There is already lots of discussion about science communication in this thread, but I think what would also be extremely important is good communication after the scale has changed.
Should there be a decision to extend the scale, the fact that there was a change should be communicated as widely as possible: Make it an item in the evening news, put a footnote in every article that uses the term "category 6 hurricane" for a few months, etc. Explain exactly when the scale was changed, who made the decision and on what grounds.
Because if not, this will be an open flank for climate denialists: I think the "natural" tendency of most media outlets would be to just quote press releases or forecasts verbatim and use the new term as if it had always been there. To uninformed viewers, this would give the impression that either the scale always went to 6 and they just somehow never noticed or that the scale was open-ended and we're now getting the first cat6 hurricanes because of climate change.
Both assumptions are obviously wrong, and so a climate denialist will gleefully pull out their "research" that the scale has been changed as evidence of manipulation and conspiracy. I think this is something that should strongly be avoided.
Should there be a decision to extend the scale, the fact that there was a change should be communicated as widely as possible: Make it an item in the evening news, put a footnote in every article that uses the term "category 6 hurricane" for a few months, etc. Explain exactly when the scale was changed, who made the decision and on what grounds.
Because if not, this will be an open flank for climate denialists: I think the "natural" tendency of most media outlets would be to just quote press releases or forecasts verbatim and use the new term as if it had always been there. To uninformed viewers, this would give the impression that either the scale always went to 6 and they just somehow never noticed or that the scale was open-ended and we're now getting the first cat6 hurricanes because of climate change.
Both assumptions are obviously wrong, and so a climate denialist will gleefully pull out their "research" that the scale has been changed as evidence of manipulation and conspiracy. I think this is something that should strongly be avoided.