Should ALL Storms Be Named?
UPDATE: Here's an excellent video with Evan and JB that addresses the issue of keeping tropical systems named after dissipation (near the end of the video). Thanks for all the great Comments; I have added some comments from my Facebook page below.
DISCLAIMER: My opinions here do not necessarily represent those of AccuWeather, Inc.
Henry opened a can of worms last week by saying in a video that he believed the coastal storm should have continued to carry the name "Ida". The problem, he said (to which I agree) was that national news networks (FoxNews & CNN) didn't have the 24/7 coverage during this storm that they would have, had the storm been named. This sparked a "sea" of controversy in his Blog Comments for the original entry and also those on a followup entry clarifying his stance.
The reason that the storm went unnamed (as I understand it) is because of a government policy from the National Hurricane Center (NHC) that says that Tropical Storms should be unnamed when their winds fall below 39 mph, and storms should not be named if they are not "warm-core". Ida dissipated, but maintained a pressure center and surface wind circulation that went on to form a cold-core Nor'easter low pressure system.
If the storm had continued to maintain the name "Ida," what effect would it have had? Well, maybe the guy with the fancy car on the Outer Banks wouldn't have gotten it buried by sand (see last picture here). But seriously, Maybe the barge carrying hazardous materials that ran aground pictured above wouldn't have been there in the first place. There were six deaths from this storm. What if they could have been prevented by more wall-to-wall national TV media coverage?*
We posted a poll to this effect on Facebook this morning, but I'd like to take this a step further (something they didn't allow me to do in the poll)...
Should we be naming ALL storms that have destructive potential? Is the requirement for having a warm-core origin, something the public cares not about, really worth keeping our naming system as-is? Wouldn't it make more sense if storms were named based on a certain intensity of winds or pressure (or even destructive potential)?
This is not unprecedented. NOAA (who created the policy referenced above!) even names Lake-Effect snowstorms. And over in Europe, they name literally every low pressure that crosses the continent. I'm not sure I could advise going that far, though it could be done (you can even buy a storm with your own name there!) What I'd rather see is names given to storms with destructive potential, but then you run into the problem of naming things that don't cause trouble (like random winter storms that stay out at sea -- of course, that hasn't stopped us from naming hurricanes).
But enough hemming and hawing... I guess my best compromise would be this: Let's name storms in the Eastern Pacific, North America, and Western Atlantic year-round based on wind speeds, period. If it reaches Tropical Storm sustained winds (39 mph), then it gets named. If a storm dissipates, keep it named if it maintains a pressure center and circulation. This would have solved the Ida problem.
I'm not necessarily suggesting that AccuWeather has to do this, or that we would do it in tandem with the NHC's current government naming method, which could be confusing... though the media was confused this time around anyway, alternately calling it "Ida", "Nor'Ida", "Coastal Storm" and "Nor'easter."
I think after sufficient debate perhaps all parties could agree on a new system. Just sayin'. How about you? Take our Facebook Poll then leave me a Comment below (as always, all comments are held for approval and profanity/baseless claims/personal attacks will not be accepted though constructive disagreement is always welcomed).
*Something else fascinating to think about: This may not necessarily be true. While conservative folks and businesses would likely evacuate more people and take less risks due to increased media coverage, more widespread media coverage could cause more people to be out in the storm to get a look at it, though there is no data to support either conclusion. It's also possible, as many people pointed out on Henry's blog and Facebook, that national news station coverage doesn't matter that much versus national weather media and local news stations, which covered the event well.
COMMENTS FROM MY FACEBOOK PAGE:
Doug Kiesling
should everyone be given a first place trophy? It was called the Nor Easter of November 2009...
Steve Steinke
I do believe the Snowspotter Network at NWS in Buffalo NY names their winter storms still. Gary was one I remember from about 12 years ago!!
Scott A. Miller
I'm a little confused by this. The winds here were over 40 mph and I know they were the same or worse in south Jersey and in more southern states. Shouldn't that have kept the NHC from reducing it's status?
Scott Lindstrom
Hurricanes get names to avoid confusion when multiple hurricanes exist simultaneously. It's unlikely that two large extratropical storms will simultaneously affect the same region of the US. So why would you name storms?
Blog Comments (7):
Hank - S.Jersey:
I like Delmarva's idea of rating storms like this on a 1-5 scale of intensity. Perhaps naming a storm should be reserved for those that reach a certain magnitude and damage potential.
I don't see the value in keeping the storm's name and getting more media attention. So the folks in OK or AZ see this as the lead story on CNN and say 'how about that' and go on their merry way. The important media for an event like this are the locals, which I believe did a bang-up job, at least in my neck of the woods.
This was a localized event for the NE coast. If you didn't have waterfront or beach property that was effected, the impact was just a really bad rainstorm. The biggest hits taken were by the beaches themselves. It wasn't like 1000s of people were displaced and whole blocks of houses destroyed by winds, floods, etc.
Posted by Hank - S.Jersey | November 17, 2009 11:00 AM
Allen:
Although I didn't see any need for this debate, you do make a good case for naming any system with destructive potential. Let's remember; the goal here is not hype but saving lives and perhaps property. There is also an issue with insurance policies and named storms as I'm hearing. There would have to be a different lead word with cold core systems, i.e. (Sub)Tropical Storm or Hurricane X vs. something like Extratropical Storm X. This would satisfy the whole gambit of issues raised here. The thing is that you would have to PROVE to NHC/NWS that this would make a difference because informing the public really is of highest priority to them. In addition, you would probably end up battling insurance lobbies if the above mentioned is true. At the very least, premiums would rise in coastal areas across the board, and they would certainly push the case to do so anywhere since these monster systems can be continental.
Posted by Allen | November 17, 2009 9:35 AM
Michael:
No..well...maybe. Perhaps have 2 lists of names. One for warm-core and one for cold-core storms.
Posted by Michael | November 16, 2009 9:20 PM
SteveH:
One of the problems with maintaining the name of a tropical storm's pressure center and circulation is the 'crying wolf' syndrome. Too many of these washing ashore with minimal impacts could have the effect of causing the general public to become too jaded, even if they were rated on some scale of severity.
Posted by SteveH | November 16, 2009 7:39 PM
Johnny:
Name or not.....this storm has done a lot of damage up and down the east coast. I for one was checking accuweather on a regular basis and still didn't really take it as serious in regards to the amount of flooding and ocean overwash. Thus i lost a small amount (compared to others) of items in a storage room in Kitty Hawk, NC. I think the fact that it wasn't named and the fact that so many times these and even the named storms get hyped up we all get a little complacent.
Posted by Johnny | November 16, 2009 7:05 PM
Bl1zzard:
Personally I think the problem is partially opposite of what you argue. I think that people have come to expect that storms without a name are nothing to worry about and I think that's the fault of too many storms being named and hyped.
A weak tropical storm gets named and gets covered intensively by the media and yet results in nothing more than some wind-blown showers for most residents in its path. Ultimately those people come to connect a hyped up tropical system with nothing impressive. When a storm comes up without a name they just assume it will be even weaker, which, while occasionally true may also have lead to some of the consequences you point out in the above post.
I honestly feel that the media along with, in part, the NHC is to blame for the complacency demonstrated by coastal residents lately. Anytime the NHC issues an advisory for a tropical storm and comments that "some strenghtening is forecast" new organizations (CNN, FOX, MSNBC) all start talking about the next major tropical cyclone and where it's heading. They bring in specialists to tell you how best to prepare for a storm (how to board up windows, what to bring when evacuating, that sort of thing) and generally blow the storm completely out of proportion. People along the coasts who routinely see these forecasts and news broadcasts yet never see the resultant disaster are bound to become complacent. They tie almost no significance to a tropical storm and as such tend to see forecasts of destruction as a modern example of the boy who cried wolf.
Some tropical storms (allison comes to mind) are truly worthy of being hyped by forecasters and the media, that was a devastating storm. However, most tropical storms end up being nothing more than breezy drought-busters. A strong nor'easter, even in my brief experience of following weather, often seems stronger than your run-of-the-mill tropical storms. I think it was a mistake to begin the practice of naming anything less than hurricane strength. If you only had names for hurricanes weather forecasters efforts to get people to realize that an un-named nor'easter was a major threat would work much better.
Regards,
Bl1zzard
Posted by Bl1zzard | November 16, 2009 6:03 PM
The Delmarva Johnster Monster:
My thought is that storm forecasts should include some sort of impact rating, whether the storm is named or not. They could be rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being a minor impact and 5 being a major impact. I think Paul Kocin wanted to do this with snowstorms, but I think it should apply to all storms, even tropical systems. In 2006, Ernesto had a name, but for some reason people didn't pay much attention to it. Maybe it was because it was only a tropical storm and not a hurricane. Had the storm been given an impact rating, it may have been taken more seriously. That storm turned out to be the most damaging storm Ocean City had seen since Gloria in 1985 and the city didn't prepare for it at all.
Posted by The Delmarva Johnster Monster | November 16, 2009 5:19 PM
