Looks like the scientific illiteracy sponsored by this country's education system is really starting to pay off!
Misinterpreting hurricane forecasts
11–20 of 112 posts
Re: Misinterpreting hurricane forecasts
#12I think the issue is that most people don't understand probability very well, myself included. After reading the explanations I prefer the layout with possible paths color coded by probability -- in this instance it shows that both the West and East coast of Florida should've prepared.
Re: Misinterpreting hurricane forecasts
#13On mobile, the "subscribe" bar at the bottom covers up the text.
I had to use a "remove cookie notification" bookmark to be able to read the text.
javascript:(function(){(function () {var i, elements = document.querySelectorAll('body *');for (i = 0; i Re: Misinterpreting hurricane forecasts
#14I've worked with this data on a daily basis.
It's a cone of probability, which is about as reliable as you think it is. There are gridded wind speed forecasts (still probability) and NWS watches and warnings if you want something more specific.
It helps with general preparedness at best. If you're in hurricane alley it serves as a good reminder to be prepared, but not as a notice to pack your car.
Re: Misinterpreting hurricane forecasts
#15Looks like the scientific illiteracy sponsored by this country's education system is really starting to pay off!
What kind of scientific literacy would make this obvious? They need a better presentation.
Re: Misinterpreting hurricane forecasts
#16Wow, this story is annoying me a lot more than I expected. There's a whole lot of shaming of the layperson in here, with a wink wink nudge nudge that if people would just _think a little_, they could save themselves a lot of trouble.
> Graphics like these need to be read closely and carefully. Only then can we grasp what they're really saying.
Well, that's ridiculous. If these graphics were in an app, we'd tear them apart for the poor user experience. Look at this: https://imgur.com/a/Ko2Z4uM
There is nothing there to indicate that what you're looking at is the probability distribution of the center of the storm. The very obvious interpretation of this graphic, without additional context, is that this cone is the area that could be affected by the hurricane. This is reinforced by:
1. The size of the start of the cone is the same as the size of the hurricane 2. There is a well defined border to the path 3. There is no additional shading outside the cone that indicates "could also face danger"
Furthermore, "probable path of the storm center" is not something the general public cares about! That is not the question that needs answered! What people want to know is, "will I be in the path of the hurricane?"
Even the official NHC product has its faults: https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/storm_graphics/AT05/refresh/AL05201...
There is a big box with a bunch of text at the top of the graphic saying that it is showing the probable path of the storm's center, but does not show the size of the storm. This is different than saying "the storm may extend beyond the edges of the cone". And the next line is "hazardous conditions may occur outside the cone." Okay, every time there's a thunderstorm or 50mph wind gusts, there's an alert in my weather app about hazardous conditions. That information is too vague to be actionable. This doesn't even touch on the design aspects of this graphic, such as how the massive amount of text, size, color, spacing, etc, seems to draw the eye away from that message at the top.
But getting back to a point from a previous paragraph, why is this even disseminated widely at all, when this graphic is so misleading and also not what people need to know? Is it the NHS pushing it out to the public? Is it the media? It seems wildly irresponsible. The tropical storm force wind speeds graphic mentioned in TFA would be a much better product to deliver. Or, just create a graphic that is what the article has already identified as the natural interpretation - a cone of the possible area that could be affected by the hurricane!
Sorry, but excuses for poor design are a real pet peeve of mine.
Re: Misinterpreting hurricane forecasts
#17"The National Hurricane Center says cones will contain the path of the storm center only 60 to 70 percent of the time" Sounds like the communications fix is easy. Increase the uncertainty to 90-95% which also increases the cone size. And make it blood red and tell anyone inside the red that they need to be prepared. "Hurricanes are also hundreds of miles wide, and the cone shows only the possible path of the storm’s…
Right. Some of the "popular interpretations" dismissed in the article are correct, or wrong only in degree rather than in kind. Your home is more in danger inside the cone than out of it, and it is more in danger at the centre of the projected path than at the fringes of the cone.
If the problem is that people with a low to moderate risk of losing their home or their lives don't prepare enough, then yeah, show a wider area, or the two-level nuance of "red threat" and "yellow threat". And balance it against the inevitable "well, the last four times the government said there was a storm threat it didn't come near here, hell, the last time it made landfall 400 miles away".
Re: Misinterpreting hurricane forecasts
#18On mobile, the "subscribe" bar at the bottom covers up the text. I had to use a "remove cookie notification" bookmark to be able to read the text. javascript:(function(){(function () {var i, elements = document.querySelectorAll('body *');for (i = 0; i
Oh cool, how frequently does this bookmarklet actually work?
Re: Misinterpreting hurricane forecasts
#19"The National Hurricane Center says cones will contain the path of the storm center only 60 to 70 percent of the time" Sounds like the communications fix is easy. Increase the uncertainty to 90-95% which also increases the cone size. And make it blood red and tell anyone inside the red that they need to be prepared. "Hurricanes are also hundreds of miles wide, and the cone shows only the possible path of the storm’s…
I think that would be a pretty big cone. You might end up with the situation where nobody takes it seriously - "oh I was in the last 5 cones this year and didn't get a single drop of rain" type of attitude.
Re: Misinterpreting hurricane forecasts
#20I think I prefer the image that showed all of the possible paths predicted by different computer models, rather a summarizing cone of probability.