Posted by Daniel H on February 11, 2016, 4:24 pm
189.164.106.40
Sitting at the beach bar the other night talking with a friend about
hurricane Patricia, he stated some statistics about Patricia like
the 8 mile eye etc. which made me realize how there were different
statistics (or recollections of statistics). My emphasis was on the
media, how I was getting emails and phone calls from people who were
more freaked out than those who were here in the path of the storm.
While fear mongering is common in the media I wondered where the
information they were broadcasting originated. Were news outlets
intentionally increasing the numbers? Were they intentionally focusing
on just worse case scenarios? Was some of the panic originating in
the style and tone of the broadcasters?
I went to Google and put in - hurricane Patricia - then used the advanced
search tools to select only articles from October 23, 2015, the Friday
the hurricane hit. I took samples from 12 of the top hits (notes with
links in next post).
Much of the information on the news came from the World Meteorological
Organization, National Hurricane Center, surprisingly some of
the most radical statements came from them. Much to my surprise this
quote from Wikipedia "Following Patricia's upgrade to Category
5 status, the National Hurricane Center called the storm "potentially
catastrophic",[8] a source of criticism and praise from various
media.[9] Citing the relatively limited damage and loss of life,
some outlets, including the Associated Press,[10] claimed the agency
was exaggerating the danger posed by the storm."
Intensity -
In an attempt to put the hurricane into perspective it was
compared almost across the board to Typhoon Haiyan, which hit
the Philippines in 2013 killing than 6,000 people (via a link by the World Meteorological Organization).
It was also stated to be stronger than Katrina, almost everyone
knows what happened there.
What was barely mentioned is this "It’s difficult to compare tropical
cyclones in the western Pacific, called typhoons, and eastern Pacific
hurricanes if only because routine aircraft measurements don’t
exist in the western Pacific. Unlike Patricia, Haiyan was never
directly measured by an aircraft, so we don’t know its true intensity".
And this "There is no question that this is an exceptionally intense
tropical cyclone," he wrote. "But I wonder whether we really know
that prior storms in the region have not been equally intense and
we are just lucky to have measured this one."
Size -
This is one of the points of contention at the beach bar discussion
and when you compare the different quotes one can easily see where the
confusion comes from. Also I found the terms eye and core used interchangeably.
While it doesn't show in the quoted statements below most had the idea
that this was a huge storm, like Katrina.
"Hurricane Patricia was so enormous that Scott Kelly, the American
astronaut aboard the International Space Station, posted a photo on Twitter
of the storm with the warning: “It’s massive. Be careful!”"
"While the storm is the most intense in the western hemisphere,
it is also extremely compact, with its buzzsaw-like area of
hurricane force winds observed in a tight core extending only 30 miles
away from the center of the storm".
"If there is any good news, it’s that Patricia’s incredibly strong
winds are concentrated into a narrow region near its core. The latest
National Hurricane Center advisory shows Patricia’s peak winds
are confined to a span of just 15 miles across the center, which should
help limit its impact at the time of landfall."
"Mexico's National Commission for Water, CONAGUA, said the eye of Patricia
has a diameter of 10 kilometers, or 6.21 miles".
Information on the size of the eye doesn't seem to be a big priority
NOAA stated a 7 n mi wide eye Friday morning.
Storm surge
CONAGUA, the Mexican national water commission, predicted waves about
40 feet at landfall.
"the storm surge from Patricia might not be as bad given the rapid
intensification"
----------
It is fairly clear from reading the articles that some reporters focused
on the most fear inducing information and other were more balanced.
Given their tendency of news to exaggerate in combination with
information that was already worse case scenario its no wonder the
news came across as fearful as it did. The storm was decreasing in
intensity 5 hours before land fall, it was clear that the storm was
not going to hit Puerto Vallarta at least an hour or two before land
fall, yet the news chose to ignore those bits of information and kept
up the panic till they couldn't get any more viewer's out of it.
Would the world have been watching if the news was closer to the truth,
something like this....
One of the strongest hurricanes on record is approaching the cost
of Mexico. While very dangerous the hurricane is small by hurricane
standards and like most hurricanes expected to weaken before coming
ashore. Due to the sudden intensification the storm surge should
be less intense than it would normally be expected. As of now
the hurricane is located just off shore and is projected to make
landfall in a remote area on the west coast of Mexico well South
of Puerto Vallarta. But preparations should be made by everyone in
the area of possible land fall.
---
379
Message Thread
« Back to index | View thread »