
Part of that dome fell and landed on top of his pickup truck, while many other dome parts were blown down U.S. Highway 1. Radar fixes of Andrew’s trek over South Florida were captured by the new Doppler radar in Melbourne, Florida.
The day before Andrew made landfall, several NHC forecasters were sent to NOAA’s National Meteorological Center in Maryland to back up NHC just in case it was needed.
One of those forecasters was Hugh Cobb. He was taking a break in his hotel room hours after Andrew made landfall and turned on CNN where the newscaster was talking about damage to the hurricane center.
“I happened to glance up and I saw an image of my car. Apparently there was a blue car that was tossed on top of my car.”
Several other employees lost their cars. Worse, two dozen NHC and HRD employees had suffered major damage to their homes. Seven of those homes were destroyed.
NHC moved into a new single story facility three years later, well inland on the campus of Florida International University. Herb Saffir, a structural engineer, had a hand in the fortified design of the building. If the name sounds familiar…he is the “Saffir” in the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale.
When another hurricane strikes, especially one with the power of Andrew, things will be different.
“We’ve got a plan in place for a hurricane landfall here in Miami, and we have successfully exercised it a few times, including when 2005’s Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Wilma hit us,” said Rappaport, who is now the acting NHC Director. “We’ve got the shutters and other essentials here to provide protection…as we try to impress upon the public to do the same.”
— Dennis Feltgen, NOAA Communications and Public Affairs Officer, National Hurricane Center
Two years ago this month, Tropical Storm Bill made landfall along the central Texas coast, just 17 hours after becoming a tropical cyclone only 145 miles offshore. The precursor disturbance, a broad and ill-defined area of low pressure, had already been producing tropical-storm-force winds, and there was little doubt that the system would soon bring those dangerous winds onshore. Although NHC’s Tropical Weather Outlooks had been talking about the possibility of those conditions two days in advance, and their likelihood one day in advance, some in the media and emergency management communities lamented the lack of earlier formal tropical storm warnings and full advisory products from NHC. A few even suggested that NHC classify the disturbance as a tropical storm when it wasn’t one. By policy and tradition, NHC advisories, track and intensity forecasts, and any associated watches and warnings begin only after a disturbance has become a tropical cyclone; in this case a tropical storm warning was issued as soon as Bill formed, about 12 hours before the hazardous winds reached the coast. For some additional discussion on why warnings couldn’t have been issued any earlier for Bill, please see our blog post written after that event.
This is hardly the only example of a tropical cyclone striking land shortly after genesis, and well within the normal 48-hour watch/warning time frame. In 2010, Tomas struck Barbados as a tropical storm 27 hours after formation, and St. Vincent and St. Lucia as a hurricane 38 hours after formation. In September of 2007, Humberto made landfall as a hurricane along the Texas coast a mere 19 hours after becoming a tropical cyclone. This recurring problem has been on our minds for a long time, and this season we’ve introduced a service enhancement to address the issue.
Starting this year, NHC has the option to issue advisories, track and intensity forecasts, watches, and warnings for disturbances that are not yet a tropical cyclone, but which pose the threat of bringing tropical storm or hurricane conditions to land areas within 48 hours. This substantial change in policy means that we won’t have to wait for a disturbance to meet the technical requirements of a tropical cyclone (such as having a well-defined center of circulation or sufficiently organized thunderstorm activity) to issue forecasts or post warnings. And boy, it didn’t take long for us to employ this new option, with both the pre-Bret and pre-Cindy disturbances requiring the initiation of potential tropical cyclone advisories on two consecutive days! But more on that in a moment.
Although we’ve been working on the technical and administrative changes to bring this about over the past two years, the effort actually began after the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010, when NHC was asked to provide enhanced forecast support for the response effort. Since then, NHC has been practicing making track and intensity forecasts for disturbances, and at the same time we’ve been improving our ability to forecast tropical cyclone genesis. We now believe that the science has advanced enough to allow the confident prediction of tropical cyclone impacts while these systems are still in the developmental stage.
So for these land-threatening “potential tropical cyclones” (and that’s the term we’re using in our advisories), NHC can now issue the full suite of text, graphical, and watch/warning products that previously has only been used for ongoing tropical cyclones. This includes the cone graphic, public advisory, discussion, wind speed probabilities – everything – and all the products will look exactly the same as our tropical cyclone products. The only thing that’s different is what we call the “system type”; we’ve added POTENTIAL TROPICAL CYCLONE to the roster of possible system types. And since you asked (or at least were thinking about asking), here’s the complete list:
POTENTIAL TROPICAL CYCLONE
For those who are interested in the definitions of each of these system types, you can find them in National Weather Service Instruction 10-604, Tropical Cyclone Names and Definitions.
We did consider some alternatives to the term potential tropical cyclone. “Tropical disturbance” was a fairly obvious option but we knew that some of these precursor disturbances weren’t going to be tropical in nature (such as a frontal cyclone evolving into a subtropical or tropical cyclone), so that eliminated tropical disturbance. Another option was simply “disturbance”, which aside from evoking Star Wars imagery (I felt a great disturbance in the Gulf), did not in our view adequately convey the appropriate level of threat. In the end, potential tropical cyclone seemed both accurate and appropriate to the threat, although it’ll take a bit of getting used to for some.
Potential tropical cyclones will share the naming rules currently used for depressions, with depressions and potential tropical cyclones being numbered from a single list (e.g., “One”, “Two”, “Three”, …, “Twenty-Three”, etc.). The assigned number will always match the total number of systems we’ve written advisories on within that basin during the season. For example, if three systems requiring advisories have already occurred within a basin in a given year, the next land-threatening disturbance would be designated “Potential Tropical Cyclone Four”. If a potential tropical cyclone becomes a tropical depression, its numerical designation doesn’t change (i.e., Potential Tropical Cyclone Four becomes Tropical Depression Four).
Potential tropical cyclone advisory packages will be issued at the standard advisory times of 5 AM, 11 AM, 5 PM, and 11 PM EDT, with three-hourly Intermediate Public Advisories being issued at 2 AM, 8 AM, 2 PM, and 8 PM EDT when watches or warnings are in effect. The product suite will include a five-day track and intensity forecast, just as is done for ongoing tropical cyclones. In addition, the Potential Storm Surge Flooding Map and Storm Surge Watch/Warning graphic would be issued for these systems when appropriate. We’ll continue issuing advisory packages on a potential tropical cyclone until watches or warnings are discontinued or until the threat of tropical-storm-force winds for land areas sufficiently diminishes, at which point advisories would be discontinued. However, if it seems likely that new watches or warnings would be necessary within a short period of time (say 6-12 hours), then advisories could continue during that brief gap in warnings in the interest of service continuity.
Since the primary issuance trigger is the threat of tropical storm conditions over land, there won’t be any specific threshold of formation likelihood for the initiation of advisories. For example, a fast-moving tropical wave approaching the Lesser Antilles might already have tropical-storm-force winds but no closed wind circulation. In this case, a genesis forecast of 40% – 50% would likely be enough to trigger advisories and warnings. In contrast, a genesis forecast of 70% for a system close to shore might not trigger advisories if the system were not expected to reach tropical storm strength before moving inland.
The issuance of NHC products for potential tropical cyclones is very much analogous to the change that occurred after Hurricane Sandy in 2012, when NHC advisories on post-tropical cyclones became possible. After Sandy, we realized that there was great benefit to users in NHC’s being able to continue writing advisories on systems even after they were no longer a tropical cyclone. That solved the service continuity problem on the “back end”, and now we’re completing the process by ensuring a steady flow of information on the front end of a tropical cyclone’s life cycle. In all cases, we’ll be trying to ensure that warning types (tropical vs. non-tropical) don’t have to change in the middle of an event.
There are some things to be aware of with this new capability. First, potential tropical cyclone advisories will not be issued for systems that threaten only marine areas – largely because this would pose an unmanageable workload/staffing issue for us but also because marine forecast products (the High Seas and Offshore Waters forecasts) already allow the issuance of gale and storm warnings before a tropical cyclone has formed.
Second, because potential tropical cyclones will have a standard five-day forecast track and uncertainty cone, to avoid potential confusion with the cone we’re going to stop drawing potential formation areas for these systems in the Graphical Tropical Weather Outlook.
We’re also concerned that some users may pay too much attention to the longer-range part of these new forecasts (the part beyond 72 hours). We know that forecast errors for weaker and developing systems tend to be larger than those for strong storms and hurricanes, and we even considered only going out to 72 hours with the new potential tropical cyclone advisories (since the primary purpose was to support watches and warnings). But in the end, consistency and technical issues argued for going out to five days, and that’s what we’re doing. So it’s likely that forecast-to-forecast changes in the longer-range portion of our potential tropical cyclone advisories will be larger than what folks are used to. And for those of you who like to look at forecast model intensity guidance, be aware that most of these intensity models assume the system is a tropical cyclone. Since that won’t be the case for these systems, intensity models run on potential tropical cyclones will generally have a high bias. And lastly, since many potential tropical cyclones will not have well-defined centers, there will likely be large jumps in the reported location of these systems from advisory to advisory. But even with all these caveats, we think that the ability to post warnings before a cyclone forms is an important service enhancement – one that will help save lives and protect property, while at the same time allowing NHC to analyze and report on tropical systems as accurately and as honestly as possible.
After our experiences with Bret and Cindy, we’re optimistic about the value of this new capability. Advisories on Potential Tropical Cyclone Two were started 24 hours before Bret officially became a tropical cyclone, giving residents of Trinidad and Tobago, Grenada, and northeastern Venezuela an additional day of warning for tropical storm conditions. If this were still 2016, places like Trinidad may have only had three to six hours between the time of the first advisory and the time when tropical storm force winds began on the island. And for Cindy, advisories on Potential Tropical Cyclone Three were initiated roughly 21 hours before Cindy met the criteria of a tropical cyclone. This allowed Tropical Storm Warnings to be issued for southeastern Louisiana 21 hours earlier than they would have been if the storm had occurred last year.
Just a few weeks into the new season, we’re pretty happy about the way this all worked. We think we successfully demonstrated the ability to provide more advanced warning than we could have in previous years for these developing tropical cyclones. But we’d love to hear feedback from our users, customers, and partners. Were the potential tropical cyclone advisories in advance of Bret and Cindy confusing? Helpful? Maybe both? Or bad puns aside, did the new capability fit the “Bill”?
If you’d like to provide comments on your experiences with the Potential Tropical Cyclone advisories during Bret and Cindy, please feel free to contact Jessica Schauer, the NWS Tropical Cyclone Program Leader, at Jessica.Schauer@noaa.gov.