Hurricane Sandy damage and flooding in Long Beach, NY.
Image: Flickr/Tjebbe van Tijen
2:45 p.m. Thursday:
In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, questions have been raised about the National Weather Service's handling of hurricane warnings in life-threatening situations.
Now, differing statements have emerged from the National Weather Service and one of their branches, the National Hurricane Center, regarding what changes will be made to hurricane policies moving forward.
After Chris Landsea, Science and Operations Officer at the National Hurricane Center, released exclusive information to AccuWeather.com Wednesday regarding a change in the NHC's advisory policy and hurricane warning definition, the National Weather Service released a statement clarifying that the change has not been finalized.
"I'm not contesting that [Landsea] said that. He misspoke, or it was inaccurate information," National Weather Service Spokesman Chris Vacarro said, reiterating that the NWS statement contains the correct information.
"The Hurricane Center is aware of this. [The National Weather Service statement] is correcting an incorrect statement," Vacarro said.
Vacarro confirmed that NHC Director Rick Knabb is in agreement with the NWS statement, though calls to Knabb and requests for comment have not been returned as of this time Thursday afternoon.
9:21 p.m. Wednesday:
National Weather Service Spokesman Chris Vaccaro released a statement to AccuWeather.com:
A proposal was raised during the NOAA Hurricane Conference last week for NWS to have the option to issue hurricane and tropical storm watches and warnings for post-tropical cyclones that threaten life and property. This is one step in the process required before any proposed change to operational products becomes final. As part of our review of the 2012 hurricane season, including the Sandy service assessment, we will review all policies and changes through the existing and established process.
Nearly two months after Sandy wreaked havoc on the East Coast, the National Hurricane Center has revealed the thought process behind the decision not to issue hurricane warnings north of North Carolina, which resulted in much miscommunication and confusion for the government and public alike.
Chris Landsea, the Science and Operations Officer at the National Hurricane Center told AccuWeather.com there were three ruled-out options leading up to the final actions made by Branch Chief of the Hurricane Specialist Unit, James Franklin, Deputy Director of the NHC, Ed Rappaport and Director of the NHC, Rick Knabb.
If the National Hurricane Center had continued to issue advisories after the system had transitioned into a post-tropical phase, it may have resulted in a total system failure, according to the NHC.
"We would have risked completely breaking our dissemination system," Landsea said. "The system is not set up for us to continue to write advisories once the system becomes post-tropical. So, we could have tried that, but we could have broken our way to get the information out and that would have been a humongous disaster."
See what we're tweeting about
12 Comments
Add CommentThis will question the "official story" strongly, so it might not be printed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey seem to be going out of their way to cast the "Hurricane" Sandy incident as abnormal in the extreme.
You can leave aside an individual with the National Hurricane Cewnter having the surname Landsea. You can also ignore their referring to "almost two months after" the system hit the East Coast, when it's only a little over a month.
But the difficulties they claim in the warning system if the storm went sub troipical or not are bizarre, given the fact that such complications never occurred before for any other hurricane! With the Weather Service's constant surveillance of such storm systems, it seems ludicrous for them to claim they did not have an adequate way they could announce when the storm became sub tropical. Couldn't the fact that the satellite supposedly showed a tight rotation and distinct eyewall indicate that it was still a hurricane?
But add this to all the other suspicious touches of the "hurricane".
Such as that there have hurricanes of at least category 1 through this are before, and massive nor'easters at high tide, and never one was there anywhere near this much damage or claimed storm surge.
Electrical wires were allowed to sit unattanded on the ground for days and highway lights, that aren't fed by overhead lines, were out, both among the indications that the power loss was caused by electrical companies simply turning off the juice.
It is utterly unreasonable to accept that money desiring gas companies would allow their gas stations not to be equipped with generators to run during power outages, or that, when they heard a "super storm" was coming, they wouldn't rush generators to them. That and only single gas stations in regions being allowed to open, even after power was restored and gas deliveries begunb again, strongly indicate the gas shortage was engineered, too.
And New Jersey has seen about a decade of fabricated "flooding" now, uphill, affluent areas opening the floodgates on the reservoirs to inundate low lying areas, after which affected property could be snapped up for a song.
And add the absolutely aberrant situation of climate change proponents hearing the incredible predictions even days ahead the the storm supposedly coming ashore, but not one of them announcing this was a sample of the extreme wqeather that climate change is expected to bring.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDefenders of a lie know know they cannot rely on it for proof to oppose criticism, so they turn to other, non argument, means for answering contradictions. Unexplained dismissiveness, contempt, arrogance, viciousness, mockery, vulgarity.
Nostradamus and Isaiah predict a solar surge in this time period. ( also implied by crop formations ) . 700% for 7 days is the numbers given. I wont be surprised if it happens dec 21.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHappy Long Count
They couldn't warn people because it would break their system, is that what they are saying? Am I the only one seeing something almost criminal here?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst before anyone takes the bait, @JulianPenrod is and has always been a troll. Leave him alone and hopefully he'll go away.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecond, wow, there are a ton of conspiracy theorists out there!
From the statements made by the NHL et al., it would appear that they have become captive of political considerations and obsessive technicality (i.e. "a rose by any other name" is still a storm)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not know if I should be more frightened of the beurocrats in "charge" and their mind-set or a hurricane.
Maybe you are the troll, facts are facts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour bait is sooooo fake,
What a bunch of horse-pocky. What is the purpose of NHC except to track storms that will cause loss of life or property damage? In the middle of a storm that has not exited the US, to say they will discontinue issuing tracking information is unacceptable. How much confusion and possibly loss of life was caused by this decision? Sounds to me like someone in the NHC should be on the street at least looking for a job or up on charges.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat a difference an administration makes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKatrina was Bush's fault.
Obama was Sandy's fault.
Too funny!
The silly part of all this is, no matter what warnings or updates were issued, none of it would have altered the outcome.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere comes a time when the 'other' guy is really all of us.
There is a NOVA program on PBS that follows Sandy from beginning to end, and it includes the UK computer model that forecast Sandy's unusual path when Sandy was just a tropical depression; http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/inside-the-megastorm.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI thought it was an informative program that explains the process of why and when the warnings were given.
U R an idiot! Recorded history doesn't go back far enough to have records of our planet's 50,000 to 100,000 year climate cycle. This has been proven by geologists. Depending on which model that you look at, there will be 2-4 magnetic pole shifts encompassing this. Modern humans have NEVER experienced a pole reversal (and all of the anomalies that come with it) so we just don't know. But 1 thing is for certain: Humans are a SPECK on the Earth's timeline. It is very typical for humans to believe that we have the "power" to cause this fictitious idea to transpire. Remember that we used to be the center of the universe and the Earth was flat! So to all of you "Chicken Littles" out there: THE SKY IS NOT FALLING! And the Earth will be around for billions of years after we kill ourselves off!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this