Katrina

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

That's simply not true.

The English MET Office had it down to a 60km error rate 3 days in advance - and they advised your National Hurricane Centre of the same.

---

A hurricane's predicated path radiply becomes unreliable as it approaches land. That's when it becomes turmoiled - which accounts for the 100 mile discrepancy (error rate) of the landfall of the eye.

Quote:

---

Everywhere, both 60km E and 60km W (which includeds New Orleans) of expected landfall could have been evacuated earlier if the people in question (charge?) had listened to the meteorologists advice.

---

Think about the people that did listen to the advice, and the 30,000 that decided to ignore it. That's less than 5% of the population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

That's simply not true.

The English MET Office had it down to a 60km error rate 3 days in advance - and they advised your National Hurricane Centre of the same.

Everywhere, both 60km E and 60km W (which includeds New Orleans) of expected landfall could have been evacuated earlier if the people in question (charge?) had listened to the meteorologists advice.

---

I don’t know anything about the English MET Office but I am sure the National Weather Service took into account what they had to say even though the NWS has the most sophisticated weather satellites on the planet and are used to predicting hurricane tracks. Not sure how experienced the Brits are with tracking hurricanes, didn’t think you got any at all due to the cold water all around you.

I don’t think the problem was knowledge of where the hurricane was going to hit. I think the problem was with government officials not acting on the warnings they were getting. GWB told the governor of Louisiana to order a mandatory evacuation of NO several days before the hurricane was going to hit. The governor of the state was the one who delayed in issuing the order (she finally issued the order 1 day before the hurricane was to strike). There was time to evacuate the city had State and Local officials acted in time. They didn’t, so we had the mess that happened.

X

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xanith

I don’t know anything about the English MET Office but I am sure the National Weather Service took into account what they had to say even though the NWS has the most sophisticated weather satellites on the planet and are used to predicting hurricane tracks. Not sure how experienced the Brits are with tracking hurricanes, didn’t think you got any at all due to the cold water all around you.

I don’t think the problem was knowledge of where the hurricane was going to hit. I think the problem was with government officials not acting on the warnings they were getting. GWB told the governor of Louisiana to order a mandatory evacuation of NO several days before the hurricane was going to hit. The governor of the state was the one who delayed in issuing the order (she finally issued the order 1 day before the hurricane was to strike). There was time to evacuate the city had State and Local officials acted in time. They didn’t, so we had the mess that happened.

X

---

Yeah I agree that the it was the govt/poeple in charges problem.

FYI: The Met Office is the best in the world. They are head and and shoulders above any other meteorlogical society anywhere in the world. Not only that - they always have been

When tornado alley gets an advanced warning you can be sure it's from little ole Exeter in England.

When a hurricane is predicted to be a real problem: you can guarentee that the Met Office advisory was first (and was more accurate)

It's one of the last good things England has.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

That's simply not true.

The English MET Office had it down to a 60km error rate 3 days in advance - and they advised your National Hurricane Centre of the same.

Everywhere, both 60km E and 60km W (which includeds New Orleans) of expected landfall could have been evacuated earlier if the people in question (charge?) had listened to the meteorologists advice.

---

Anybody who says they have an error rate of 60km 3 days in advance is full of a brown and smelly waste product! That kind of precision is a pure lie. After the fact, if you were right, you can trumpet your guess as being accurate, but you had best keep silent about all the other times you were wrong.

Folks in FL track hurricanes with intense interest. There are updates from various hurricane centers whenever any threat shows up. While I was living down there, we had a storm that caused an evacuation of the keys a single day before it was due to hit, then missed us completely. Is every hurricane forecaster in the US so woefully inferior to the British MET that they all got that one wrong? That was an error of a couple hundred KM in a single day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xanith

GWB told the governor of Louisiana to order a mandatory evacuation of NO several days before the hurricane was going to hit. X

---

I'd like to see some documentation on that. It does not agree with reports that I have heard from other sources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

Yeah I agree that the it was the govt/poeple in charges problem.

FYI: The Met Office is the best in the world. They are head and and shoulders above any other meteorlogical society anywhere in the world. Not only that - they always have been

When tornado alley gets an advanced warning you can be sure it's from little ole Exeter in England.

When a hurricane is predicted to be a real problem: you can guarentee that the Met Office advisory was first (and was more accurate)

It's one of the last good things England has.

---

Actually, I do see some of the model runs that appear to be produced out of England. Perhaps that's the MET stuff you talk about.

Just read a book a couple of months ago about the Fastnet race of '79. Right off your shores, and you blew it. No forecast is that accurate. All you can do is examine the output of the various models, and take a conservative stance as far as extreme weather is concerned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Actually, I do see some of the model runs that appear to be produced out of England. Perhaps that's the MET stuff you talk about.

Just read a book a couple of months ago about the Fastnet race of '79. Right off your shores, and you blew it. No forecast is that accurate. All you can do is examine the output of the various models, and take a conservative stance as far as extreme weather is concerned.

---

The 'various models' you talk about are called 'the ensembles' If they agree then you have an accurate computer generated model forecast. No modern weather forecaster relies on the ensembles more than 36 hours out. Human forecasters are certainly needed.

Unlike America (where you can see systems coming from days away) where there is continental climate life in terms of weather forecasting is generally easier. Britain has a maritime climate: which is exceedingly difficult to forecast. The weather here changes quickly normally within hours (unless it comes from the Europe mainland)

I understand that you've found an error in Britains forecasting ability. Well done! You will need to look a lot harder to find life threatening mistakes from these shores - the last warning not issued was in Oct 1987.

It stands that Britain generally produce the world's best forecasts. FYI the ECMWF is second, and America's GFS/USAF is third.

It is, as I've already said, one of the only things that Britain does well. (apart from sucking up to Bush, that is)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

The 'various models' you talk about are called 'the ensembles' If they agree then you have an accurate computer generated model forecast. No modern weather forecaster relies on the ensembles more than 36 hours out. Human forecasters are certainly needed.

Unlike America (where you can see systems coming from days away) where there is continental climate life in terms of weather forecasting is generally easier. Britain has a maritime climate: which is exceedingly difficult to forecast. The weather here changes quickly normally within hours (unless it comes from the Europe mainland)

I understand that you've found an error in Britains forecasting ability. Well done! You will need to look a lot harder to find life threatening mistakes from these shores - the last warning not issued was in Oct 1987.

It stands that Britain generally produce the world's best forecasts. FYI the ECMWF is second, and America's GFS/USAF is third.

It is, as I've already said, one of the only things that Britain does well. (apart from sucking up to Bush, that is)

---

Is this thread about the accuracy of forecasting storms? As I recall from forecasts, Katrina was trending North up the East Coast. She hit land in Florida, took 11 lives, and then took a turn to the Gulf, which is to the west. Once out in the Gulf she picked up force and took a hard right turn and slammed into New Orleans. It was inaccurately predicted by any forecasters that I heard. (I didn't listen to any British forecasters. But, if you can show how they were more accurate I will be happy to listen to them next time.)

Besides, it's been said... it doesn't matter where Katrina hit there would have been a percentage of the population that stayed. It's happened in every storm in my lifetime. A percentage of the population didn't leave for Hugo or Andrew either. It doesn't matter what the forecast is, that is human nature for some people.

We don't call them ensembles, we call them models (at least in the text based weather discussions I see from NOAA).

Continental weather patterns are boring, especially in the summer. Our spring through fall weather is somewhat more interesting, but out here in the mountains, local topological effects dominate. I sail in a canyon reservoir each year. The wind on that lake is totally unpredictable due to the location. You can actually get strong echoes (the wind stops, then comes back 180 degrees from prevailing) off of some ridges miles away.

However, hurricanes are oceanic.

I have no knowledge of conditions around England, but there was the Sydney-Hobart race. If the Brit MET is doing such a great job, what is happening? Is everybody else ignoring them? IF they have models and forecasting techniques that are so accurate that they have not made a mistake in the tricky area around the British Isles, how come they are being ignored? I can understand the US ignoring them. I agree with your last statement. All that sucking up, and Blaire is still treated like a piece of refuse. Why would anybody expect our weather service to treat the English MET better when Bush does so little for Blaire.

Still, why would Australia be ignoring you, as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

We don't call them ensembles

---

The Fab 5 from Queer Eye For The Straight guy call them ensembles. (or so i've been told)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

I'd like to see some documentation on that. It does not agree with reports that I have heard from other sources.

---

I read this on the internet somewhere, cant remember where but I did a google search and found this AP story, here is an excerpt:
“Gov. Kathleen Blanco, standing beside the mayor at a news conference, said President Bush called and personally appealed for a mandatory evacuation for the low-lying city, which is prone to flooding.”

Here is the link where you can read the whole story:
http://www.nola.com/newsflash/louisi...list=louisiana

I had heard she was told by GWB several days before the Hurricane hit but she waited to issue the manditory order to evacuate because she had wanted to run tests or something. It doesnt surprise me that this isnt widely reported.

X

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

We don't call them ensembles, we call them models (at least in the text based weather discussions I see from NOAA).

Continental weather patterns are boring, especially in the summer. Our spring through fall weather is somewhat more interesting, but out here in the mountains, local topological effects dominate. I sail in a canyon reservoir each year. The wind on that lake is totally unpredictable due to the location. You can actually get strong echoes (the wind stops, then comes back 180 degrees from prevailing) off of some ridges miles away.

However, hurricanes are oceanic.

I have no knowledge of conditions around England, but there was the Sydney-Hobart race. If the Brit MET is doing such a great job, what is happening? Is everybody else ignoring them? IF they have models and forecasting techniques that are so accurate that they have not made a mistake in the tricky area around the British Isles, how come they are being ignored? I can understand the US ignoring them. I agree with your last statement. All that sucking up, and Blaire is still treated like a piece of refuse. Why would anybody expect our weather service to treat the English MET better when Bush does so little for Blaire.

Still, why would Australia be ignoring you, as well?

---

You can call them what you want: the rest of the world call the collection of the output of the models ensembles.

If you look around (ie: try google - it's not that hard) you will find that the Met Office have one of the most advanced, and most powerful computer technology in the world. They even sell their modelling techniques to backwaters like the States.

You can believe what you want about the Met Office techniques, and forecasting accuracy. The fact of the matter is: they forecasted it; the yanks ignored it.

As for the Aussies? Who cares? It was a sporting event. How much loss of life was there?

If you have no idea about modern forecasting techniques then

(i) Shut up
(ii) use Google: it really is a breeze.

What the hell does the cricket have to do with this. :confused:

Who cares what happened. Why can't people stop blaming other people instead of just getting on with things. There will be time later to look back on what went wrong and see how it could be fixed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Folks in FL track hurricanes with intense interest. There are updates from various hurricane centers whenever any threat shows up. While I was living down there, we had a storm that caused an evacuation of the keys a single day before it was due to hit, then missed us completely. Is every hurricane forecaster in the US so woefully inferior to the British MET that they all got that one wrong? That was an error of a couple hundred KM in a single day.

---

Do you have any idea where their data, and forecast feeds come from.

Give these guys a call and they'll let you know:http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by penagate

What the hell does the cricket have to do with this. :confused:

Who cares what happened. Why can't people stop blaming other people instead of just getting on with things. There will be time later to look back on what went wrong and see how it could be fixed.

---

I thought Shaggy was referrring to a sailing event.

Well Sydney->Hobart happens no matter the weather. They ignore everything including common sense :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by penagate

Well Sydney->Hobart happens no matter the weather. They ignore everything including common sense :D

---

The worse the better if I know our Aussie friends. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

You can call them what you want: the rest of the world call the collection of the output of the models ensembles.

If you look around (ie: try google - it's not that hard) you will find that the Met Office have one of the most advanced, and most powerful computer technology in the world. They even sell their modelling techniques to backwaters like the States.

You can believe what you want about the Met Office techniques, and forecasting accuracy. The fact of the matter is: they forecasted it; the yanks ignored it.

As for the Aussies? Who cares? It was a sporting event. How much loss of life was there?

If you have no idea about modern forecasting techniques then

(i) Shut up
(ii) use Google: it really is a breeze.

---

Touchy :wave:

I think about five died, but one was from a heart attack. Sydney-Hobart is a sailing race don't know cricket, except for the chirping kind.

yrwyddfa, that post isn't up to your normal standards. Must have ticked you off, for which I do apologize. I disagree with nothing you said in this post, yet it doesn't seem to have any bearing on what I said. It could vaguely support what I said, but mostly it is almost on a different subject.

If you say that England has the best forecasting in the world, I will gladly take your word for it. I neither know nor care. My contention is that even if they were right about Katrina three days in advance, it was mostly a lucky guess. I've seen the US forecasting blow a hurricane prediction by far more than 60 km within one day. I also study the subject some (not hurricanes, though). I am very dubious of anybody claiming to have an accurate downstream forecast of a chaotic system. It IS possible that you folks have some super-technology that you have not shared with the US, but I am far too skeptical to accept a promise to forecast chaos with an n of 1. I would doubt still with an n of 10. Perhaps hurricanes are a bit more predictable, though.

Again, sorry to offend you.


X-Thanks for the reference.

see this video
see who's looting
http://filecabi.net/v.php?file=hurri...800&height=600

Wow, I didn't see that. I bet they hear about it, though.

I bet they'd get fired :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

. . . but I am far too skeptical to accept a promise to forecast chaos with an n of 1. I would doubt still with an n of 10. Perhaps hurricanes are a bit more predictable, though.

---

It depends. If you are stood on top of the Himalaya in a high pressure system you can see the next weeks weather and predict it with 99% accuracy.

If you're standing on a Scottish island looking west into a low pressure system with a surface trough you'd be lucky to predict the next 4 hours - although you can be sure it'd rain sometime soon.

Hurricane's like most severe weather events are a product of convection, and you are right to point out that convective forecasts are still experimental, and very very hard to get right.

In this case the track was 'fairly' predictable because of the local orographic features, and the coriolis effect. ie you can be sure that it's going west from Florida, and will head north. You can also be sure that the warm seas of the gulf will aid the convective process and increase the storm's strength.

Unfortunatley the Met office don't share their experimental forecast techniques with me, but a little bird told me . . .

What they do is they blend analagous forecasting with computer modelling. Analagous forecasting means looking at the local(ish) area in the past for any other weather patterns from the past. The chances are is that the weather will follow the same(ish) pattern - especially on a a mesoscale level.

Merge that forecast with the output from model runs (normally about ten model runs a day)

As the event approaches the model runs might merge with the analagous forecast. If this happens then you have a good degree of certainty. Otherwise you will need to ditch the analagous forecast and wait for the models to agree.

The more they agree the greater certainty. The GFS (America's Global Forecasting System), the METO (Met Office output) ECMWF (European Centre For Medium Range Weather Forecasting) USAF (US Air Force) all produce at least one run - GFS, for instance, produces 4 0z,6z,12z,18z.

All this data is looked at by a human forecaster, and if there is confidence (ie the majority of the models agree - much more likely the closer to the event) then a forecast is given.

In this case I understand that the analgous forecast agreed with the ensembles ( the collection of computer generated models) four/five days in advance, with good confidence 3 days in advance.

As you can see each weather event presents it's own problems. It just so happens that in this case there was good agreement at least three days in advance. Therefore a forecast (with the accompanying data) was issued the the NHC. I understand that they treat the Met forecasts with a quite a bit of respect; perhaps basing their own forecasts 80% or so on the Met's.

(BTW the models granulairty is improving - so the we should be expecting good agreement on events like this up to a week before within the next decade)

Apologies for the rough post last night.

"perhaps basing their own forecasts 80% or so on the Met's."

Oh come on now Mr. English.

Not that I think the MET office is full of idiots - but both the MET office and the NOAA release weather forecasts worldwide and many other weather centers release global forecasting. May are utilizing modern stastical forecasting in conjunction with realtime measurements - and most use Ensemble models - and I'm sure they share the results of the model runs with other agencies. So to say the US bases their forecasts 80% or so on MET's models output can be accurate - but woefully misleading. There's the EMFC, GIFS, GFS, and the UK IMI (to which you are probably referring). Their results are taken into consideration for many forecasts worldwide. The NWS uses all these for consideration in the release of official forecasting. At last I heard, GFS was the most accurate thank you very much.

Perhaps because you are from the United Kingdom, you would obviously be persuaded to believe MET is better than the NOAA or any other weather service on the planet.

Personally - since I'm from the US - I think the NOAA (http://weather.gov/) has a leg up on MET (which personally I never heard of before).

NOAA along with NASA have been providing the hardware to gather the atmospheric data used by global weather services for many decades.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2005-137
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/


But - you know that's just my opinion.

BTW - here's some great imagery i found... (just click inside the black squares)
downtown NO: http://ngs.woc.noaa.gov/katrina/090E30A_KATRINA.HTM

Rest of area:
http://ngs.woc.noaa.gov/katrina/KATRINA0000.HTM

Well, if you're into weather forecasting, and you haven't heard of the Met Office, something is seriously wrong.

Their model output is considered first class the world over; as is their forecasting.

Each to their own, I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

Well, if you're into weather forecasting, and you haven't heard of the Met Office, something is seriously wrong.

Their model output is considered first class the world over; as is their forecasting.

Each to their own, I guess.

---

Actually, I think it's a bit moot. I heard an interview the other day that suggests that the forecasting was not as imprecise as we are assuming. Apparently, there was plenty of warning given by the National Hurricane Center. I forget the guys name (though I have heard it often), but he's known for giving very sober and reliable assessments of hurricane risk. He called disaster management in southern LA and told them to get ready at about the time the MET was predicting the strike on NO.

In short, the forecast wasn't ignored, it was acted on....the plans and preparations simply sucked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nemaroller

At last I heard, GFS was the most accurate thank you very much.

---

You must be joking! GFS is wildly inaccurate for anything more than about 48 hours out - well it is here in Europe, anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Actually, I think it's a bit moot. I heard an interview the other day that suggests that the forecasting was not as imprecise as we are assuming. Apparently, there was plenty of warning given by the National Hurricane Center. I forget the guys name (though I have heard it often), but he's known for giving very sober and reliable assessments of hurricane risk. He called disaster management in southern LA and told them to get ready at about the time the MET was predicting the strike on NO. As it was it diverted slightly so that it missed New Orleans but it was still within that 60km prediction

In short, the forecast wasn't ignored, it was acted on....the plans and preparations simply sucked.

---

I remember watching the news a couple of days before Katrina hit (may have been just after it hit Florida) and the prediction was for Katrina to pass directly over New Orleans, with a 60km degree of error either side. The point the MET was trying to say was that no matter what happens, New Orleans will be severly hit.

This was when Bush called the Louisiana governor for the evacuation to begin, but as has already been discussed she was more interested in waiting until the last minute (probably because they had paid for category 3 levees instead of the level 5 they were supposed to). Isn't it strange however that even though she didn't begin the evacuation until later, she none-the-less evacuated immediately

Perhaps this may help:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...r20050901.html

See #66 . . . :)

Indeed. Well done to the MET :thumb:

Phew!

Made it to page 8, but I gotta get ready for work.

http://www.pro-networks.org/forum/ab...0-0-asc-0.html

I hope ar1stotle is ok.
Bit of an idiot though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

I remember watching the news a couple of days before Katrina hit (may have been just after it hit Florida) and the prediction was for Katrina to pass directly over New Orleans, with a 60km degree of error either side. The point the MET was trying to say was that no matter what happens, New Orleans will be severly hit.

This was when Bush called the Louisiana governor for the evacuation to begin, but as has already been discussed she was more interested in waiting until the last minute (probably because they had paid for category 3 levees instead of the level 5 they were supposed to). Isn't it strange however that even though she didn't begin the evacuation until later, she none-the-less evacuated immediately

---

Actually, she didn't wait, it is just getting spun. She asked for federal intervention three days before the storm hit, and Bush declared a state of emergency two days before Katrina hit. I believe you can find that on the white house web site.

Once a federal state of emergency has been declared, decision making goes to the federal agencies. However, the federal agencies have a mechanism to assume that power without the declaration. Since the declaration was made, they had the legal authority to take over.

As we move further away from the actual events, more disturbing news is coming out. There clearly was a plan at the local levels, and the plan clearly was a failure. However, we are also hearing about that wonderful town on the west bank of the Mississippi River that had police lined up on the bridge to prevent anybody from walking over to their untouched, dry, land. The reason was unambiguous, and made more so when the police fired over the heads of those seeking to leave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

Wouldn't it be more sensible to take a little from the 45/46 other states than it all from one?

e.g.
Take $1m from each state = $46m
Take $46m from Washignton state = $46

Same money but I doubt Washington is too happy about the 2nd choice, the first choice wouldn't really harm each of those states

---

Unfortunatly they are. Only using your formula it works out to:

Take $200m from each state = $9.6b

Actually It's a tad higher than 200 mill. 10.5 billion was approved at the time I posted this, Shortly after that congress approved another 51.8 billion dollars. The US may be the richest country in the world, but 62 billion and some change spent on one natural disaster is quite a bit considering how many disasters we get hit by a year. Keep in mind there is another one heading for the east coast right now. Hopefully now everyone understands what I was talking about a while back when the George Bush -shellfish thread was going on. There will be a lot of sub poverty level americans this year that could use the money we sent to the sub poverty level tsunami victims.

Moving away from the details of the tragedy for a minute . . ..

Here in the UK we get all the gory details of who did what, when how, and how wrong, incomptent it all is.

But what I'd like to know is what do American's think about the whole thing as a nation?

Some commentators over here are saying that the American's are pretty embarrassed by the whol affair, others are saying that this is going to be America's proudest hour . . ..

Hmm, yes I'd also like to know the views of our American VBF'ers

I think in general, and this is from my observations/conversations only, we're embarassed and ticked off. Embarrassed and ticked at pretty much the same thing - the whole blame game which started pretty much immediately. It's pretty obvious there were foul ups on the local, state, and federal level - simply move on - we can fight about that and sort it out later. On the other hand - the sense of giving is pretty amazing, so that's something to be proud of. So, I guess it's a mixture of the two - embarassment and pride. I'm embarassed not so much in regards to some of the things being avoidable, but at the way it's being handled publically. And I'm proud that a good portion of the country is willing to give help regardless of where their politics, prejudices, etc lie.

i.e.
Proud at the people
Embarrassed at the politicians?

Is that the jist of it?

Yea, that's pretty much the jist of it as far as myself and those I've talked to are concerned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

i.e.
Proud at the people
Embarrassed at the politicians?

Is that the jist of it?

---

That pretty much sums up my feelings on almost everything that happens in this country. Although, in Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi the sate government did an outstanding job. They got hit pretty hard as well. It just didn't get as much press because they didn't screw up.

Florida has had the practice