Hi

hi :D

Helloo

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..."?

Cost of damage is just a proxy for how much damage it will cause.

That’s what currently happens with hurricanes like Stan.

glad you made that point so I don't have to. Gets me back to procrastinating from writing my report 😬

I also said that in my mind

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

@@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.

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.

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.

thank you so much for giving numbers

@@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

@@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?

Not to mention that Patricia capitulated almost as fast as it intensified

@@sohumchatterjee9 yeah

Yeah, and a hurricane hitting a sparsely populated area is hardly a relief when you live in said sparsely populated area.

@@Nukestarmaster that is a very excellent point, I did not consider that

@@sohumchatterjee9 small world eh? You're a f13 mod iirc right

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.

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.

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.

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.

@@LeScratch89 I agree with you guys (I'm a F13 viewer as well).

Lol, force13 fans are a-spread.

@@TheSpiritombsableye Yes. But the weatherman plus channel is spreading more these days.

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...

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...

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.

Honestly. Wind speed is what causes storm surge anyways, it's just that more storm surge happens when the high winds last longer.

That will confused the public unfortunately

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

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

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.

Love it but the rain idea would be so impossibly hard to determine which is why this video is kind of pointless.

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.

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.

​@@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

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

Yes, this. I highly recommend Kurzgesagt's latest video (titled "Can YOU Fix Climate Change?") to anyone who hasn't seen it yet.

blowing up fossil fuel infrastructure is a moral duty

@@fish3977 but blowing fossil fuel up will release it to the atmosphere. leftist debunked B)

@@gkk116 probably meant blowing it up metaphorically, as in taking it down or destroying it.

@@Khazuldar whoosh

Hope you get back on your feet soon. Good luck mate.

@@davewilson13 Thank you!

Katrina was primarily bad due to levee failures and high surge.

@@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).

Just buy another house. Pull yourself up from your bootstraps like any good Republican would.

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.

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.

@@MinuteEarth no. A person needs to know how it will impact them not how it will impact people 100 miles away.

@@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.

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.

Minute physics/ minute earth are rarely ever accurate.

Thanks for pointing it out. I'm glad someone else caught that too

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.

I think they're actually trying to represent the rotation instead of updrafts and downdrafts. It's definitely a weird graphic.

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.

@@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

@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

@@grandstrategos1144 You seem to not understand the fact that Unless you are moving from region to region your risk category does not change

@@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.

Where’s that quote from?

Oh hey, another Kurzgesagt fan.

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.

Also because the mbars doesn’t actually say much

You're never going to survive my torrential downpour of my heat-seeking wrath!!!🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬

@@JesusMartinez-rr2ry what

Took me a moment to get the joke

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.

It is not even 215 mph atorm when it impacted. It made landfall with winds of 155 mph

Everywhere uses pressure

No it doesn’t. It uses wind speed.

That's not official. The creator still hasn't even published a paper on it so

@@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

@@unitgamex2972 yeah thats what kinda pisses me off with this vid

@@unitgamex2972 yeah

I.live in MI and of you see someone named Gloria Connell that's my grandma

Yeah, but that’s cuz Texas is inept at infrastructure

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.

Cause it isn't

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.

Next Smash Bros. member introduction: "Sharknado bites out a victory!"

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.

evidence.

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.

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

Because that was its original purpose.

@@hart-of-gold I thought that was the case, but didn't have a source to cite.

@@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.