Property Insurance Coverage Law Blog : Florida Insurance Lawyer & Attorney : Merlin Law Group Law Firm : Tampa, Houston, Coral Gables, Gulfport

Rocco Calaci has taken time to write as a guest meteorologist on this blog. He has a web page listing sites and even tips for policyholders. Here are the sites he suggests for hurricane meteorology:

• National Weather Service
• National Hurricane Center
• Weather Underground Tropical page
• Gulf of Mexico Buoy Data
• Hurricane Tracking

The buoy data can be very revealing when a major storm is accompanied with storm surge. I was on the phone with Doug Branham of Colonial Claims before Katrina hit. He alerted me to the huge wall of water that eventually washed away parts of Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama based on this information.

Jeff Masters WeatherUnderground Blog and Hurricane Terrapin are the two quick sites I watch. I strongly suggest that the Discussion made by the National Hurricane Center be read to better understand how the professional meteorologists are viewing the accuracy of their predictions and expectations. The Discussions are on either of these two sites.

Finally, for some off the wall fun, I have long kept bookmarked BobbiStorm's Hurricane Harbor blog. For instance, this is how she concluded last night's post:

Either she intensifies or gets downgraded... that's my guess. And, expect to see that track pulled back to the north a bit more as Bonnie is being pulled more to the north around the flow of the Upper Level Low and it's an interesting storm... that's all I'll say. Each in it's own way is interesting.

Miami is amazing. Breakfast at Bayside this morning and hunkered down for a Hurricane Party tonight... low key party, no liquor... lots of cherries and designer water ;)

Sweet Tropical Dreams... Bobbi

Speaking of a party, the weekend is almost here and this nostalgia should help get you in the mood:

In today's paper, NOAA issued a possible La Niña alert. NOAA announced that the conditions for La Niña were developing, and this scenario would be prevalent by August to September and extend into the beginning of 2011.

I'm here to tell you that La Niña isn't coming in August because it is already here. A quick check of water temperatures off the coast of Central and South America (Pacific Ocean side) shows that the temperatures for this region are almost 1.5 degrees Celsius colder than average. The chart below is current as of July 8, 2010. 

For a La Niña situation this is very cold, and, if this theory is correct, it should prove to be quite a hurricane season for the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico areas.

The various forecasts from the National Hurricane Center show between 14 to 23 named storms this hurricane season. With a strong La Niña, I expect to see storms at the higher end of the predicted range.

The chart below shows how the numerical models are looking at La Nina conditions to persist into next year.

Typical La Niña conditions result in hotter temperatures in the South and fewer tornadoes east of the Mississippi. Remember, these so-called "typical" conditions are based solely on statistics from an era when there was little or no knowledge about El Niño/La Niña situations.

The two busiest hurricane seasons on record (1994 - 1995) occurred during La Niña conditions. At the same time, don't overlook the fact that 2008, (Hurricane Ike) occurred during La Niña conditions and the infamous 2005 (Hurricane Katrina) happened during La Niña.

This year has already produced 2 tropical systems early in the season. We are receiving a warning loud and clear. Please take time to make hurricane plans. Inventory your belongings. Make necessary changes to your insurance policy. Many folks have their property under-insured, don't let this happen to you. If you need to increase your insurance limits, then do so...don't expect the insurance companies to know your needs. This is your responsibility.

As I said, the La Niña predictions are based on statistics. Sometimes the numbers are totally wrong, but it doesn't hurt to prepare...just in case the numbers are correct.

--Rocco Calaci

Insurance agents and brokers should read the Tennessee Insurance Litigation Blog post But I Thought I Had Flood Insurance . . . Is My Agent Responsible? It noted:

an insurance agent has a duty to his client, the insured, to make sure that he or she is appropriately insured. In fact, the very reason people use insurance agents is to gain the benefit of having someone on their side who is inside the industry, knows the language, and to advise them as to what additional coverages that might be necessary.

One common recurring theme is the scenario in which the agent never mentions flood insurance at all. There was no reference at all to the fact that flood damage is excluded from general residential and commercial policies, no mention of the fact that flood damage is available at an additional cost, and no advice at all concerning the uninsured flood risk. I believe this scenario can create liability for the agent for the otherwise uninsured flood loss.

Yesterday's article, The 2010 Hurricane Season: How Destructive? 5 Critical Factors, explains there are even more reasons for coastal policyholders to make certain they have full coverage for flood damage:

June 1 marks the official start to the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season, and forecasters are unanimous in their assessment: It is likely to be a dangerously active storm season, on par with 2005, the worst hurricane season on record. Hurricane Katrina, the costliest and one of the deadliest hurricanes on record, came in 2005, and another hurricane passing through the Gulf of Mexico right now would exacerbate the damage from the BP oil spill.

...

All forecasters agree that the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season is likely to be very active, with many tropical storms (sustained winds of 39 mph), hurricanes (sustained winds of 74 mph) and major hurricanes (sustained winds of 111 mph). Though all forecasts are subject to the error that comes with trying to predict complex systems, there are several factors that give researchers confidence in their predictions:

• No El Niño. There's currently no El Niño, a warm pattern in the Southern Pacific, that would influence global winds in a way that inhibits hurricane formation.

• Record warm sea-surface temperature. Exceptional warmth, as much as 4 degrees above average, will feed energy into hurricanes as they form. (Sea surface temperature is increasing, longterm, because of global warming; though, overall, scientists debate whether climate change will cause stronger or more frequent hurricanes, higher sea surface temperatures feed stronger storms.)

• The long-term pattern. Hurricane activity seems to run on a multi-decadal cycle, and we remain in a time of high-activity."

In Rocco Calaci Contemplates the 2010 Hurricane Season, a guest blogger agreed with the above findings. Still, I find hurricane prediction highly unpredictable, as I punned in Psychic Predicts No Hurricanes On Florida's Treasure Coast:

Many may dismiss Ms. Hansen’s predictions. Could she be any worse than the more traditional and scientific hurricane soothsayers?
...

In the short term, the chances of Susan Hansen's predictions being right are probably no better than the expensive models which try to guess the probabilities of the number and track of hurricanes in the next five years....Even insurance company hurricane predictors admit their models have not proven reliable. Maybe the underwriters of property insurers should call Susan Hansen, and save a lot of money otherwise spent on those short term forecasts.

Cover your bets and purchase flood insurance. Safe is better than sorry.

In 2009, the El Niño effect developed in the eastern Pacific, resulting in a very slow year for hurricanes. As of today, April 13, 2010, the eastern Pacific sea temperatures are approximately 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than normal...a moderate El Niño situation.

The temperatures in the eastern Pacific have been dropping and forecast numerical models agree that by the end of August, sea temperatures will cause a "neutral" zone, thereby having no effect on Atlantic hurricanes. Some models go as far as predicting an El Niño zone, causing Atlantic hurricanes to become stronger. Of course, it is much too early to know exactly what will occur. Remember, numerical models are only as good as the data input.

Normally when an El Niño situation occurs, the northern Gulf Coast and southern Florida should experience wetter than normal conditions. Up to today, the northern Gulf Coast is well behind in rainfall, but South Florida is above monthly averages. El Niño was also supposed to cause warmer than normal conditions along the northern Gulf Coast, yet we had a winter with much colder than normal temperatures. This goes to show that you can't rely on statistics alone.

As with previous years, I will explain in laymen’s terms what the National Hurricane Center is forecasting. I will also provide an update of the upper level weather situation and an outlook of how well the National Hurricane Center is performing.

Here are some points of interest for everyone:

1. Have a hurricane evacuation plan.
2. Review your insurance policy and determine of you have enough insurance coverage. After Hurricane Ike, I found that the majority of folks were under-insured on their properties. Don't expect the insurance companies to pay you more than what you have insured your property for. You may have to pay more for additional coverage, but it's better than not having enough to cover potential losses.
3. Inventory your belongings on paper and video, if possible. Again, my experience shows that the majority of homeowners do not take this step prior to a hurricane hitting their area.
4. Understand your responsibilities as a policyholder. Insurance companies have thousands of customers and can't spoon-feed every policyholder; policyholders should take responsibility for their own belongings and contractual obligations. You can't expect your insurance company to do its part if you don't do yours.
5. Pay attention to bulletins from the National Hurricane Center and your local authorities. In 2008, the initial thought was Hurricane Ike would strike the East Coast of Florida and it wound up in Galveston, Texas.

Everyone knows the danger and devastation that comes with a hurricane. Please protect yourselves, your families and your property.

-Rocco Calaci

I am supposed to be in Poplarville, Mississippi tomorrow morning for an event with former client, Pearl River Community College. I was hoping to see Mississippi Congressman Gene Taylor about his efforts to demand a hurricane policy that covers wind, flood, and storm surge. I doubt any of this will happen, given the wide projections of landfall for Hurricane Ida.

Instead, Florida panhandle clients have been calling and asking what to do. Storm surge is probably the most potentially devastating aspect of Hurricane Ida unless a tornado or microburst hits. Florida panhandle beachfront businesses and residents have suffered pretty significant beach erosion since Hurricane Ivan. Generally, there is far less protection from the impact of waves, surge and flood in most areas from Gulf Shores, Alabama, eastward to Cape San Blas, Florida. These are beautiful white sand beaches that have had significant growth since the early 1970's.

This is what a Florida panhandle resident and meteorologist Rocco Calaci has to say about Hurricane Ida this morning:

Hurricane Ida has shown everyone that she is on her own schedule. The storm moved faster than anticipated and now is weakening sooner than expected. Current sustained winds have dropped from 105 mph to 80 mph and should make landfall as a very minimal Category 1 hurricane and weakening as it moves over land.

Hurricane Ida is moving slightly towards 340 degrees from its' position at 16 miles per hour. This is an increase of 4 miles per hour in the forward speed. The different models seem to agree that Ida will make landfall early Tuesday morning near 7:00AM. The media keeps saying landfall will be at Pensacola Florida, but it will probably be inside the Alabama border at Orange Beach and Gulf Shores Alabama.

No one has sighted Jim Cantore from the Weather Channel, so the exact landfall spot is iffy. Al Roker from NBC will be in Pensacola for the landfall of Hurricane Ida. The last time Mr. Roker was in Pensacola was during Hurricane Ivan and he was a lot heavier then. Hopefully someone will be holding on to him during his live broadcasts tomorrow.

What is interesting is that there are still some numerical models that place the landfall near New Orleans, but the upper level winds at 30,000 feet will keep Ida along the Alabama - Florida border. Winds will steadily increase throughout the day as Ida moves closer to shore. Wind speeds tomorrow morning will be around 50 to 60 miles per hour sustained with higher gusts along the immediate coast line. As Ida continues to weaken, these wind speeds will most likely decrease.

Once Ida makes landfall tomorrow morning, winds will lower to tropical storm strength in general, but be aware of isolated gusts that could be as high as 65 miles per hour. From eastern Mississippi towards New Orleans, winds will be from the Northeast and East at speeds between 45 to 55 miles per hour on the shoreline. Gusts will be a bit higher, but the local environment plays a significant part in gustiness at each location.

Hurricanes release destructive energy over widespread areas. As I am writing this, insurance catastrophe adjusting teams are making final staging plans. There is a myriad of significant decision making at governmental levels. These decisions pertain to evacuation calls for low areas, shelters, governmental closings, etc. The impact on local communities cannot be overstated as a result of Hurricane Ida--even if it is a relatively late storm that is expected to weaken--nobody will take it lightly.
 

There are two recent and very interesting posts regarding hurricanes worth reading. One is found on Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog regarding storm surge misconceptions. Everybody should read this important discussion of storm surge. Dr. Master’s correctly noted:

The storm surge is usually the most dangerous threat of a hurricane. The ten deadliest U.S. hurricane disasters, including the Galveston Hurricane of 1900 (8000 killed), the Lake Okeechobee Hurricane of 1928 (2500 killed), and Hurricane Katrina of 2005 (1833 killed), were all primarily storm surge disasters.

He then listed and discussed a number of storm surge misconceptions:

Misconception: Call 911 and you can be rescued, while the water is pouring into your home.
How? No one will be able to get to you. Water rises quickly--sometimes six to ten feet within minutes; cars can't drive in it, and it is usually unnavigable by boats when it is coming ashore.

Misconception: Just stuff towels under the door jambs. Then rush around to start picking up things that are close to floor level, so you can save them.
Bad idea. In a minute or so the surge will burst open the door, and instead of standing in a room with four inches of water, you'll be knocked off your feet and into whatever piece of furniture is closest, and will suddenly be in three or four feet of moving water that you can't make any headway into...just before the refrigerator, quickly rushing through the water towards you, knocks you cold.

Misconception: You'll be able to maneuver around in the rushing water.
Probably not. Some people who drowned were not even able to get out of the room they were in, when the water started pouring into the home. The speed of water in surge can be equivalent to a Class III or IV rapids (Class V is hardly navigable by expert kayakers and canoers, and Class VI is not navigable at all).

Misconception: You'll know in time.
The surge is usually not a wall of water as is often assumed, but rather a rapid rise of water of several feet over a period of minutes. It can sneak in unexpectedly, on little cat feet. Most people that were not completely taken by surprise simply happened to look out the window at the right time.

Misconception: You can outrun the storm surge in your car.
Here's an email I got last year from a resident in the Florida Keys who ignored the evacuation order for Hurricane Ike in 2008: I hate to bother you again, but we live on Marathon in the Florida Keys on the Atlantic side, and my husband says that if we see water coming up from storm surge and have an inch of water in our house, that we can outrun the storm surge in our car. Can you please tell me if there is any way this can possibly be true? P.S., I don't know of anyone who lives down here who is planning on evacuating for Ike. Everyone says they are staying. If you wait until the water is an inch high before trying to outrun the surge, the odds are that the surge will rise to over a foot high before you get your car out of the driveway. If the water is a foot high, the typical 10 - 15 mph speed of the storm surge's current has enough force to sweep a car away. In many places along the coast, there is only one road out of a low-lying region prone to storm surges, and the surge will cut off one's only escape route. The Keys have only one road, and the storm surge will likely be moving perpendicular to the road, cutting off the only escape route. One of these days, there are going to be a lot of people who fail to evacuate caught and killed in the Keys by the storm surge from a major hurricane.

The other post, Tornado Threat Increases as Gulf Hurricanes Get Larger, verifies a number of observations that a Guest Columnist, Rocco Calacci, has made in six previous posts to this Blog. Those posts are:

1. Is The Saffir-Simpson Scale Still Relevant
2. Hidden Causes of Hurricane Damage: Meteorologist Rocco Calaci Explains That Hurricanes Are More Than Just High Winds And Water
3. Part 2: Hidden Causes of Hurricane Damage: Meteorologist Rocco Calaci Explains That Hurricanes Are More Than Just High Winds And Water
4. A Call To Reassess How We Gauge Damage From Hurricane Winds
5. Rocco Calaci Questions Current Models Used to Determine Wind Damage
6. Tropical Storm Erika? - Rocco Calaci Gives His Plain-Talk Interpretation of the National Hurricane Center Bulletin

Rocco will be giving an update on the wind speed data this Friday at our seminar, Hurricane Ike--What a Difference a Year Makes, on September 11, 2009. The Insurance Journal article noted:

Currently, it's well known that when hurricanes hit land, there's a risk that tornadoes may form in the area. Until now, no one has quantified that risk because observations of tornadoes were too sporadic prior to the installation of the NEXRAD Doppler Radar Network in 1995. Belanger along with co-authors Judith Curry, professor and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Tech and research scientist Carlos Hoyos, decided to see if they could create a model using the more reliable tornado record that's existed since 1995.

The model that they developed for hurricane-induced tornadoes uses four factors that serve as good predictors of tornado activity: size, intensity, track direction and whether there's a strong gradient of moisture at midlevels in the storm's environment.

"The size of a tropical cyclone basically sets the domain over which tornadoes can form. So a larger storm that has more exposure over land has a higher propensity for producing tornadoes than a smaller one, on average," said Belanger.

While some may suggest that tornado activity is well accepted, I have sat across from Dr. Max Mayfield and debated this topic at a Windstorm Conference. The better the measuring devices are becoming, the better we understand how some very unique strong winds and gusts are more prevalent than previously thought in hurricanes.

The picture above tells the whole story. As long as we have a lingering cold front along the East Coast, Erika isn't going to be much of a threat. The problem arises if the front begins to dissipate, allowing Erika to move towards land.

All of the models are moving Erika straight for southern Florida, but it has to cross the Bahamas before it would hit Florida. At the moment, the threat area is from Miami northward to Melbourne.

If the front stays in place, Erika will move very close to the East Coast, but gradually move northward, skimming the coastline. If the front dissipates, then Miami to Melbourne are the prime areas at this time.

Based on the models, Erika isn't expected to be more than a Category 1 hurricane. I hate to spoil the party, but models don't always get these types of storms timed correctly.

Remember, it is still early, things can change quickly and we could have a completely different scenario within a few days.

This message is for non-operational use and is only intended to provide updates, not forecasts. Please pay attention to the bulletins issued by the National Hurricane Center (http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/).

I will begin regular distribution of messages, if and when this storm becomes Tropical Storm Erika and is a definite threat to the United States.

- Rocco

Why do some meteorologists believe they can perform an accurate analysis of what occurred at a specific location from hundreds of miles away using only available data? Aren’t such things as local topography, microscale effects, elevation, and other environmental aspects as important as the macroscale situation in determining what happened at a specific address?

Why do trees blow down with winds between 50 to 55 miles per hour with the Beaufort Wind Scale, yet aren’t affected by wind until 104 miles per hour in the Saffir-Simpson Scale? Are trees stronger in hurricane-prone areas?

Why do we use statistics to determine what occurred at a specific address? Aren’t statistics a bit over-blown?

Why did Dr. Robert Simpson (yes, he is that Dr. Simpson) state that the release of the Saffir-Simpson Scale was “premature” during a radio interview in 1991?

Why does the public continually blame the National Weather Service and the National Hurricane Center for “missed forecasts”, yet deny these same agencies the funds and manpower to do the job? If you want better weather information, write to your congress person and demand more funding for the National Weather Service and National Hurricane Center.

Why aren’t realistic wind flows and characteristics used in evaluating hurricane damage? Each situation is different, so each evaluation must be different.

Why do we make something simple into such a complicated process?

Most policyholders do not know where to find experts familiar with issues of windstorm damage. Many cannot afford to do so. Today, I am making available a client’s meteorologist report to help demonstrate that many areas in Galveston, Bolivar and Houston sustained tornado type wind events.

The report notes that there were sufficient wind speeds to cause extensive damage by tornadic events along the Bolivar peninsula and other areas:

"Using the collected NEXRAD data and knowing the limitations of NEXRAD to detect these phenomena, I estimate that there were over 60 mesocyclones that moved over the Bolivar peninsula. Based on this estimate and using the percentages from previous studies, this would place between 18 to 30 tornadoes on Bolivar peninsula as early as 10:43PM, September 2008.

There are several pictures I took during the site visit that show distinct rotation based upon how remaining structures and poles were oriented. This indicates tornadic activity.

At 7:00PM, September 12, 2008 there were measured winds of 115 knots (126 miles per hour) only 2000 feet above the surface along the edge of the Bolivar peninsula. This measurement was recorded by a rawinsonde observation. With the numerous convective cells over the Bolivar peninsula, it is very plausible that winds from 2000 feet above the surface were transported down to the surface causing gusts as high as 100 miles per hour. These winds would not be detected by NEXRAD because the radar beam would be located above the 2000 foot level over Bolivar peninsula." 

Anybody can use this report for any purpose they wish. The bottom line is that the insurance company experts typically do not conduct this kind of in depth investigation to find evidence supporting higher payments. Get your own analysis if you suspect your insurer is underpaying your claim. 

Many people have heard of Dr. Theodore Fujita, the developer of the renowned Fujita Scale used to categorize tornadoes by intensity. The first Fujita Scale was presented in 1971, two years after the Saffir-Simpson Scale was released to the public. One of Dr. Fujita’s goals was to make the Fujita Scale a smooth transition from the Beaufort Wind Scale. Fujita explained explicitly that "F-scale winds are estimated from structural and/or tree damage, the estimated wind speed applies to the height of the apparent damage above the ground."

This means that the Fujita Scale only applies at the height of damage, whether it is 8 feet above the ground or 40 feet above the ground. There is nothing in Dr. Fujita’s definition that states the winds have to be measured precisely at 33 feet above the ground, yet some experts use wind measurements from many miles away recorded at 33 feet to substantiate their “opinions.”

Anyone who thinks that wind speeds measured at one location can be applied to other locations doesn’t understand the atmosphere. The atmosphere is made up of wind bands that flow up and down easily, causing wind speed increases and decreases that are not seen or measured, but we know they exist by observing how these winds affect objects around us.

I am constantly amazed by those who assert that we MUST use wind speeds recorded at some location 30 miles away because that is the only location where official measurements are made. That is pure bunk.

Using that logic is like telling a police officer the reason you were doing 70 miles per hour on a back road is because the speed limit is 70 miles per hour 30 miles away. Would a police officer buy that excuse? It never worked for me.

Let’s all use realistic scenarios; not studies that were performed many years ago in another part of the country. Let’s compare apples to apples.

With that being said, Dr. Fujita devised his scale based upon a 3 second gust; not the sustained 1 minute wind speed. The Enhanced Fujita Scale is based on the same 3 second gust principle.

To me, this means that Dr. Fujita clearly understood the force of wind and the impact of wind force. If a 3 second gust can cause all types of damage in one occurrence, how much damage can be experienced if there are multiple gusts?

According to Dr. Fujita’s Enhanced F Scale Damage Indicators, the “expected wind speed” to cause the uplifting of a roof deck, loss of more than 20% of roof covering material, the collapse of a chimney at a 1 or 2 story residence is only 97 miles per hour. The lowest boundary for this type of damage is only 81 miles per hour. If a 3 second gust can cause this level of damage, what happens in a hurricane with continuous gusts? What happens with hurricanes that have continuous wind speeds at or above the “expected wind speed” for any type of structure?

The following is taken from the Storm Prediction Center website for The Enhanced Fujita Scale:

Over the years, the F-Scale has revealed the following weaknesses:

• It is subjective based solely on the damage caused by a tornado
• No recognition in difference in construction
• Difficult to apply with no damage indicators
• if the 3/4-mile wide tornado does not hit any structures, what F-scale should be assigned?
• Subject to bias
• Based on the worst damage (even if it is one building or house)
• Overestimates wind speeds greater than F3

And the F-Scale has had its misuses over the years:

• Too much reliance on the estimated wind speeds
• Oversimplification of the damage description
• Judge the F-scale by the appearance of the tornado cloud
• Unrecognizing weak structures
• mobile homes
• modified homes

The meteorological and engineering communities recognized these weaknesses and took steps to improve the original Fujita Scale. In 2006, a panel of selected experts devised an Enhanced Fujita Scale, which was accepted by the National Weather Service.

The new EF Scale lowered the wind speed ranges necessary to cause damage to a variety of structures and added a more refining step to the evaluation process by breaking out each type of structure with degrees of damage (DOD). I believe this addition is great because it is more realistic. One of the main weaknesses of the original Fujita Scale was that it thought of all structures as equal. The EF Scale, with its’ DOD indicators, is a wonderful improvement to the Fujita Scale.

I question why some of the panel members of the Enhanced Fujita Scale project ignore their own recommendations when assessing damages from a hurricane?

How can anyone apply guidelines from the Great Plains to hurricanes along the Gulf Coast? This is comparing apples to elephants.

For both Hurricane Katrina (2005) and Hurricane Ike (2008), some experts state emphatically that there were no tornadoes along the coastline. Published studies from the National Weather Service and National Hurricane Center clearly state that there are tornadoes in each and every land-falling hurricane, including the coastline. Why the disconnect?

Just because a person has a lot of knowledge about tornadoes in Canada, is he an expert about tornadoes anywhere in the world? Does this mean that everything that applies to Canadian storms also applies equally to the Gulf Coast? I don’t think so.

That is like someone from Canada coming to the Gulf Coast and trying to “shovel” all our rain…it doesn’t work.

Many people will emphatically argue that the EF Scale and the original scale pertain only to tornadoes. Yes, tornadoes are a complete vortex with tremendous upward vertical motion which embellishes the interior wind speeds of a tornado. People tell me that it is the constant rotation and rate of change in shear and wind speed of a tornado that is so critical in causing damage.

The wind field of a hurricane is inherently rotational. The rate of change in wind speed and shear of a tornado can be found within several weather elements of a hurricane. The National Center for Atmospheric Research and NOAA state “hurricane tornadoes are more frequent than classic Midwest tornadoes because there is more rotation in the hurricane environment to draw upon.”

A tornado is a relatively short-lived phenomenon when compared to most other weather elements. The majority of time when tornadoes occur, they contain the highest wind speeds of the surrounding atmospheric environment on the surface. The rate of change of wind speed and rotation (shear) between the surrounding atmospheric environment and the tornado is tremendous, yet Dr. Fujita never mentioned that a specific rate of change in wind speed and shear were necessary to cause the listed damages. All Dr. Fujita listed were wind speeds.

With the Enhanced Fujita Scale, the panel members gave specific speed ranges to a variety of structures, each with 10 separate degrees of damage. The EF Scale is very detailed and thorough.

My question is if Dr. Fujita and the members of the Enhanced Fujita Scale project believe that a 3 second gust of 97 miles an hour will cause considerable damage to a 2 story residence, why can’t hours and hours of wind gusts equal to 95 miles an hour result in more damage?

It seems that people miss the point that structures are enduring hours and hours of punishing wind speeds and associated elements. If a 3 second gust can collapse a chimney, why wouldn’t the winds that enter the house after this specific damage be considered factors in the damage?

If a 97 mile s per hour gust can cause the uplifting of a roof deck, what happens when that 97 miles per hour gust occurs repeatedly for several hours? A gust of only 121 miles per hour will shift a 1 or 2 story residence off its foundation. What if gusts this high occur numerous times over several hours along with high winds in between each gust to 121 miles per hour? If wind gusts to 96 miles per hour cause glass breakage in windows and doors, why don’t we consider what happens once the winds enter the house and cause damage on the inside?

We need to stop focusing only on the maximum 3 second gust. We should be looking at how continuous hours of wind pummeling affects any structure. A good heavyweight boxer can knock you out with one punch, but a good lightweight boxer can do more damage to you after hours of punching. Either way, you lose the fight.

So I ask, why do we focus on the highest wind gust and surge depth, when lesser winds can cause as much or more damage? Maybe we should be using a different ruler.

-Rocco Calaci

Please note how the outflowing winds create what appears to be a horizontal tornado-like vortex. This phenomena is extremely dangerous and destructive. Microbursts are a major cause of airplane accidents every year.

It is not the responsibility of the National Weather Service (NWS) or National Hurricane Center (NHC) to pinpoint every small scale feature hidden within a hurricane. The NWS and NHC do their job extremely well, but if individuals want to know what occurred at their specific address, then it is the responsibility of the property owner to acquire the expertise of a professional meteorologist. You have the responsibility to hire a meteorologist that can make a detailed analysis of the meteorological situation and determine what weather elements (if any) were present on your property. It’s your property and your responsibility.

Based on my experience as a forensic meteorologist, a homeowner needs three experts on the team in order to reach an honest and factual determination of what occurred at a specific address during a hurricane. These experts are:

1. A meteorologist – this person should be able to give you a detailed and site specific report on meteorological elements that affected your property. Be advised that this also means a meteorologist can reach a conclusion that you don’t want to hear, but facts are facts.
2. An engineer – if it is determined that high wind speeds affected your property, an engineer can calculate if the weather elements at your location were strong enough to cause the damage you experienced.
3. An experienced lawyer – if you need legal counsel, make sure you have someone that knows and understands this specific area of law. I have seen too many examples where inexperienced lawyers (inexperienced in handling weather-related cases) have moved too slowly or in the wrong direction because they are learning as they try to handle your case.

In summary, there were numerous mesocyclones, microbursts and other meteorological phenomena that occurred within Hurricane Ike with many areas widely affected by these elements. These weather events are capable of causing damage levels from minor to total destruction. Just because high wind speeds may not have been present in your area, it doesn’t mean other destructive forms of weather were not there.

Please understand that the people in the NWS and NHC are doing a great job. If you want to know what happened at your specific address, that is your responsibility.

In order to determine what caused damages which may be covered at your location, you need a team of experts; a meteorologist, an engineer and an experienced hurricane lawyer.

As a note, I am not affiliated with either the NWS or NHC in any way. My opinion is formed after being an operational meteorologist for 20 years in the military and 19 years in the commercial industry and watching these organizations perform over this span of time.

- Rocco Calaci

Everyone talks about the maximum wind speed, the highest wind gust, the storm surge and how all of it fits together as part of Hurricane Ike. What puzzles me is why aren’t more people focusing on many of the other weather elements found within Hurricane Ike (and other hurricanes) that routinely cause ground damage, most of the time hours before a storm surge hits the coastline.

Hurricanes are more than just high winds and water. Hurricanes also spawn tornadoes, microbursts, straight line winds, extreme ground turbulence and phenomena that have the definite capacity to destroy houses, rip off roofs, uproot trees and do lots of damage. There are also induced dangers such as funneling winds and wind maxima areas (an area where two wind bands converge together to form a small area of increased wind speeds). These meteorological elements occur during hurricanes, yet everyone focuses on the highest wind speeds and storm surge heights.

Some of these mentioned elements can be detected and measured by the latest weather technology, but most of what I mentioned can not be measured. That doesn’t mean that the phenomena do not occur or can not be proven. I’ll start with mesocyclones.

As defined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service (NOAA/NWS), a mesocyclone is a storm-scale region of rotation, typically around 2-6 miles in diameter and often found in the right rear flank of a supercell. The circulation of a mesocyclone covers an area much larger than the tornado that may develop within it. In other words, mesocyclones have the capacity to spawn tornadoes.

Another specific point about mesocyclones as defined by NOAA/NWS - Properly used, mesocyclone is a radar term; it is defined as a rotation signature appearing on Doppler radar that meets specific criteria for magnitude, vertical depth, and duration.

This means that if all the physical characteristics of a mesocyclone are present, but it doesn’t meet ALL the specific criteria based on magnitude, vertical depth and duration, this phenomena will not be detected by NEXRAD. This is why some people state that NEXRAD may miss as many mesocyclones as it detects. The same goes for NEXRAD detected tornadoes. If NEXRAD doesn’t detect it, the meteorological event can still happen.

For example, the NEXRAD Doppler weather radar located in Houston and operated by the National Weather Service (NWS) detected numerous mesocyclones moving across Bolivar peninsula, the Sabine Pass area, northwest Houston, and along Galveston Bay. If you apply simple statistical data, 30% to 50% of all mesocyclones develop tornadoes. If there were 60 mesocyclones, they would spawn 18 to 30 tornadoes.

Just because there were no “confirmed” tornadoes doesn’t mean there were not any tornadoes. You have to understand the limitations of the NEXRAD radar, the rules, guidance and responsibilities pertaining to the National Weather Service and what you should do in the event you spot a tornado during a hurricane (or any other time). This is another subject for a later blog.

Please accept that no technology is perfect. The NEXRAD radar is a great upgrade from what meteorologists had before as the dedicated meteorological radar. NEXRAD provides all types of data and information used at all times by the NWS and National Hurricane Center (NHC), but it is not perfect. NEXRAD products are the visual results of algorithms. There is no algorithm for any meteorological event that can cover all possible scenarios. Even algorithms have limitations. Due to these limitations, NEXRAD can not detect each and every meteorological element that occurs.

Some people think the workers at NWS/NHC should be responsible for providing weather data for all people at all times. The NWS/NHC workers are already overworked, undermanned and unfunded and to have the inferred responsibility of having to provide weather information that applies to each person at any chosen time is unrealistic. This is impossible!

As for the rules and responsibilities of the NWS and NHC; these are dictated by people at high levels of government that really don’t have a clue as how a real weather situation creates more work than anyone could possibly expect. We expect miracles from the NWS/NHC and complain when miracles don’t occur.

From what I see as an impartial observer, The NWS and NHC are doing exactly what is mandated by higher headquarters and the government. Their job is to protect and warn the public, not determine the winds specifically at 123 ABC Street in Anywhere Texas.

(For further explanation of the damage caused by Ike, apart from the hurricane winds and water, please read Part Two of Rocco Calaci’s guest blog tomorrow.)

An interview conducted by Ms. Debi Iacovelli in 1991 with Dr. Robert Simpson revealed the co-author’s thoughts on the hurricane scale carrying his name. In the interview, Dr. Simpson stated that “It's [the Saffir-Simpson Scale] been misinterpreted, misused in a lot of places.” He also added “The scale as devised, expresses what the extreme conditions can be expected from a hurricane of a certain type and a certain category.”

This means with a Category 3 hurricane the extreme level of damage and destruction should be “[s]ome structural damage to small residences and utility buildings with a minor amount of curtain-wall failures. Mobile homes are destroyed.” Yet time and time again, post storm observations prove that a Category 3 hurricane is capable of causing extensive and widespread damages to structures.

Hurricane Ivan (2004) was listed as a Category 3 hurricane, yet the level of damage and destruction equaled a Category 5 on the Saffir-Simpson Scale. In fact, if you read the expected level of damage for a Category 5 hurricane, it states that “Massive evacuation of residential areas may be required.” Obviously the Saffir-Simpson Scale infers that massive evacuation isn’t necessary for any hurricane below a Category 5. Tell that to the people that died in Hurricane Katrina (2005) and it was listed as a Category 3 hurricane.

Another factor on why the Saffir-Simpson Scale should not be used is the differences between it and the Beaufort Wind Scale. The Beaufort Wind Scale is still used extensively throughout the world and has been accepted by the World Meteorological Organization and the National Weather Service. The Beaufort Wind Scale is contained in the Federal Meteorological Handbook Number 1, Surface Weather Observations, considered the “bible” for surface observations.

Time and time again, we see that the Beaufort Wind Scale (BWS) is more accurate than the Saffir-Simpson Scale. The BWS lists winds from 55 to 63 miles per hour capable of uprooting trees and causing considerable structural damage.” Conversely, the Saffir-Simpson Scale states that winds must be stronger than 96 miles per hour to uproot trees and stronger than 110 miles per hour to cause considerable structural damages. Why the disconnect?

It is my personal experience with Hurricanes Erin, Opal (1995), Danny (1997), Ivan (2004), Dennis, Katrina and Rita (2005), that trees were uprooted with regularity when the sustained winds were below 90 miles per hour. During Hurricane Opal, I stood outside the weather station at Eglin AFB, Florida (I was the instructor-meteorologist in an Air Force position) and the winds were consistently sustained below 90 miles an hour for the majority of the storm, yet I witnessed large trees uprooted and blown down streets, concrete block buildings torn apart and large roofs ripped from structures creating massive amounts of flying debris. Hurricane Opal was categorized as a Category 3 hurricane, but the destruction level was likened to a Category 5 storm.

The Saffir-Simpson Scale does not take into account the speed of movement or storm size to categorize a hurricane. If a structure endures hours and hours of battering from winds between 75 to 90 miles an hour, it will still suffer extensive damages. The Saffir-Simpson Scale has no explanation for such elements such as wind shear, ground turbulence, microbursts and vortices.

Everyone becomes fixated on the highest wind speed and associated storm surge, yet the Saffir-Simpson Scale makes no provision for length of time a structure is affected by hurricane force winds.

I like to use the following analogy for hurricane damage. A house endures hours and hours of hurricane force winds and all the associated “forgotten” elements such as wind force, wind shear, ground turbulence and other forces. After several hours, the house is destroyed, but with the area evacuated no one witnesses the destruction. The storm surge arrives hours later and sweeps away the debris from the destroyed home. After the hurricane, folks come back and see the flooding and standing water and assume all damages were created by the storm surge.

Even when there are eyewitnesses to the destruction, records indicate storm surge as the factor in destruction of properties.

When Hurricane Katrina hit the Mississippi coast line, the central pressure fit into Category 4, the storm surge was a Category 5 element, yet the winds were only estimated as Category 3? There is a definite disconnect.

Of course, we are limited in what elements are accurately measured because less than 1% of the affected area in Hurricane Katrina had any type of reliable weather measuring equipment. The sparseness of meteorological data only fuels the ongoing battle of what element caused the initial and primary data: the wind or the water.

The Saffir-Simpson Scale was developed in the 1960’s when meteorological radars still depicted large black blobs on the radar screen instead of the color-diversified images from NEXRAD. In the 1960’s we had limited knowledge of hurricane dynamics and today we have the technology to measure a variety of storm elements.

Some scientists say it makes little sense to hew to an older warning scale that doesn't take into account the wealth of hurricane data collected.

Among them is Mark Powell, an atmospheric scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's hurricane research division. Powell has developed a system of measuring a storm's potential destructiveness that he calls integrated kinetic energy. The technique essentially sums the strength of a storm's winds and the size of the wind field. (Houston Chronicle, November 29, 2008).

During my years as a meteorologist, I was taught that research results arrived only after years of analysis and collected data, yet there is no archive of what data was used to generate the Saffir-Simpson categories. What was the thinking of the authors of the scale when they determined the different categories and the expected levels of damage? Why aren’t these inconsistencies corrected by the development of a more factual scale?

The people who work at the National Hurricane Center and National Weather Service are over-worked and under-funded, yet the American public expects miracles each and every time a hurricane closes in on the United States. When a hurricane warning is issued, the public becomes convinced that the level of damage associated with the current hurricane is what can be expected. This just isn’t true!

It is a shame that the United States doesn’t have a better system of collecting meteorological data to provide better resolution for numerical models in forecasting hurricanes. It’s a shame that the Saffir-Simpson Scale is used blindly by various agencies to rationalize their decisions in wake of a hurricane.

The overblown damage expectations and associated wind speeds in the Saffir-Simpson Scale are extravagant. When Hurricane Ike made landfall in Texas it was classified as a Category 2 hurricane with sustained wind speeds of 110 miles per hour. I can not believe that the hurricane and associated properties understood what was expected of them. Do you think any structure realizes that one more mile per hour of speed would be a Category 3 hurricane and then it was permissible to show signs of minor damage?

We must wake up to the fact that many of our popular meteorological beliefs have no substance or real support. One of favorites is the “belief” that storm surges cause the most damage and deaths in a hurricane. Where is this supported by real numbers? Does any agency (FEMA, NWS, Census Bureau) actually count the number of deaths from wind versus surge? The answer is NO!

Many of our “beliefs” are carryovers from the past when all the deaths were lumped into the category of “storm surge related”. I will back off from my rants if any agency can provide me with a list of hurricane related deaths (along any coastline) that is categorized for wind-related versus surge-related deaths.

In summary, our entire system of categorizing hurricanes with the Saffir-Simpson Scale is misleading and inaccurate. I am sure that a better system for categorizing hurricanes can be developed, but can this effort withstand the politics of such a venture? You can be sure that before another system replaces the Saffir-Simpson Scale, the political battles within and outside the meteorological community will add years before the public has a new method to confront the dangers of hurricane landfalls.

--Rocco Calaci