We always appreciate your surge of support for our videos! Want to become our Patreon or member on KZitem? Just visit www.patreon.com/MinuteEarth or click "JOIN". Thanks!
@le9038
3 жыл бұрын
Hi
@imbored6287
3 жыл бұрын
hi :D
@daphne9941
3 жыл бұрын
Helloo
@coolmandan0303
3 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..."?
@MinuteEarth
3 жыл бұрын
Cost of damage is just a proxy for how much damage it will cause.
@RainierKine
3 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.
@MinuteEarth
3 жыл бұрын
That’s what currently happens with hurricanes like Stan.
@sourcererseven3858
3 жыл бұрын
glad you made that point so I don't have to. Gets me back to procrastinating from writing my report 😬
@sharadbhatt2900
3 жыл бұрын
I also said that in my mind
@n8dawg640
3 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
@wdmc2012
3 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.
@chrismorong931
3 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
@grife3000
3 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.
@andrewshore742
3 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.
@bob2000ful
3 жыл бұрын
thank you so much for giving numbers
@otherodd
3 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
@andrewshore742
3 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?
@Kaitos11
3 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.
@sohumchatterjee9
3 жыл бұрын
Not to mention that Patricia capitulated almost as fast as it intensified
@juliusnepos6013
3 жыл бұрын
@@sohumchatterjee9 yeah
@Nukestarmaster
3 жыл бұрын
Yeah, and a hurricane hitting a sparsely populated area is hardly a relief when you live in said sparsely populated area.
@MarkusAldawn
3 жыл бұрын
@@Nukestarmaster that is a very excellent point, I did not consider that
@parlousdiscord879
3 жыл бұрын
@@sohumchatterjee9 small world eh? You're a f13 mod iirc right
@ZeeengMicro
3 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.
@sandifirmansyah1988
3 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.
@JarieSuicune
3 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.
@lukasrentz3238
Ай 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.
@zBPS
Ай бұрын
USGS does this for earthquakes, shaking intensity 1-10 based on those factors.
@andrejonathan7607
3 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.
@LeScratch89
3 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.
@TheSpiritombsableye
3 жыл бұрын
Lol, force13 fans are a-spread.
@sonkim6876
3 жыл бұрын
@@TheSpiritombsableye Yes. But the weatherman plus channel is spreading more these days.
@sonkim6876
3 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...
@TheSpiritombsableye
3 жыл бұрын
@@sonkim6876 the channel isn't, but the creator of the channel posts everywhere.
@daveharrison84
3 жыл бұрын
Make safety diamonds for hurricanes. One rating for wind speed, one for pressure, one for storm surge, one for rain.
@JC60143
3 жыл бұрын
That will confused the public unfortunately
@battlepans1927
3 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
@MorbidMindedManiac
3 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
@Relkond
3 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___f
2 жыл бұрын
Love it but the rain idea would be so impossibly hard to determine which is why this video is kind of pointless.
@Darknimbus3
3 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.
@SoulDevoured
2 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...
@Vgy1592
2 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.
@Spladoinkal
Жыл бұрын
Honestly. Wind speed is what causes storm surge anyways, it's just that more storm surge happens when the high winds last longer.
@stephenmontverde
3 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.
@glowingfish
2 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.
@Chiberia
4 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.
@jinxed7915
2 ай 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
@iwanabana
3 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.
@ShirinRose
3 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.
@fish3977
3 жыл бұрын
blowing up fossil fuel infrastructure is a moral duty
@gkk116
3 жыл бұрын
@@fish3977 but blowing fossil fuel up will release it to the atmosphere. leftist debunked B)
@Khazuldar
3 жыл бұрын
@@gkk116 probably meant blowing it up metaphorically, as in taking it down or destroying it.
@B3Band
3 жыл бұрын
@@Khazuldar whoosh
@Sweet_Squad4ever
3 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.
@MazdaTiger
3 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
@WurstRELOADED
3 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".
@TheExalaber
3 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.
@MinuteEarth
3 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.
@uhohhotdog
3 жыл бұрын
@@MinuteEarth no. A person needs to know how it will impact them not how it will impact people 100 miles away.
@mpk6664
2 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.
@rocks813
2 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.
@MartinHoeckerMartinez
3 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)
@maxinecaulfield310
3 жыл бұрын
Minute physics/ minute earth are rarely ever accurate.
@corwynjohnson4066
3 жыл бұрын
Thanks for pointing it out. I'm glad someone else caught that too
@cicadafun
3 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.
@mpk6664
2 жыл бұрын
I think they're actually trying to represent the rotation instead of updrafts and downdrafts. It's definitely a weird graphic.
@DreckbobBratpfanne
3 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.
@shadowstorm79mc
3 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.
@JarieSuicune
3 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.
@shadowstorm79mc
3 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
@grandstrategos1144
3 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
@shadowstorm79mc
3 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.
@Theweatherguy
2 ай 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.).
@grife3000
3 жыл бұрын
An excellent video, except you didn't give us the categories for the different pressures so we could use that information.
@duckymomo7935
3 жыл бұрын
Also because the mbars doesn’t actually say much
@KuruGDI
3 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...
@ComicalRealm
3 жыл бұрын
"If any structure survives a Category 5 hurricane, a Category 6 hurricane will finish the job." - Ultra Instinct Shaggy
@JesusMartinez-rr2ry
3 жыл бұрын
You're never going to survive my torrential downpour of my heat-seeking wrath!!!🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬
@engirckt5410
3 жыл бұрын
@@JesusMartinez-rr2ry what
@zachw2906
3 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
@o76923
3 жыл бұрын
Oh hey, another Kurzgesagt fan.
@mukrifachri
3 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 ?
@MonkeyJedi99
3 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.
@Chritin
3 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.
@sirapple589
3 жыл бұрын
Where’s that quote from?
@andyfriederichsen
2 жыл бұрын
This is basically the opposite of the issue the EF tornado scale has with ignoring windspeed and rating only on damage.
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
@LeScratch89
3 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.
@Jay-ps4vv
3 жыл бұрын
I literally just had a geography lesson covering this
@beeallen2743
3 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.
@bforbiggy
7 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.
@mattm7220
3 жыл бұрын
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.
@stevenroshni1228
25 күн бұрын
When the big city that got all hyped up gets minimal damage and one outer suburb gets destroyed, the forecasters the want to maintain that they were only off by ten miles.
@1.4142
3 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.
@mirrenboarish
3 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.
@hugocc7732
6 ай бұрын
3:08 wasn’t expecting a category 120 hurricane here
@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.
@mikestermike
2 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.
@unitgamex2972
3 жыл бұрын
You didn’t mention that there’s such thing as the CDPS scale. So the system isn’t entirely broken
@michaeligbinoba2894
3 жыл бұрын
That's not official. The creator still hasn't even published a paper on it so
@unitgamex2972
3 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
@throwbiegd6627
2 жыл бұрын
@@unitgamex2972 yeah thats what kinda pisses me off with this vid
@ikeroran7911
2 жыл бұрын
@@unitgamex2972 yeah
@marcopohl3236
3 жыл бұрын
I propuse my own system: IT'S A DUCKING HURRICANE, GET THE CRAP OUT OF THERE!
@delev11
2 ай бұрын
Currently watching this in Houston after Hurricane Beryl knocked out my house's power and 1.8 million other Centerpoint energy customers
@kerrypryor1146
2 ай бұрын
I.live in MI and of you see someone named Gloria Connell that's my grandma
@brookiiecookie199
2 ай бұрын
Yeah, but that’s cuz Texas is inept at infrastructure
@D-Man_Jam
2 жыл бұрын
This just reaffirms the rule that Stans should not be messed with.
@GMBlunderfish1
10 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.
@aron1332
Ай бұрын
It is not even 215 mph atorm when it impacted. It made landfall with winds of 155 mph
@noobifyedplayer9445
7 күн бұрын
I think there should be Several category classifications to a hurricane, like "oh this storm has category 3 pressure but has mid category 2 winds, category 3 estimated storm surge and category 3 levels of rainfall thus is a cat 2.8" this would make it much better than the current rating system because it factors in much of the dangers of the storm and provides a better understanding to the public of what they are going up against.
@AntoineLavoisier
3 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.
@rubylagahit7622
2 ай 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."
@namento45_yt
2 ай 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
@Hypurr1
3 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.
@ZeroKami86
3 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.
@Treebark1313
3 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.
@leroymilo
3 жыл бұрын
3:10 : the legendary class factorial 5 huricane.
@theholk
2 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.
@andresibarra9914
3 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.
@paulsmyers203
3 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?
@angrynoodletwentyfive6463
3 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.
@KaiserStormTracking
3 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
@joshdoeseverything4575
3 жыл бұрын
Patricia was an absolute monster. It RAPIDLY weakened before landfall though and hit rural coast. Not a fair comparison
@chrisboyer2195
4 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
@r0cketplumber
7 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.
@LFTRnow
3 жыл бұрын
Also, you need to check if it is full of sharks.
@JarieSuicune
3 жыл бұрын
Next Smash Bros. member introduction: "Sharknado bites out a victory!"
@furyinferno2234
3 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.
@Lemon18325
2 ай 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.
@CT-pi2gl
4 ай бұрын
Saying Stan was more powerful than Patricia because it hit a more populous area is like saying a .22 round is more powerful because it hit a person, than a .50 cal that happened to hit a brick wall. I don't buy it.
@gokudoge7588
2 ай бұрын
i think it’s more of like a threat level more than power. Stan was more of a threat because it hit a populated city. Patricia wasn’t as much as a threat since it didn’t build enough storm surge and hit mountainous terrain.
@DEmersonJMFM
4 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."
@tonytheofficer
4 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.
@eggplayz5235
3 жыл бұрын
Interesting! Great job everyone who made this.
@notabots4602
3 жыл бұрын
Hello 👋. This is a interesting video and I didn’t know that the system was this broken.
@KaiserStormTracking
3 жыл бұрын
Cause it isn't
@Mrjavalight
Ай бұрын
You’re missing the whole point of the scale. The scale is supposed to tell how strong the hurricane is, not the danger level.
@IanAnimatesBagels
2 жыл бұрын
My favorite hurricane categorization method, is the Waffle House method: 1: If the closest Waffle House is still open, make sure to take the necessary precautions to stay safe. 2: If the closest Waffle House is closed for the hurricane, RUN. GET OUT OF THE STATE. THAT STORM IS GOING TO DEMOLISH EVERYTHING IN IT'S PATH. *WAFFLE HOUSE NEVER CLOSES*
@Poision_mushroom.
2 ай бұрын
This is why I like the tornado scale more because they just decide it judging by the damage it does
@rikuurufu5534
8 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.
@Adamoska-Official-YT
20 күн бұрын
So you're saying that I have to run and leave the city if there's a hurricane cat. 1 to survive?
@coldish6899
3 жыл бұрын
I work at McDonalds and the hurricanes look exactly like the symbols we have on the machine to make milkshakes…
@doesbadvideosguy7677
4 ай бұрын
POV the largest tornado in history with severe wind being an EF3:
@doritosbag1054
3 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.
@B3Band
3 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.
@deidara_8598
3 жыл бұрын
Also let's stop giving them cute names like "Stan" and "Patricia". Let's call them stuff like "Baphomet", "Sauron", and "Eye of Destruction", that'll get people to take em seriously.
@MoonLiteNite
2 жыл бұрын
Scale is just fine, it is people watching main stream media who thinks that a bigger name = more deadly. All bigger number means is more top wind speed, nothing more, nothing less. Doesn't tell you how fast the storm is moving, doesn't tell you the rain it will brain, doesn't tell you how bad the storm surge will be.
@eljanrimsa5843
2 жыл бұрын
It tells you whether your house is by design strong enough to withstand it, which is the first thing you need to know.
@whatnujgaming714
2 ай 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.
@duck1ente
3 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.
@Owen_loves_Butters
2 жыл бұрын
Factoring in are where it hits to its strength is extremely counter-intuitive. But I do agree with the air pressure thing.
@nmotschidontwannagivemyrea8932
3 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.
@ImMinecrafter22
8 ай бұрын
You're definitely right. I think they should use CDPS scale instead of SSHWS.
@dystopiangodess
3 жыл бұрын
This taught me more about hurricanes than my ocean science class
@boygenius538_8
2 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.
@tiaxanderson9725
3 жыл бұрын
Obligatory notice that Personal Responsibility is exactly why a company like British Petroleum invented the term Carbon Footprint. The problem's scale, severity, and complexity ensures that regardless of what the common people does, it'll have effectively no impact. You *truly* want to fight against climate change; 1. Vote 2. Protest 3. Invest in 'carbon neutral' and 'carbon negative' technologies If, on top of that, you want to buy an electric car, eat less meat, use service like Wren; go for it. But don't think that those things will have any effect.
@Sacred_Silence
2 ай бұрын
Before watching, my assumption is that it's moving slower. Meaning it has more time to cause damage vs a bigger hurricane would spend less time in one area.
@JCBro-yg8vd
3 ай бұрын
Perhaps the scale needs to be updated, like they did with the Fujita scale for tornadoes.
@Sufyaan-lf2rk
3 ай бұрын
Meanwhile Ghidorah with his Category 6 Hurricane🗿
@mspectrite8025
3 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
@ikeroran7911
2 жыл бұрын
evidence.
@Megaflare47
2 ай бұрын
Its all ringing more true now that we saw Hurricane Beryl basically eviscerate the Yucatan Peninsula at Category 5
@strawberrymilk9767
4 ай бұрын
The Enhanced Fujita system for rating tornadoes is broken for a similar reason, Tornadoes are rated from the damage they cause, not windspeed. if you have a 2 mile wide tornado with 250 mph windspeeds (which puts it well into EF5 territory), and the tornado doesn't hit anything, it will be rated low down on the scale. (El Reno tornado basically)
@marbleWRKS
16 күн бұрын
This just happened to come up on my page while I’m in francine
@UseCodePearRightNow
6 ай бұрын
In theory, the main thing to determine a tornado's power is it's true threat.
@hugmynutus
3 жыл бұрын
Wind flow for Hurricanes is wrong. Air rises in the center, and is sucked in. While the outflow occurs above the storm. The warm rising core, compared to cold sinking core is the key difference in tropical cyclones & extra-tropical counterparts.
@ToroidalX
3 жыл бұрын
Another amazing video. I love this channel
@russcrawford3310
2 ай бұрын
Why did you include "hurricane threat"? ... that's not in the definition, Saffir-Simpson is strictly wind speed (= strength) ... not intensity or size ... it's your interpretation that's broken ...
@duckenomics7981
2 жыл бұрын
There’s something off about the calm campfire acoustic guitar music playing while the narrator talks about billions of dollars in damages and hundreds of people dying from a natural disaster
@Feeluck
2 жыл бұрын
also telling people that its 'only' a hurricane level 1 will make them prepare less. i'm pretty sure the hurricane of level 5 and the news about it made people prepare WAY better
@DeJay7
3 жыл бұрын
Imagine you watch on television "Don't be too worried, because it is only a category 1 hurricane" And the next thing you know is you're drowning because of said hurricane
@TinyDeskEngineer
2 жыл бұрын
I use the scale of "If people are using the word 'Hurricane' it's probably pretty dangerous"
@FrogsOfTheSea
3 жыл бұрын
It's not that hurricane categories are broken, it's that they're not a good indicator of destructive potential and shouldn't be used as such
@Mykasan
3 жыл бұрын
don't know for you, if a hurricane comes crashing on my home, i would get out of there pronto.
@charlessaunders1217
Ай 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
@foxfires8237
3 жыл бұрын
Look, I'm no meteorologist, but I can see some problems here. There's a very big flaw in the idea to use pressure instead of wind: The fact that both are correlated. Sure, it's not super accurate (like say, Hurricane Wilma and Gilbert have the same wind speeds but Wilma has a lower pressure), but that's the general idea; a category 5 will have a lower pressure than that of a category 1. So does changing it to pressure really make that much of a difference? Another problem I have is the example they gave at the start. The example of Hurricane Stan and Patricia goes against the idea to use pressure. Why? because Patricia has a much lower pressure than that of Stan both at peak intensity and at landfall, at 872mbar and 932mbar respectively. Stan had a minimal central pressure of 977mbar, however. So clearly barometric pressure isn't that good at determining damage either right? So, knowing this, why should it be changed anyways? It's the winds that're ripping people's roofs off. Now there was an argument about storm surge in the comments I think. Does lower pressure mean higher surge? Yes, but most of that surge is caused by wind, and only about 5% is caused by pressure. scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/storms/what-causes-storm-surge I don't know, maybe I missed some things, and while I think the SSHWS needs a fix, barometric pressure isn't that good of a replacement either. And also, would you mind giving me reasons why air pressure is better? Like, all the reasons. And last thing, there are some more reasons why Patricia didn't cause that much damage. I can remember which ones were listed in the video so I'll just list all the ones I know. Unfortunately Patricia not doing a ton of damage gives the impression that the hurricane, that's basically an oversized EF5 tornado, isn't something to be worried too much about, even though it is. -Patricia made landfall as a high-end category 4, not at peak intensity (about 100km/h weaker). -Patricia weakened amazingly rapidly. After making landfall, it went from a 240km/h category 4 to a tropical storm in 7 hours. -Patricia intensified so quickly it didn't have time to build up much storm surge. -Patricia was a very compact storm, and its strong winds were confined to the center. -Patricia hit a very sparsely populated area. -I'm pretty sure a bunch of the people in the area were evacuated.
@foxfires8237
2 жыл бұрын
And another thing that's somewhat off-topic that I want to talk about is underestimation of a specific storm. Typhoon Rammasun made landfall on Hainan Island on July 2014. According to the JTWC, it had 1-min winds of 260km/h, with a pressure of 918mb. This would make the storm a category 5 on both the SSHWS, and the proposed pressure scale. However, the JMA (the RSMC of the West Pacific basin, in which every estimate given by this agency is the official one regardless of everyone else's) gave Rammasun a pressure of 935mb (and also technically 10-min winds of 165km/h but the converted result is... highly unlikely to be true), which would make Rammasun a category 4 on the pressure scale. Now, both the JTWC and JMA, as well as the HKO, are objectively wrong for Rammasun's pressure (though for some reason none of the estimates have been changed), as a much lower pressure was recorded within the storm. The CMA gave the storm a pressure of 888mb, derived from the aforementioned recorded pressure of 899.2mb (which was not in the eye), recorded by a station in Qizhou Island. So, according to this, Rammasun should've already far surpassed the threshold for a category 5 on the pressure scale. Unfortunately, the JMA severely underestimated the storm and now we are left with an official pressure of 935mb, an estimated pressure far higher than even other agencies' underestimations, and honestly, I doubt they'd ever change it.
@foxfires8237
2 жыл бұрын
Ok so apparently one of the replies I sent isn't here why well I'm too lazy to write it again so.. guess what it was I guess
@SRN42069
2 ай бұрын
Should combine Pressure and Wind And Form to create a new scale until we can reliably measure the other things mentioned.
@IcosahedronDodecahedralDual
7 ай бұрын
3:07 I never knew there could be a category 120 hurricane
Пікірлер: 849