5 Ways Hurricane Messaging And Public Interpretation Must Evolve

At times I write pieces that deliberately provoke conversation. This is one of those moments. The intent is not to be critical of any persons or organizations. People are hurting and trying to recover. Additionally, colleagues at the National Hurricane Center and the National Weather Service are the best in the business at what they do. They are also not the only ones that provide messaging about hurricanes. Herein, I opine on four things that have been on my mind for several years but recently sharpened by the devastation of Hurricane Ian. Here are 5 ways hurricane messaging and public interpretation must evolve.

We need a hard look at the cone

As I wrote previously in Forbes, the region where Hurricane Ian made landfall was always in the “cone of uncertainty” from the previous Friday until landfall the following week. NOAA’s website reminds us that the cone of uncertainty, “Represents the probable track of the center of a tropical cyclone, and is formed by enclosing the area swept out by a set of circles (not shown) along the forecast track (at 12, 24, 36 hours, etc)….size of each circle is set so that two-thirds of historical official forecast errors over a 5-year sample fall within the circle.” I am convinced that it does not matter how much colleagues and I share this technical jargon, it will never resonate with a large segment of the population.

A 2022 study in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, found that people struggle with several aspects of the “cone.” The authors also recommended rethinking how to graphically convey the uncertainty, storm size, and areas under threat from the array of hazards. A 2021 study published in the psychology literature questioned whether the “cone” should remain as a tool. The “cone” is a summary statistic, but the study authors note that it can lead to something called “containment heuristic.” They correctly note that because the public bins things into categories, the “cone” can create a sense that either you are at risk or you are not.

I have queried many people over the years, and most are surprised to learn there is a 60-70 percent chance that the center of the storm can be anywhere within the “cone.” It is far more digestible to see the line or points in the center (presented or inferred). It is not though. Many meteorological hazards require a probabilistic approach (the “cone” or “percent chance of rain”) that do not often fit public mental models. People simply want to know, “Is it going to rain in my backyard?” or “Is the hurricane coming to me?” For example, ff I throw three darts at a dartboard and two of them hit very close to the center and one hits the bullseye, they are all good throws. Carrying forward that analogy to weather, many people might say the two outside of the bullseye were bad “forecasts.” They are not.

If we know there is a mismatch here, why do we keep doing the same thing? In a recent episode of Weather Channel’s Weather Geeks Podcast, Mike Seidel noted that they stopped putting the center line or center “H’s” on their cones. I am increasingly of the viewpoint that this is a good idea, at least beyond 3 to 5 days. The Weather Channel’s Director of Weather Presentation is Mike Chesterfield. He recently tweeted, “The forecast was right….to hear many feel it was not can be frustrating….also means the tools the meteorological community is using to communicate such forecasts are not working.” We cannot continue to loft technical jargon to the public and hope there is a sudden epiphany on understanding of probability. People still don’t understand “percent chance of rain” after all of these years.

We need a reboot of the “hurricane coverage and messaging” operating system. Is there a different way to explain the cone? Is there a different way to convey the information the cone is intended to communicate?

Get out of comfort zones

What do I mean by saying, “Get out of comfort zones?” Many people look at the cone and make decisions about their potential well-being. Media outlets and other institutions also resort to the same playbooks year after year. There is actually more information that could be conveyed to the public. For example, the National Hurricane Center (NHC) discussions are a wealth of information, but only meteorologically-attentive people like me are likely going to read them. NHC discussions were crystal-clear ing the days leading up to landfall that there was more uncertainty than usual with Ian’s track.

It is imperative that such nuanced messaging is shared explicitly. The cone is used because we know there are possibilities of sudden turns or track shifts. This is how that uncertainty is represented. As such, anyone in the cone should be prepared to act, and nobody should evacuate from one part of the cone to another part of the cone. However, messengers must say these things too and clearly articulate the uncertainty rather than just slapping a cone on the screen or a Tweet.

Dr. Rick Knabb, the Weather Channel’s hurricane expert, also points to another comfort zone issue in his Tweet above. There are other products available to the public, but many outlets do not share them. The public may also not be familiar with them. Knabb said, “….Many are forgetting social scientists years ago helped us build @NHC_Atlantic storm surge warning & flooding map, with input from emergency managers. Problem now is getting everyone to utilize them.” There is more to hurricane messaging than the cone, model runs, live shots, and the Saffir-Simpson scale.

Saffir-Simpson Scale – Good or Bad?

Speaking of which, there will certainly be discussions about the appropriateness or efficacy of the Saffir-Simpson scale. I personally got frustrated with all of the discussion about Hurricane Ian being “almost a Category 5 storm.” What difference does that make? A strong Category 4 Ian was going to have the same impacts as a low-end Category 5 Ian. Additionally, the scale does not explicitly convey some of the most-dangerous aspects of a landfalling hurricane – surge, rainfall, and tornadoes. The Saffir-Simpson scale is not going away anytime soon, but this conversation comes up after every hurricane disaster. The National Weather Service is certainly moving to Impact-based messaging, but the public inertia is locked in on hurricane category. What is going to be the catalyst to change that?

The Danger of Comparisons

I talk all of the time about normalcy bias – “I survived the storms before, I will survive this one.” I used to struggle to convince my own father about this. Normalcy bias does not prepare you for anomaly events like Hurricane Ian. During Ian, I saw so many comparisons to Hurricane Charley (2004). That was a terrible comparison. The only similarities were the landfall location and the Category. Hurricane Ian, as Senior Weather Channel Meteorologist Stu Ostro tweeted below, was a much larger storm. The larger footprint meant profoundly different and more catastrophic impacts from wind, rain, storm surge, and tornadoes. Every storm will be different, and it is important to respond to each one appropriately.

It’s okay to prepare for the worst and it not happen

A big challenge in our society is people often feel inconvenienced by the prospect of evacuating or preparing for a weather hazard. I get it. I do not particularly care to pay for car or homeowner’s insurance each month, but it is necessary risk mitigation. I hope to never need either one. There are certainly post-Ian discussions about when to act if evaluations are issued or what to do if they are not. Part of my goal in focusing on hurricane messaging is to empower people to consume the information correctly or even make their own decisions out of an abundance of caution. My personal decision-tree with weather is to be overly risk-averse. At the very first rumble of thunder, I am making my way off the golf course. Likewise, if my town is within the cone two days out, I am probably packing my family up and leaving.

However, I am not arrogant or naive enough to believe my decision-making process applies to everyone (or should). Some communities do not have the economic means or resources to just “up and leave.” Disproportionate vulnerability and lack of capacity to “bounce back” are real issues with extreme weather events. Government agencies and institutions will need to broaden their toolkits beyond “get out.” They need to also ask, “Can they get it out?” Either way, we have to get to a point of being okay with the hassle, even if the storm ultimately goes somewhere else.