We always appreciate your surge of support for our videos! Want to become our Patreon or member on KZfaq? Just visit www.patreon.com/MinuteEarth or click "JOIN". Thanks!
@le90382 жыл бұрын
Hi
@imbored62872 жыл бұрын
hi :D
@daphne99412 жыл бұрын
Helloo
@coolmandan03032 жыл бұрын
Nobody compares CAT 1 to CAT 5 based on the cost of damage... Who perceives threats by thinking "eh... it's a CAT 1 so it shouldn't' cost that much..."?
@MinuteEarth2 жыл бұрын
Cost of damage is just a proxy for how much damage it will cause.
@RainierKine2 жыл бұрын
Giving a power storm a low Category is going to lower the public's awareness and preparedness for it, making the death rate potentially higher as well.
@MinuteEarth2 жыл бұрын
That’s what currently happens with hurricanes like Stan.
@sourcererseven38582 жыл бұрын
glad you made that point so I don't have to. Gets me back to procrastinating from writing my report 😬
@sharadbhatt29002 жыл бұрын
I also said that in my mind
@n8dawg6402 жыл бұрын
So what’s your solution? Lie to the public? We already have enough alarmism from institutions of power, and the public isn’t buying it. Lie to your audience, and they’ll trust you even less
@wdmc20122 жыл бұрын
@@MinuteEarth No. What happened with Stan is that it hit a country that doesn't prepare for hurricanes. In 1998, Afghanistan was hit by a 5.9 magnitude earthquake. If this happened in California or Japan, it probably wouldn't even make the news. But in Afghanistan, it destroyed 15,000 homes and killed between 2000 and 4000 people. There are plenty of measures of poverty and vulnerability, but a hurricane or earthquake power scale should not be one of them.
@chrismorong9312 жыл бұрын
"Because there is a single measurement that beats wind speed alone at predicting destruction: air pressure at the center of the storm" Hurricane Patricia: 872 mbar (2nd lowest globally) Hurricane Stan: 977 mbar
@grife30002 жыл бұрын
Welp, I guess we're just stuck with fearing super-huge super-fast slow-moving storms then. Knowing how populous the site that gets hit by the hurricane is really isn't helpful if you're the site that's getting hit, either.
@andrewshore7422 жыл бұрын
This video is completely wrong. Anything else other than the wind speed, the storm surge and the duration of the storm is irrelevant. Why should I know the mbars? Why should I consider a cat 1 more dangerous than it really is if my house can withstand cat 1 winds and surges? Furthermore, the association that the lower the pressure, the more damage a hurricane will cause is ridiculous.
@bob2000ful2 жыл бұрын
thank you so much for giving numbers
@otherodd2 жыл бұрын
@@andrewshore742 Because a hurricane isn’t dangerous because of wind, but because of tsunamis, rain etc.? That’s what they say here; don’t cover yourself from education
@andrewshore7422 жыл бұрын
@@otherodd But it is useless for the individual citizen. If my area is going to be hit by a cat 1 and I know my house can’t withstand it, I evacuate regardless. And the height of the surge and the duration of the hurricane-force winds are already calculated by the NHC. Plus, talking about tsunamis in this case shows a lack of education on your part. And what about a hurricane is not dangerous because of the winds?
@Kaitos112 жыл бұрын
Some context was missing regarding Patricia: it weakened to a high-end 150mph Cat 4 hurricane before making landfall. It was still a monster but far from the historically powerful storm it was at it's peak. The damage would've been only a bit worse though as it still hit a relatively unpopulated area.
@sohumchatterjee92 жыл бұрын
Not to mention that Patricia capitulated almost as fast as it intensified
@juliusnepos60132 жыл бұрын
@@sohumchatterjee9 yeah
@Nukestarmaster2 жыл бұрын
Yeah, and a hurricane hitting a sparsely populated area is hardly a relief when you live in said sparsely populated area.
@MarkusAldawn2 жыл бұрын
@@Nukestarmaster that is a very excellent point, I did not consider that
@parlousdiscord8792 жыл бұрын
@@sohumchatterjee9 small world eh? You're a f13 mod iirc right
@ZeeengMicro2 жыл бұрын
The same for earthquakes. A scale 5 earthquake with a depth of less than 10 Km can be more destructive than a scale 7 earthquake with a depth of +100 Km. Not to mention the location of the epicenter and the potential cause of tsunami.
@sandifirmansyah19882 жыл бұрын
in real life. when a natural disaster occurs what is needed is the speed in retrieving information from the disaster, not how accurate information the disaster is. so that most information when a disaster occurs is not very accurate and unpredictable.
@JarieSuicune2 жыл бұрын
Perhaps, but what good is that when you are trying to inform the people BEFORE it hits? You can't tell how bad it will really turn out until it's already over. The point is to try to convey as much information as possible in as little time/detail as possible to help as many people as possible, regardless of their understanding or experience.
@lukasrentz323816 күн бұрын
Though for that we have Intensity. A shallow Mw5 Quake can have Intensity VIII while a (very) deep Mw7 can be as low as IV. Still doesn't account for the Quality of Buildings nor for potential Tsunamis.
@andrejonathan76072 жыл бұрын
While not nearly as thorough as mentioned in the video, I feel like the CDPS scale ratings (by Force Thirteen) are far better indicators of how damaging the storm would be. It factors in the storm size, rainfall potential, wind speed, and threat to land. It's not a perfect scale, but it's pretty representative.
@LeScratch892 жыл бұрын
The downside with it (I follow F13 too) is that the scale is mostly experimental - these agencies have to work with what is both reliable and easy to convey to the public. The general public, unfortunately, grossly underestimates the power of water to wreak havoc or cause destruction. Weather enthusiasts and storm trackers/chasers know better but the average person doesn't.
@StevenWx2 жыл бұрын
@@LeScratch89 I agree with you guys (I'm a F13 viewer as well).
@TheSpiritombsableye2 жыл бұрын
Lol, force13 fans are a-spread.
@sonkim68762 жыл бұрын
@@TheSpiritombsableye Yes. But the weatherman plus channel is spreading more these days.
@sonkim68762 жыл бұрын
My thought about this video: His name is Julian? Oh well it was an 12 hours tropical storm this year. Didn't Patricia made landfall at an much lower intensity than 345 kph right? He think we can base on pressure to make a new scales? Ugh it don't help much...
@Darknimbus32 жыл бұрын
Don’t underestimate the wind though, as wind can cause much more damage than this video suggests. On top of that, a hurricane’s wind is the root of the damage causes, including the floods and storm surges, as you partially explained why in this video. That’s why we use the category system in the first place. The reasoning behind that is much more complex than you suggest in this video.
@SoulDevoured2 жыл бұрын
Tornadoes are more likely to level buildings than hurricanes but their winds can flatten entire landscapes. Something even the largest tornadoes couldn't do. We go by winds because it's easy to see how scary they can be... How insanely costly they can be...
@Vgy15922 жыл бұрын
I don't think they were ever trying to say that the winds are harmless, they were trying to say that hurricanes that get classified as low threat have been just as bad, at times. And they're not wrong. As someone who's lived in areas affected by hurricanes, I can honestly say, there's a very real threat in the underestimation of the threat a hurricane can cause based on a category scale that only factors one potential threat of a hurricane. People usually won't evacuate over a category 1 or 2 hurricane. When the other factors around that hurricane get bad despite that low category, people die because they underestimated it and didn't leave -- or worse, the businesses, schools, and other such things wouldn't close down over "lower threats", pressuring people to not evacuate when they should. Wind is a serious threat, but it shouldn't be treated like the *only* threat.
@Spladoinkal11 ай бұрын
Honestly. Wind speed is what causes storm surge anyways, it's just that more storm surge happens when the high winds last longer.
@daveharrison842 жыл бұрын
Make safety diamonds for hurricanes. One rating for wind speed, one for pressure, one for storm surge, one for rain.
@JC601432 жыл бұрын
That will confused the public unfortunately
@battlepans19272 жыл бұрын
That’s a really smart idea in theory, but then you realize only people who look it up will know what it means, compared to somethibg simple and memorable like “category 5”. Categories are easier for us to understand
@MorbidMindedManiac2 жыл бұрын
Something like that would be cool, but I bit complicated Maybe have that, but in the center of the diamond is a general threat level like “CATEGORY 1” or “CATEGORY 5” like we already have to combine the best of both
@Relkond2 жыл бұрын
The hurricane with a hazard diamond of 1337 though.... be wary of it. That said, if you’re in a flood plane, you don’t need a hurricane to kill lots of people. Just a bunch a rain all at once, and you don’t need hurricanes to get bulk rain. Hurricanes do get to be very situational - what they encounter along their path can drastically modify what damage they deal... or put another way: If you live in a glass house, you should probably worry about the boy with a baseball and bat, should he visit your block. If you live in a brick house... not so much.
@Mr___f2 жыл бұрын
Love it but the rain idea would be so impossibly hard to determine which is why this video is kind of pointless.
@stephenmontverde2 жыл бұрын
The premise of this video is that the category scale is broken because it depends on ‘wind’ alone. It’s not broken. It just is what it is. The National Hurricane Center puts out other products to convey predicted rainfall, storm surge, etc. A “combined” category is hard to create because the geography of where the storm hits, and how fast the storm is moving often contribute far more to how destructive or deadly a hurricane might be. Minimum central pressure does not solve the problem, its just combines wind field and wind speed into a single measure. A better argument would be that “category” is not the best metric to disseminate to the public, except, if you actually get hit by the eye wall, it is.
@glowingfish2 жыл бұрын
I agree and was going to post the same thing. It would only be broken if they were saying "This is the only valid tool and it explains everything!". Any scale or measurement is going to be a simplification, and wind speed also corresponds with size and amount of water a storm can hold, most of the time.
@Chiberia3 ай бұрын
the issue, then, is how it's used - kinda the same way people are lazy so use Social Security numbers for everything (even though the social security organization begs people not to). at the end of the day, it's the composite model that newscasters and even meteorologists choose to use to communicate risk to the general public. in that sense, it fails miserably - just because there are other products out there, doesn't mean they're in use as ubiquitously. you can't change people being lazy, but you can provide an improved composite model to mitigate those flaws. tornados moving to the EF scale (although certainly not perfect - just ask Reno) is a great example of this growth over time.
@jinxed7915Ай бұрын
@@Chiberiais the EF scale really a great example here though? The EF scale was merely a tweak, and it isn't even used the same as the classification of tropical cyclones. The EF scale only sorts of tornadoes after the fact, both because of how shorted lived they are and because of the very nature of how the scale works. I agree with the original comment here, although I'll add that central pressure itself is not a helpful metric as it isn't tied 1:1 to wind speed, size, or any other aspect of a storm. At the end of the day, better communication between forecasters (national AND local), public officials, and the public themselves is needed. A cultural change is also needed to make people respect the dangers of these systems, but that's an issue that's harder to tackle directly and one that will take time. The Saffir-Simpson scale is doing fine because category itself isn't and wasn't supposed to be the end all be all of conveying the dangers of a storm. Wind speed does translates to more structural damage and more storm surge, and all of the dangers from a storm are put into very straightforward documents that the NHC puts out ahead of time, so the issue really is communication and not that the storms are classified at all
@Sweet_Squad4ever2 жыл бұрын
It's so informative. Specially here in the Philippines who always have Typhoons and our geographic locations doesn't help since we are near Pacific Ocean.
@MazdaTiger2 жыл бұрын
but our systems are way better than what US have since we factor in the (low) pressure + moonsoons + geography + tides, and even comparing history of past storms basically what 1:55 is
@iwanabana2 жыл бұрын
Please. STOP it with the "individual footprint" baloney. Tell people to go to places where they can pressurize / choose lawmakers who prioritize the environment. Switching out some plastic cutlery won't do anything.
@ShirinRose2 жыл бұрын
Yes, this. I highly recommend Kurzgesagt's latest video (titled "Can YOU Fix Climate Change?") to anyone who hasn't seen it yet.
@fish39772 жыл бұрын
blowing up fossil fuel infrastructure is a moral duty
@gkk1162 жыл бұрын
@@fish3977 but blowing fossil fuel up will release it to the atmosphere. leftist debunked B)
@Khazuldar2 жыл бұрын
@@gkk116 probably meant blowing it up metaphorically, as in taking it down or destroying it.
@B3Band2 жыл бұрын
@@Khazuldar whoosh
@TheweatherguyАй бұрын
I see what you're saying, but I think there isn't a need to change the scale due to the fact that the weather services inform their audience about all those aspects (path, surge levels, rain, etc.).
@emmettturner94522 жыл бұрын
As someone who is currently homeless after being hit directly by the strongest part of the only EF-4 tornado this year, I’d like to point out that Hurricane Katrina had significantly lower wind speeds at landfall and it covered a larger area. Obviously, they were also below sea level with an enormous storm surge but as far as downed trees and torn roofs and crushed cars at the worst hit areas go, tornados can be worse. Some of my neighbors didn’t have a single wall left standing.
@davewilson132 жыл бұрын
Hope you get back on your feet soon. Good luck mate.
@emmettturner94522 жыл бұрын
@@davewilson13 Thank you!
@KaiserStormTracking2 жыл бұрын
Katrina was primarily bad due to levee failures and high surge.
@emmettturner94522 жыл бұрын
@@KaiserStormTracking Yes, and with parts being at or below sea level they really relied on those. Still, comparing localized wind damage between Katrina, Ida, etc: The long-track EF-4 was worse. For the people who escape hurricane storm surges, tornadoes can be worse. It still looks like the Tunguska Event in places out here and the homes were absolutely ravaged in The City of Homes (Newnan).
@B3Band2 жыл бұрын
Just buy another house. Pull yourself up from your bootstraps like any good Republican would.
@WurstRELOADED2 жыл бұрын
I don't disagree with the central message of the video but I take issue with the claim that location of impact should be taken into consideration for the scale. As you said, the purpose of the scale is to provide an easily accessible rating of danger to citizens. The information they are interested in is not "How many people will it kill" but rather "How likely is it to kill me and what steps should I take to reduce that chance".
@TheExalaber2 жыл бұрын
But, the topography of the location of impact greatly influences that. As they mentioned in the video, mountains do a great deal to quickly dissipate storms.
@MinuteEarth2 жыл бұрын
The same hurricane hitting two different areas can have a very different outcome. So it is definitely relevant to an individual if they live in an area less likely to produce a storm surge, more likely to slow the storm down (like a mountainous terrain), or the opposite.
@uhohhotdog2 жыл бұрын
@@MinuteEarth no. A person needs to know how it will impact them not how it will impact people 100 miles away.
@mpk66642 жыл бұрын
@@uhohhotdog This. Basing the categories on the type of land it will hit won't help. Hurricanes are huge. One that hits the Florida/Georgia/Alabama line will have two completely different "categories" because all the areas are different geographically. The NHC already puts out models of storm surge and rain for the areas that will be impacted. There's even an interactive map that highlights the low areas that will be hit the most. Perhaps we can have a PDS hurricane warning such as a PDS tornado warning? If a hurricane is going to hit an area that has a high population or has the potential to be catastrophic we can issue a PDS for that area just like a tornado warning.
@rocks8132 жыл бұрын
I agree. And besides, hurricanes and other cyclones are not always predictable. So then, what might happen to the storm's category if it unexpectedly recurves or diverges from its predicted path? Do we lower its category? Or could it be that this erratic movement is just a short-term trend, and that the storm will actually tread the forecasted path? So then, do we raise its category again? I don't know. While it has flaws, the Saffir-Simpson scale is mostly unproblematic, since it uses just a single variable (i.e., maximum sustained winds) to give a glimpse of potential conditions when the storm comes ashore. Also, the NHC provides other information in other weather products, such as their (Experimental) Storm Surge Predictions and Wind Speed Probabilities, to discuss the real threats and potential damage, outside the technicalities of hurricane strength. By factoring in the expected path of the hurricane, population, and other factors involved, we complicate the scale by allowing for sudden category changes (in the event of sudden changes in hurricane path), confuse the public just as we are confused by the erratic nature of hurricanes and the atmosphere, and in the end, we defeat the purpose of why hurricane wind scales and other separate products exist in the first place.
@confusioned22495 ай бұрын
I'm terrified of what a category 5 factorial storm would look like
@MartinHoeckerMartinez2 жыл бұрын
The direction of the wind arrows in this video are incorrect. They should depict air rising at the center of the storm and circulating winds flowing inward near the surface and outward above the cloud tops (the drawings at 1:27 and 2:49 show the opposite)
@maxinecaulfield3102 жыл бұрын
Minute physics/ minute earth are rarely ever accurate.
@corwynjohnson40662 жыл бұрын
Thanks for pointing it out. I'm glad someone else caught that too
@cicadafun2 жыл бұрын
Air is constantly rising and falling while spiralling towards the center of the eye, that's how convection works in the atmosphere. The center itself will always have air falling in it causing the eye.
@mpk66642 жыл бұрын
I think they're actually trying to represent the rotation instead of updrafts and downdrafts. It's definitely a weird graphic.
@DreckbobBratpfanne2 жыл бұрын
One thing missing is that Patricia had the fastest weakening a storm had ever gone through before landfall, she was nowhere, nowhere, close to the 215mph strength of before.
@shadowstorm79mc2 жыл бұрын
Seems to me that Just modifying it into a 3 part system would be best. the storm itself having a category (1-5) based on wind speed storm size & pressure, In conjunction with adding a category system (1-5) for storm surge. Add an area risk rating system (low-med-high) based on things like Vulnerability to flooding And population density. Somthing like that could cover almost all the bases nicely And provide people with a much better idea of what they're going to be dealing with.
@JarieSuicune2 жыл бұрын
So, what you are really suggesting is to generate a 5x5x3 rating system with 75 possible outcomes? (Windspeed/pressure x storm surge x area risk) The general idea is to convey as much possible information in as little a descriptor as possible, since you absolutely SHOULD NOT assume that any given person understands what your terms are. Assumptions like that get people killed. Even if you were to write the ratings as "WS3-SS2-AR4", that's a terribly unclear answer to "How dangerous is this event to my life/home/area?" when asked by the average person. It needs to be as clear as possible to the most average person who has just moved into the area from the middle of the Rocky Mountains or whatever and happens to have absolutely zero experience or understanding of hurricanes and has never had even the slightest reason to worry or care.
@shadowstorm79mc2 жыл бұрын
@@JarieSuicune nah for The kind of people that can't understand a level 5 hurricane with a level 5 storm surge In a high risk area is a really bad Are the kind of people that were going to stay no matter what anyway I live in Florida you best believe We don't just go off the storm category And the people down here too lazy to do the extra research ask the people they know that aren't Besides it's only 25 possible outcomes As the Low medium high risk factor doesn't Change For a given area unless you move
@grandstrategos11442 жыл бұрын
@ShadowMatter Using permutations get you 75 outcomes. 5 (number of wind speed levels) * 5 (number of storm surge levels) * 3 (number of risk levels). Maybe you can remove some, but the video shows that a 1-1-high is certainly possible
@shadowstorm79mc2 жыл бұрын
@@grandstrategos1144 You seem to not understand the fact that Unless you are moving from region to region your risk category does not change
@N12015 Жыл бұрын
@@shadowstorm79mc Ahh, like the city map I have to tell me where there's a tsunami threat. Surprisingly useful because where I live there's lots of both earthquakes, coasts and hills, making it so people knows there's Tsunami risk and the hills you can safely evacuate to.
@Chritin2 жыл бұрын
To quote a funny CS;GO man… Category 1 - Pussy Shit Category 2 - Wind Category 3 - More Wind Category 4 - A pretty high amount of wind Category 5 - Rectal Prolapse.
@sirapple5892 жыл бұрын
Where’s that quote from?
@KuruGDI2 жыл бұрын
I drive a big diesel powered SUV that uses 15 liters per 100km. I thought of changing my habits and decrease not only my driven kilometers, but also my energy consumption overall. But thanks to wren I can keep going the same way I did without changing anything because I pay to get a few trees planted and now I'm even with nature and the climate. Thanks wren! I hope you understand where my sarcasm is heading...
@LeScratch892 жыл бұрын
There are better measures to scale a storm's destructive potential by, but even for "advanced" agencies like the NHC those measures are still mostly experimental and an added-on forecast product due to the high uncertainty. Wind speed is, unfortunately, the best method we currently have with any degree of reliability to measure a storm's power by, that the general public will also kind-of understand - your average person will not understand how air pressure relates to wind speed, storm size, and storm surge. Forecast agencies have to go with reliability first because it's their responsibility to inform and warn the public, so until other methods catch up we will be dependent on this type of scale. Other agencies worldwide use their own variants of the SSHWS pertinent to their own areas of responsibility for the same reason, like the cyclone intensity scales in the Indian Ocean and Southern Hemisphere or the typhoon intensity scales in the Western Pacific. When we have enough data with other tools and methods to reliably forecast the impacts of storm surge and potential rainfall flooding, I would expect those to be considered for forming a new or supplementary scale for tropical cyclones.
@zachw29062 жыл бұрын
I would like to point out that Wren is a way for big business to shift responsibility onto the individual when individuals like us have almost no direct impact on climate change
@o769232 жыл бұрын
Oh hey, another Kurzgesagt fan.
@mukrifachri2 жыл бұрын
Some countries already detach disaster warnings from the intensity of the phenomenon itself - ie. Japan Meteorological Agency does this very well for storm surges/inundation risk and landslides as well as for earthquake shaking (presumably incl. liquefaction but they protect against that pretty well). Now if only every country does this... Also AFAIK central eye pressures have already been used (albeit as a secondary reference) in Saffir-Simpson scale ?
@MonkeyJedi992 жыл бұрын
Sadly, many people (at least in the US, my only data pool) have decades of programming to "feel better" with simplified input. Hurricane? Category 1-5. Tornado? (E)F 1-?. Terrorism? Five step color scale. Threat of war? Five number scale. We are continually steered away from nuance.
@beeallen27432 жыл бұрын
This reminds me of tornadoes. An EF2 in a field could be stronger and have faster windspeed than an EF4 in a city because the category of the tornado is based on the damage it does. And instead of telling us what kind of twister is coming, we get told there's a tornado warning and you gotta get in the cellar or grab a beer and some popcorn and get out on the back porch with the old camcorder. We don't worry about how big it was till after it's gone and we're getting first responders where they need to be.
@grife30002 жыл бұрын
An excellent video, except you didn't give us the categories for the different pressures so we could use that information.
@duckymomo79352 жыл бұрын
Also because the mbars doesn’t actually say much
@andyfriederichsen2 жыл бұрын
This is basically the opposite of the issue the EF tornado scale has with ignoring windspeed and rating only on damage.
@bforbiggy5 ай бұрын
I know that statistically there's only one or two people that are affected by this but at 0:30, it'd have to suck to hear someone say "Thankfully, only a few people died." when you are one of the few who did have someone you know die. Probably nobody cares, and in the context of the video it is an insignificant mention when there are thousands of people dying everywhere but DAMN, I still wouldn't describe it like that.
@ComicalRealm2 жыл бұрын
"If any structure survives a Category 5 hurricane, a Category 6 hurricane will finish the job." - Ultra Instinct Shaggy
@JesusMartinez-rr2ry2 жыл бұрын
You're never going to survive my torrential downpour of my heat-seeking wrath!!!🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬
@engirckt54102 жыл бұрын
@@JesusMartinez-rr2ry what
@chadpowell18322 жыл бұрын
As someone who live in a Hurricane prone area ( just got hit by one this year ) all this stuff makes so much sense . Don’t let a small category prevent you from preparing
The other big contributor to lower category hurricanes/cyclones being more dangerous is that when the category is lower, people are more complacent about the storm. They either prepare less, or are just plain careless with their actions during the event. That complacency can be a major factor in why there's often higher injury and loss of life during less severe events. And unfortunately, human complacency will always be a driving factor regardless of any overhauls made to the rating system.
@1.41422 жыл бұрын
2:50 The visual of wind blowing down is kind of misleading. Low pressure causes water to bulge upward, in addition to wind pushing water onto land.
@mirrenboarish2 жыл бұрын
My thoughts exacty. Saw the airflow they represented and thought 'uh that's not quite right...?!' Glad I'm not the only one to notice it.
@Jay-ps4vv2 жыл бұрын
I literally just had a geography lesson covering this
@hugocc77324 ай бұрын
3:08 wasn’t expecting a category 120 hurricane here
@GMBlunderfish18 ай бұрын
Patricia hit between dense areas in a sparsely populated gap, thus missing the damage hot spots and was a compact hurricane that had a relatively small inner core. The inner core is the most damaging part of the storm as it is where those 200 mph winds and 3 cm/hr rains occur accompanied by 7 to 10 metres high storm surge. The outer areas are also capable of damaging, but not as much.
@aron133211 күн бұрын
It is not even 215 mph atorm when it impacted. It made landfall with winds of 155 mph
@AntoineLavoisier2 жыл бұрын
You bring up some good points. A hurricane can bring a variety of hazards and it’s often the flooding component (between surge and rainfall) that causes the most fatalities. The original Saffir-Simpson scale did factor in storm surge and pressure. However, due to hurricanes like Katrina (Cat. 3 winds at landfall, Cat. 5 surge), the scale was remodeled to be solely based on wind speed. The NHC/NWS approach in the modern era is to communicate the risks associated with each individual hurricane since as you showed, there are non-meteorological factors that contribute to how destructive and deadly a hurricane can be.
@mikestermike2 жыл бұрын
Big misconception about winds. They RISE in the center of the storm, with the outflow forming an anticyclone in the upper elevations (the "outflow cirrus" is a result"). In fact, it is the rising that lowers pressure (that and velocity). Winds are not "drawn down", but rather pulled in.
@goverat2 жыл бұрын
I'm pretty sure Australia uses pressure to determine cyclones, then there's a guide as to what to expect
@hoseasylvester25962 жыл бұрын
Everywhere uses pressure
@ghostyidk93832 жыл бұрын
No it doesn’t. It uses wind speed.
@unitgamex29722 жыл бұрын
You didn’t mention that there’s such thing as the CDPS scale. So the system isn’t entirely broken
@michaeligbinoba28942 жыл бұрын
That's not official. The creator still hasn't even published a paper on it so
@unitgamex29722 жыл бұрын
@@michaeligbinoba2894 yeah, But this guy thinks that the Safir Simpson scale is meant to rate the potential damage but it’s meant to rate how strong the winds are
@throwbiegd66272 жыл бұрын
@@unitgamex2972 yeah thats what kinda pisses me off with this vid
@ikeroran79112 жыл бұрын
@@unitgamex2972 yeah
@rianorixalaunana3572 ай бұрын
Wonderful video! Just one thing: in the video (at 0:45 ) it says "nearly 10 times more damage," but the number shown on screen has gone from millions to billions. It should be nearly 1000 times more damage, since a billion is a thousand million. (Yes I know this video is two years old, so?)
@cobramcjingleballs2 жыл бұрын
We had a hurricane that breezed over us in Tampa, but then a mere tropical storm came by in @2005ish a week later that sat over us for 3 days piling on rain on already saturated ground. I was in the most northern above sea level part of tampa, but the pretty pond they put in apartment complex overflowed, causing electricity to be shut off for 3 days and 3 feet of standing water in parking lot. Glad I lived on 2nd floor.
@D-Man_Jam2 жыл бұрын
This just reaffirms the rule that Stans should not be messed with.
@marcopohl32362 жыл бұрын
I propuse my own system: IT'S A DUCKING HURRICANE, GET THE CRAP OUT OF THERE!
@Hypurr12 жыл бұрын
Everything you mentioned is valid and in a hurricane prone area, such as SE Louisiana where I live, the meteorologists mention and drive in all of these factors when a storm is approaching. The category is not what they use so much as they predict the storm surge, the speed of the storm, the rainfall amounts and all of the other factors. Yes, the category system is outdated, but in areas where they hit that is not what they warn about. Right now I'm living in an RV as my house was destroyed by Ida and is being renovated. They pound into us that the main problem is not wind speed but the pressure, storm surge and rainfall. They constantly update us with the pressure as it falls and measure the potential strenghth by the pressure.
@rubylagahit762227 күн бұрын
Patricia is a great example of "Right person on the wrong place." While Stan is a great example of "A weakling that was on the right area."
@C19142 жыл бұрын
Mexico’s second largest city is in that “rural” area. As well as some other cities. Yucatan is a bunch of tropical forest and Central Mexico is mountainous and on a plateau. Only the coast is flat.
@r0cketplumber6 ай бұрын
Storm surge and rainfall are why I chose a home on the mainland side of a coastal estuary (Florida's misnamed Indian River), protected from storm surge by the small inlet (Sebastian) being many miles away. We're 14 feet above a wide creek channel that drains into the Indian River so even very strong rainfalls are shunted away from us.
@kodychan34772 жыл бұрын
actually we already have a scale that measures damage potential. its called the Cyclone Destruction Potential Scale or CDPS.
@michaell8742 жыл бұрын
I agree that the category rating needs to be updated because it only takes into consideration wind speed, which is different on either side of the storm, depending on which direction the storm is going. Rain is a big factor as well, but storm surge at the time the storm hits landfall has a huge impact and must be used by calculating measures differently depending on the sea levels of the areas the storms hit, in addition to areas prone to flooding and population density. Obviously areas along the coast in the South, including the panhandle, are prone to larger wind speeds due to the warmer waters, but ocean temperatures are imperative to calculate into the new category scale for hurricanes. Lastly, the rate of speed the storm is traveling will make a difference, especially with heavy rainfalls, especially in areas prone to flooding. Maybe the isobar numbers can be added too the equation too.
@delev11Ай бұрын
Currently watching this in Houston after Hurricane Beryl knocked out my house's power and 1.8 million other Centerpoint energy customers
@kerrypryor1146Ай бұрын
I.live in MI and of you see someone named Gloria Connell that's my grandma
@brookiiecookie199Ай бұрын
Yeah, but that’s cuz Texas is inept at infrastructure
@furyinferno22342 жыл бұрын
there is a scale called the CDPS scale which takes into account of storm size, surge, winds, expected rainfall and overall threat to land, it is a scale from 1-10. 1 been minimal damage and 10 being extreme damage.
@theholk2 жыл бұрын
I feel like this is a bad argument to lay at the scale: It's not particularly a quality of the hurricane that population density increases negative outcomes. On a "per person watching the weather report" the effect IS proportional to the scale, even if a given path increases the number of people that risk applies to. Apply that logic to earthquakes.... The magnitude of an eathquake is a reasonable measure, even though WHERE it hits has a vastly greater input on the overall outcome. And a similar (but weaker) argument can be made in regards to the "wetness". Yes coastal regions have higher impact proportionally to the scale, but that too is "a constant", and thus blaming the scale for not incorporating it is... flawed.
@andresibarra99142 жыл бұрын
i was hit by hurricane Patricia, I did not do as much damage as other hurricanes but thanks to its speed and size it was easily the scariest thing I have ever witnessed and heard.
@cindyeisenberg8367 Жыл бұрын
Florida has had so many hurricanes that we don’t worry too much about cat ones. Though a thunderstorm that spawns a tornado can be dangerous too.
@chrisboyer21953 ай бұрын
This is exactly what happened with the Enhanced Fujita scale, massive windy tornados like the one at El Reno, are can be classified as a EF3 because it hit nothing but empty farmland, while less windy but more damaging tornados get rated EF4 or EF5 due to other factors
@dragonrushhurricanetracker25125 күн бұрын
Bro, the category doesn’t tell you how bad impacts will be, it just tells you how high the winds are. And that doesn’t even tell you the storm’s true strength, air pressure does. For example, Typhoon Gaemi, which just happened, had a pressure of 919mb, which is a Category 5 pressure, but only had winds of 145mph, which is a Category 4, therefore, Gaemi’s intensity was more similar to a Category 5, but the wind speed was a Category 4, therefore, Gaemi was rated a Category 4, and not a Category 5. Now that’s the official, I think Gaemi was 155/913, still a Category 4 tho.
@ZeroKami862 жыл бұрын
Wren's website must've changed because it didn't show me any of that. I answered all the questions then just showed me 3 expensive plans. edit: I am proud of my 9.5 rating though, much lower than the average in the US.
@Treebark13132 жыл бұрын
If you want to really make a difference, harang your local and state representatives about climate action. Get everyone you know to do the same thing. Your individual impact on the climate is minuscule compared to what a handful of companies and governments are doing. Climate change is a political issue, unfortunately.
@BastiatC2 жыл бұрын
Hurricane warning categories shouldnt take into account how populated the area it might hit is. Yes hurricanes that hit more populated areas do more damage and kill more people, but the point of the warning is to tell people how much if the threat the storm is. That gets skewed if your taking population density into account. Instead it should look solely on how well the infrastructure is able to resist the storm.
@leroymilo2 жыл бұрын
3:10 : the legendary class factorial 5 huricane.
@JxH2 жыл бұрын
For those that do not live at sea level or near the ocean, storm surge is a not a direct threat. For those that have wisely selected a slightly elevated location for their house, local flooding from heavy rain may not be a significant direct threat. Such circumstances may leave maximum wind speed as the only parameter of direct concern. Such is our circumstances, only wind. That said, yes, it's a good idea. Could do both...
@joshdoeseverything45752 жыл бұрын
Patricia was an absolute monster. It RAPIDLY weakened before landfall though and hit rural coast. Not a fair comparison
@notabots46022 жыл бұрын
Hello 👋. This is a interesting video and I didn’t know that the system was this broken.
@KaiserStormTracking2 жыл бұрын
Cause it isn't
@Jesse782 жыл бұрын
Tornadoes are better rated imo. They're rated based on the magnitude of damage. For example, EF0 tornadoes have estimated wind speeds of 65-85 mph, and only cause minor damage, like roof damage and tree damage. However, a tornado that appears in the middle of a large empty Field which would be an EF3 in a more populated area might only be rated as an EF0 as it wouldn't hit much
@scpatl4now14 күн бұрын
Instead of pressure, go with storm size, pressure, and if it is strengthening or weakening at landfall. Weakening storms at landfall do a lot less damage. Katrina and Ike were very large storms and caused damage way above what their category would imply.
@ClementinesmWTF2 жыл бұрын
As someone in a hurricane prone area, this has always been one of my complaints about the conventional scale. I’m in Houston and we’ve experienced all kinds of hurricanes. Harvey was a rain-event, Ike was a wind+storm surge event, Rita was a wind event, and TROPICAL STORM Allison was a rain event (this was the first non-hurricane storm to have its name retired and the nomenclature of “tropical storm” really underplays how devastating it really was).
@tonytheofficer3 ай бұрын
This certainly has the same type of feel as the F-scale to EF-scale. F-scale was mostly wind speeds and visuals of the tornado as it was coming. EF-scale was more focused on the damage afterwards. Tornados are however alot shorter lived, and damage is usually quite quick to happen. Hurricanes lasting for weeks on end, can really make measuring and rating them confusing, as it's never truly possible to know exactly what one will do or what it will hit, therefore wind speed or pressure measurements is really all we can do to determine if its a tropical storm or a "you're dead" hurricane.
@Lemon18325Ай бұрын
I’m no expert or super smart person- or kid if you wanna get literal- but I feel like Hurricane Beryl is a perfect example of this, having an estimated 28-32 billion dollar cost in damage and other things. My entire backyard fence was destroyed from the Hurricane, some of the fence pieces just being gone completely, if that puts anything in perspective. And my neighbor’s entire tree, that was probably at least a century old, fell onto one side of my backyard fence, that was a pretty strong tree and it still got destroyed.
@rolypoly49202 жыл бұрын
So basically the suggestion is to do the same thing that they switched to doing with tornadoes. the EF scale doesn't factor in the windspeeds at all anymore like the old F scale did. They rate tornadoes now based on the damage survey afterwards. It would be a little different for hurricanes because you want people to know the damage potential before it happens. Maybe rate different parts of its path different damage categories based on the local geography, population density, etc? Having said that, rating a hurricane with 300km/hr winds a category 1 wouldn't do justice to the couple hundred rural farmers its about to smash in to either. I think keeping the current category scale as a rough estimate is the best way to go for now, but continue to stress the storm surge aspects since that's what usually gets people.
@mpk66642 жыл бұрын
interestingly enough, they actually do take damage into consideration for hurricanes. Hurricane Michael was only upgraded to an Cat 5 AFTER it made landfall due to the damage it did similar to the EF scale.
@LFTRnow2 жыл бұрын
Also, you need to check if it is full of sharks.
@JarieSuicune2 жыл бұрын
Next Smash Bros. member introduction: "Sharknado bites out a victory!"
@namento45_ytАй бұрын
We made the Enhanced Fujita scale basically the same, Not based on winds alone, and boy do the public get mad, Many tornadoes had EF5 winds yet werent made as an EF5, Annd now theres a 11-year EF5 drought, because not many 200mph tornadoes caused extensive and severe damage, Also, due to the lower EF-scale assigned, it makes people even less worried, Wonder if we made the Category scale not based on winds alone, the same thing could've happened
@duck1ente2 жыл бұрын
In the Philippines, PAGASA (the local weather agency) issues color coded status for rainfall depending on the amount. It starts from green, yellow, orange, and the highest alert which is red. The color code is raised for not just typhoons, but also thunderstorms.
@doritosbag10542 жыл бұрын
The CDPS (cyclone damage potential scale), coined by Force Thirteen, takes into account the rainfall potential, storm size, maximum winds, and overall threat to land, and gives it a rating out of ten. This is probably the best form of measuring damage potential I’ve seen but it’s still pretty unknown.
@B3Band2 жыл бұрын
The problem with a subjective "opinion" scale is that in America that would open you up to legal liability if the numerical "opinion" you provide is less than what the storm actually ends up being. And knowing this country, you might even get sued if you predict a higher number too, because Karens were forced to leave their vacation for a storm that turned out to be no big deal.
@DEmersonJMFM3 ай бұрын
Factoring population size into a category rating is in itself also dangerous because you'd be "prioritizing" the people in an urban area over a rural one by inflating or reducing the "risk."
@Poision_mushroom.Ай бұрын
This is why I like the tornado scale more because they just decide it judging by the damage it does
@icarlyIV2 жыл бұрын
I feel this is a greater issue with tornadoes. Because the tornado scale ( enhanced fujita) is solely based on damage caused. A good example of this scale being faulty was the May 31 2013 el rino tornado. It was the largest by size on record, had 296 mph winds at its peak. However, since it was mostly in unpopulated areas, it only got an EF3 rating.
@eggplayz52352 жыл бұрын
Interesting! Great job everyone who made this.
@whatnujgaming714Ай бұрын
The only thing about the hurricane scale and hurricane coverage on the weather channel I don’t like is how the wind speed requirements aren’t in base pairs of 5 while the wind readings are. Unless hurricane wind speeds only ever change in base pairs of 5.
@spingleboygle3 ай бұрын
this is why i like the tornado scale, it measures by damage and not size, speed, or any of that
@casuallystalled8 ай бұрын
Hurricane Sandy was technically a tropical storm when it hit NJ/NY but it's one of the most costliest storms in US history. Also didn't help that the north isn't built to hurricane standards
@i8ap4t532 жыл бұрын
The scale based on windspeed is suitable for manufacturing, and insurance purposes. Which is why it wont be replaced anytime soon. It's an easy metric to get your building material tested against. eg fire a 2x4 at your product at X speed, and you'll get your certs stamped.
@mspectrite80252 жыл бұрын
A recent example of miscalculating a hurricane's windspeed was in july of 2021 when hurricane felicia was roaring over the pacific ocean, the NHC mistankenly estimated felicia's windspeed at 145 mph, along with a pressure of 945mb, but, recon flights weren't available at the time which caused the incorrect estimate, the true windspeed was probably around 155 mph, with a true pressure of 937 or 936mb
@ikeroran79112 жыл бұрын
evidence.
@Owen_loves_Butters2 жыл бұрын
Factoring in are where it hits to its strength is extremely counter-intuitive. But I do agree with the air pressure thing.
@coldish68992 жыл бұрын
I work at McDonalds and the hurricanes look exactly like the symbols we have on the machine to make milkshakes…
@1.41422 жыл бұрын
Fun fact: The National Hurricane Center forecasts storm surge using the SLOSH model, which is an abbreviation for Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from Hurricanes.
@lucalopez96042 жыл бұрын
I worked on a government agency dedicated to ambiental protection during the time of Patricia. Everyone in the office was incredibly stressed about it and relocating all our resources to deal with the disaster. Then it changed trajectory. And then the threat got lower and lower each day. And then it hit and it was far from the damage we expected and were like "... So what are we doing this week?"
@Gazpolling2 жыл бұрын
1:26 The woman, after her stomach filled with seawater : this is fine
@dystopiangodess2 жыл бұрын
This taught me more about hurricanes than my ocean science class
@rikuurufu55347 ай бұрын
It's always been completely counter-intuitive to me that hurricanes are categorized by wind speed when, to my child-mind, the defining features of these storms and most obvious ways to measure them are the rainfall and the size of the storm. My entire life, even living inland ever since just after I was born, I've always had an intuitive sense that wind speed categories for hurricanes are inadequate or inaccurate, and I feel vindicated finding out that there is a more useful measurement.
@siddheshgawali77642 жыл бұрын
Damage doesn't only depend on threat level but also to preparation and readiness for floods and how do people react.
@paulsmyers2032 жыл бұрын
Simplifying something as significant and complex as a hurricane down to a single number is just idiotic. Why not report all the numbers that we are able to collect?
@angrynoodletwentyfive64632 жыл бұрын
yeah, great plan. lets just shove a shit ton of numbers they would in no way understand the context of at the laymen and let them figure it out! especially considering a lot of these storms tear through areas where access to even a high-school level of education can be sparse. Something tells me that a bunch of People many of whom Might not have even been given the opportunity to take Algebra 1 are going to be really great at figuring out what those numbers mean as it applies to the severity of the storm that is barreling towards them.
@KaiserStormTracking2 жыл бұрын
Catagorys are just to say how strong the system is which is easier Same with tornadoes. Higher up the scale, the stronger it is etc The scales purpose is just as a guide. The storm itself is usually changed in strength or Category post-season anyway. Iota was a CAT5 but post season it became a CAT4 due to SFMR values being inaccurate at the time of the CAT5 reading But trust me the everyday person might not get it but theres a ton if people on the platform who do
@boygenius538_82 жыл бұрын
A great example of this was the remnants of Hurricane ida which killed over 50 people in NY alone even though it wasn’t even a cat 1.
@allanmonroe6922 жыл бұрын
At this point, the current hurricane categorization system is most useful to ships at sea.
@hart-of-gold2 жыл бұрын
Because that was its original purpose.
@allanmonroe6922 жыл бұрын
@@hart-of-gold I thought that was the case, but didn't have a source to cite.
@hart-of-gold2 жыл бұрын
@@allanmonroe692 Just had a quick look on Wikipedia and it looks like the Australian scale is derived from the extended Beaufort Scale (used mostly at sea) but, the American scale was taken from wind damage at landfall. I grew up in a fishing region, so hearing weather warnings on local radio was normal then but uncommon now.
@sarahlachman13495 ай бұрын
Run from water hide from wind - also this is a great ad for an ENAHANCED Hurricate Scale
@charlessaunders121710 күн бұрын
Size, and were the hurricanes hit is a major difference, a cat 1 hitting NYC is worse than a cat 5 hitting the middle of no where
@T33K3SS3LCH3N2 жыл бұрын
A threat level should not include how many people live in the Hurricane's path, only how dangerous it will be to those staying in it. I don't want to be told that an extremely dangerous hurricane heading for my position is "low threat" just because I live in a low density area.
Should combine Pressure and Wind And Form to create a new scale until we can reliably measure the other things mentioned.
@JCBro-yg8vd2 ай бұрын
Perhaps the scale needs to be updated, like they did with the Fujita scale for tornadoes.
@nmotschidontwannagivemyrea89322 жыл бұрын
Water being more dangerous than wind is not necessarily equally true across the entire affected area. That depends on how close to the coast you are.
@bobbyc112011 ай бұрын
Minimum central pressure conveys information about both wind speed and size. To give an example, hurricane Sandy was a category 1 storm with a pressure of 940 mbar. This is the lowest pressure ever seen in a category 1 storm - you would expect to see it in a category 3 or 4 storm. Not coincidentally, Hurricane Sandy was the largest hurricane to ever exist in the Atlantic.