Hurricane season hindsight 2020: Applying the IDEA model toward local tropical cyclone forecasts

Robert Eicher

doi:10.5055/jem.0817

Authors

Robert Eicher, MS, CCM https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9721-4598

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.0817

Keywords:

internalization, distribution, explanation, and action (IDEA) model, hurricane forecasts, warning messages, risk communication, crisis communication

Abstract

Hurricane Laura began as a disorganized tropical depression in August 2020. Early forecast guidance showed that the tropical cyclone could either completely dissipate or strengthen to a major hurricane as it approached the United States Gulf Coast. While this uncertainty was known by meteorologists, it was not necessarily communicated to the public in a direct manner. As it turned out, the worst-case scenario was the correct one. The tropical depression rapidly intensified and made landfall near Cameron, Louisiana, with sustained winds of 150 mph, making Laura a Category 4 hurricane on the Saffir–Simpson scale. Laura’s rapid intensification caught some people off guard. Ideally, weather forecasts would have begun warning Louisiana residents to prepare for the possibility of a devastating hurricane in the early stages of tropical cyclone development. No one is suggesting that meteorologists did anything wrong. However, with the benefit of hindsight and decades of scholarly research in risk communication, we can speculate how an ideal forecast would have been written. This paper demonstrates that there are some simple considerations that could be made that might better alert the public to future hurricane worst-case scenarios, even in uncertain situations.

Author Biography

Robert Eicher, MS, CCM

Applied Aviation Sciences, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, Florida; Nicholson School of Communication and Media, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida

References

National Hurricane Center: Glossary of NHC terms. Available at https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutgloss.shtml. Accessed June 30, 2022.

National Hurricane Center: Tropical depression thirteen discussion number 6. Florida: National Hurricane Center, 2020: 6.

Pasch RJ, Berg R, Roberts DP, et al.: National Hurricane Center tropical cyclone report: Hurricane Laura. Florida: NOAA/National Hurricane Center, 2021: AL1320201.

Haines M: COVID-19 hampers Louisiana early response to Hurricane Laura damage. VOA News. August 27, 2020. Available at https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_covid-19-hampers-louisiana-earlyresponse-hurricane-laura-damage/6195100.html. Accessed June 30, 2022.

Warner D: Shreveport church helps residents of heavily damaged DeRidder. KPLC-TV. September 1, 2020. Available at https://www.kplctv.com/2020/09/01/shreveport-church-helps-residents-heavilydamaged-deridder/. Accessed October 7, 2021.

Deslatte M, Plaisance S: Laura victims may go weeks without power; US deaths reach 14. Associated Press. August 28, 2020. Available at https://apnews.com/article/ms-state-wire-va-state-wirereligion-tx-state-wire-ar-state-wire-920e9b887d110a7e640713cca42e4178. Accessed October 7, 2021.

Mileti DS, Sorensen JH: Communication of emergency public warnings: A social science perspective and state-of-the-art assessment. Sponsor Org.: FEMA. 1990. DOI: 10.2172/6137387.

Sellnow TL, Seeger MW: Theorizing Crisis Communication. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2021.

Krocak MJ, Ripberger JT, Ernst S, et al.: Public information priorities across weather hazards and time scales. Bull Am Meteorol Soc. 2023; 104(4): E768-E780. DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-D-22-0190.1.

Reynolds B, Seeger MW: Crisis and emergency risk communication as an integrative model. J Health Commun. 2005; 10(1): 43-55. DOI: 10.1080/10810730590904571.

Miller A, Collins C, Neuberger L, et al.: Being first, being right, and being credible since 2002: A systematic review of crisis and emergency risk communication (CERC) research. JICRCR. 2021; 4(1): 1-28. DOI: 10.30658/jicrcr.4.1.1.

Reynolds B, Deitch S, Schieber RA: Crisis and emergency risk communication pandemic influenza. 2007. Available at https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/24061. Accessed November 18, 2021.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: CERC: Introduction. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2018. Available at https://emergency.cdc.gov/cerc/ppt/CERC_Introduction.pdf. Accessed June 27, 2022.

Herovic E, Sellnow TL, Sellnow DD: Challenges and opportunities for pre-crisis emergency risk communication: Lessons learned from the earthquake community. J Risk Res. 2020; 23(3): 349-364. DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2019.1569097.

Ripberger JT, Silva CL, Jenkins-Smith H, et al.: False alarms and missed events: The impact and origins of perceived inaccuracy in tornado warning systems. Risk Anal. 2015; 35(1): 44-56. DOI: 10.1111/risa.12262.

Sellnow DD, Sellnow TL: The IDEA model for effective instructional risk and crisis communication by emergency managers and other key spokespersons. J Emerg Manag. 2019; 17(1): 67-78. DOI: 10.5055/jem.2019.0399.

Sellnow TL, Sellnow DD, Johansson B, et al.: The IDEA model theoretical framework: An explication of risk communication as engaged public relations. In Public Relations Theory III. Milton Park, Abingdon: Routledge, 2023: 228-246.

Sellnow DD, Jones LM, Sellnow TL, et al.: The IDEA model as a conceptual framework for designing earthquake early warning (EEW) messages distributed via mobile phone apps. Earthquakes—Impact, Community Vulnerability and Resilience. London: IntechOpen, 2019.

Sellnow T, Parker J, Sellnow D, et al.: Improving biosecurity through instructional crisis communication: Lessons learned from the PEDv outbreak. J Appl Commun. 2017; 101(4). DOI: 10.4148/1051-0834.1298. Available at https://newprairiepress.org/jac/vol101/iss4/2. Accessed June 30, 2022.

Sellnow TL, Sellnow DD, Reis CD: Calming giants in the earth. In Jin Y, Reber BH, Nowak GJ (eds.): Advancing Crisis Communication Effectiveness: Integrating Public Relations Scholarship with Practice. Milton Park, Abingdon: Routledge, 2021: 198-213. Available at http://www.econis.eu/PPNSET?PPN=1750490528. Accessed June 30, 2022.

Johansson B, Lane DR, Sellnow DD, et al.: No heat, no electricity, no water, oh no!: An IDEA model experiment in instructional risk communication. J Risk Res. 2021; 24(12): 1576-1588. Available at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13669877.2021.1894468. Accessed June 30, 2022.

Iowa State University: IEM: NWS related information archive. Available at https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/nws/. Accessed May17, 2023.

National Weather Service Lake Charles Louisiana: FXUS64 KLCH 210910: Area forecast discussion. August 21, 2020. Available at https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/wx/afos/p.php?pil=AFDLCH&e=202008210910. Accessed June 30, 2022.

National Weather Service Lake Charles Louisiana: FXUS64 KLCH 211639: Area forecast discussion. August 21, 2020. Available at https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/wx/afos/p.php?pil=AFDLCH&e=202008211639. Accessed June 30, 2022.

National Weather Service Lake Charles Louisiana: FPUS54 KLCH 211640: Zone forecast product. August 21, 2020. Available at https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/wx/afos/p.php?pil=ZFPLCH&e=202008211640. Accessed June 30, 2022.

National Weather Service New Orleans Louisiana: FXUS64 KLIX 210943: Area forecast discussion. August 21, 2020. Available at https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/wx/afos/p.php?pil=AFDLIX&e=202008210943. Accessed June 30, 2022.

National Weather Service New Orleans Louisiana: FXUS64 KLIX 221011: Area forecast discussion. August 22, 2020. Available at https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/wx/afos/p.php?pil=AFDLIX&e=202008221011. Accessed June 30, 2022.

National Weather Service: National Weather Service policy directive 10-24: Impact-based decision support services for NWS core partners. National Weather Service. April 9, 2019.

National Weather Service: National Weather Service instruction 10-503: WFO public forecast product specifications. National Weather Service. August 26, 2020.

National Weather Service: National Weather Service instruction 10-203: Web-based product specifications. National Weather Service directives. National Weather Service. May 21, 2020.

Zillmann D: Exemplification effects in the promotion of safety and health. J Commun. 2006; 56(s1): S221-S237. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00291.x. Available at https://api.istex.fr/ark:/67375/WNGMMVXJ349-F/fulltext.pdf. Accessed June 27, 2022.

Gravelle CM, Graves CE, Gagan JP, et al.: Winter weather guidance from regional historical analogs. 23rd Conf. on Weather Analysis and Forecasting/19th Conf. on Numerical Weather Prediction, Amer. Meteo. Soc., JP3. June 3, 2009. Available at https://ams.confex.com/ams/23WAF19NWP/techprogram/paper_154201.htm. Accessed June 30, 2022.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: NWS service assessment: The historic derecho of June 29. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2013. Available at https://www.weather.gov/media/publications/assessments/derecho12.pdf. Accessed September 26, 2023.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: NWS Central region service assessment: Joplin Missouri tornado-May 22. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2011. Available at https://www.weather.gov/media/publications/assessments/Joplin_tornado.pdf. Accessed September 26, 2023.

Casteel MA: Communicating increased risk: An empirical investigation of the national weather service’s impact-based warnings. Weather Clim Soc. 2016; 8(3): 219-232. Available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/26388184. Accessed June 30, 2022.

Ripberger JT, Silva CL, Jenkins-Smith H, et al.: The influence of consequence-based messages on public responses to tornado warnings. Bull Am Meteorol Soc. 2015; 96(4): 577-590. DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00213.1. Available at https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/96/4/bams-d-13-00213.1.xml. Accessed May 16, 2023.

National Weather Service: Zone forecast product specifications document. National Weather Service. March 27, 2020. Available at https://www.weather.gov/media/notification/dir/ZFP_Specifications.pdf. Accessed September 26, 2023.

Ripberger J, Bell A, Fox A, et al.: Communicating probability information in weather forecasts: Findings and recommendations from a living systematic review of the research literature. Weather Clim Soc. 2022; 14(2): 481-498.

Bhatia KT, Nolan DS: Prediction of Intensity Model Error (PRIME) for Atlantic basin tropical cyclones. Weather Forecast. 2015; 30(6): 1845-1865.

Eicher RW, Trabing BC, Halperin DJ, et al.: Evaluating the clarity and effectiveness of the national hurricane center’s experimental probabilistic intensity forecast product. In 103rd Annual Meeting of the American Meteorological Society. January 12, 2023. Available at https://ams.confex.com/ams/103ANNUAL/meetingapp.cgi/. Accessed May 16, 2023.

Ernst SR, Ripberger J, Krutz J, et al.: Using code to reduce the costs of coding: The development of a broadcast meteorologist coverage thematic coding algorithm. In 102nd Annual Meeting of the American Meteorological Society. January 24, 2022. Available at https://ams.confex.com/ams/102ANNUAL/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/396494. Accessed May 17, 2023.

Scharfenberg KA, Jordan JK, Page E, et al.: New and upcoming training on communicating threat information. In 103rd Annual Meeting of the American Meteorological Society. January 10, 2023. Available at https://ams.confex.com/ams/103ANNUAL/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/417779. Accessed May 16, 2023.

Eicher R, Taylor L, Brown T: Human or machine? How much difference in understanding and trust does a human element make in storm forecasts? Electronic News. 2023: 193124312311581. DOI: 10.1177/19312431231158120.