Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Misinterpreting hurricane forecasts

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 112 posts

Re: Misinterpreting hurricane forecasts

#71

Post by lutorm »

choward wrote: post #32

There are two problems here. People don't know what the cone means. But even if they did, how are they supposed to act on it? It's hard to know what the cone means because it's way too over-simplified and they really shouldn't have that line there. Of course people are going to be confused. Why can't it just be a color coated overlay where different colors mean different probabilities of the hurricanes path? Even if…

"How are you supposed to act on the probabilities? If there's a 50% chance, do I prepare? What about 20%? 10%? 5%? 1%? 0.1%?"

Everyone has to make their own judgement based on their risk tolerance, but at least that would be the correct data to use. If you need 24/7 power for your medical equipment, you'll probably make a different call than someone who can ride out a month in their well-stocked, off-grid bunker.

Re: Misinterpreting hurricane forecasts

#72

Post by hnburnsy »

albertocairo wrote: post #56
_ea1k wrote: post #25

This article is a little bit misleading, unless I am misinterpreting his pictures. But that would be horrible for an article trying to explain pictures. Here is the graphical archive for all 5 day forecasts of Irma: https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2017/IRMA_graphics.php?prod... Now note the image that the article depicts for Hurricane Irma with this text: "These misunderstandings have real-world consequences. As Hur…

Hi Jsight, Alberto Cairo here. I wrote the piece, but didn't design the maps, so I'll ask. In any case, even if there's an inconsistency between the maps in the piece—which are intended to be illustrative, I guess—and the NHC ones, it doesn't undermine, I think, the overall message, which is that, regardless of whether you are inside of the cone or outside and close to it, it's safer to prepare just in case. People s…

Truly nice of you to comment but did you not review the graphics and the source of them to make sure they matched your narrative? Seems important considering it is a piece about graphics and interpretation.

Again appreciate you taking the time to join the discussion.

Re: Misinterpreting hurricane forecasts

#73

Post by spectramax »

_ea1k wrote: post #48
spectramax wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The general problem that the article raises is still valid even though the pictures don’t match. The article is pointing out that the increasing circle sizes represent variation of centerline paths, not the actual size of the hurricane (which is a common misconception). Just because the plots don’t match doesn’t make the article irrelevant.

I get your point, but there is another angle here. People have a strong tendency not to trust forecasters, despite relative accuracy. This article implies a lack of accuracy that wasn't actually the case. It would be incredibly easy to come away from this article with the wrong lessons.

I don't understand - what are the wrong lessons that this article teaches?

The author isn't a forecaster. The author is exemplifying a problem with the chart by using a 2017 hurricane example.

Unless I am missing something?

Re: Misinterpreting hurricane forecasts

#74

Post by lutorm »

allday wrote: post #16

Wow, 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…

You're constructing a straw man here. All your points are explained by the NWS themselves on the plot, and this is but one of the many products you can avail yourself of, along with the different wind speed probability plots, etc.

As to why this particular one is shown by the media, I guess you have to ask them.

Re: Misinterpreting hurricane forecasts

#75

Post by flukus »

choward wrote: post #32

There are two problems here. People don't know what the cone means. But even if they did, how are they supposed to act on it? It's hard to know what the cone means because it's way too over-simplified and they really shouldn't have that line there. Of course people are going to be confused. Why can't it just be a color coated overlay where different colors mean different probabilities of the hurricanes path? Even if…

> If there's a 50% chance, do I prepare? What about 20%? 10%? 5%? 1%? 0.1%?

Prepared/unprepared isn't a binary state either and your level of preparation can match the certainty. At 10% check your supplies of water, candles, gas, canned food. At 20% decide if you'll evacuate. At 50% tape/board up the windows.

Re: Misinterpreting hurricane forecasts

#76

Post by dmix »

spectramax wrote: post #73
_ea1k wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get your point, but there is another angle here. People have a strong tendency not to trust forecasters, despite relative accuracy. This article implies a lack of accuracy that wasn't actually the case. It would be incredibly easy to come away from this article with the wrong lessons.

I don't understand - what are the wrong lessons that this article teaches? The author isn't a forecaster. The author is exemplifying a problem with the chart by using a 2017 hurricane example. Unless I am missing something?

Why use a real-world example if it's not going to be based on data? Surely if the numbers are correct that there's 60-70% accuracy with the cone (on any particular day? or possibly early on) then they could use real data.

It also starts with "The National Hurricane Center publishes graphics like this one" (with "graphics" directly linking to a different graph than the one shown [1]) which would lead one to believe it was an actual NHC example being challenged.

The general point can still get across but its just important to choose your anecdotes carefully if you want to be taken seriously.

Especially in the hyper-critical social media age when everyone is looking to kick anything popular down a peg or two, for their own personal satisfaction of being smart (or w/e the motivation is).

[1] https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at5+shtml/174008.s...

Re: Misinterpreting hurricane forecasts

#77

Post by scott_s »

allday wrote: post #16

Wow, 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…

I did not come away with that impression. Rather, what I came away with was: people tend to misunderstand these visualizations, so we should re-evaluate using them.

Re: Misinterpreting hurricane forecasts

#78

Post by spectramax »

dmix wrote: post #76
spectramax wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand - what are the wrong lessons that this article teaches? The author isn't a forecaster. The author is exemplifying a problem with the chart by using a 2017 hurricane example. Unless I am missing something?

Why use a real-world example if it's not going to be based on data? Surely if the numbers are correct that there's 60-70% accuracy with the cone (on any particular day? or possibly early on) then they could use real data. It also starts with "The National Hurricane Center publishes graphics like this one" (with "graphics" directly linking to a different graph than the one shown [1]) which would lead one to believe it…

This is extreme. Why use a real-world example? Because people can relate to it. People have seen these types of plots. It could have been a completely fabricated example of an arbitrary hurricane in Florida or Canada or whatever - the point would still be the same. I feel like people are completely missing the point of the article.

Also, my question is : what are the wrong lessons that this article teaches?

Re: Misinterpreting hurricane forecasts

#79

Post by albertocairo »

hnburnsy wrote: post #72
albertocairo wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi Jsight, Alberto Cairo here. I wrote the piece, but didn't design the maps, so I'll ask. In any case, even if there's an inconsistency between the maps in the piece—which are intended to be illustrative, I guess—and the NHC ones, it doesn't undermine, I think, the overall message, which is that, regardless of whether you are inside of the cone or outside and close to it, it's safer to prepare just in case. People s…

Truly nice of you to comment but did you not review the graphics and the source of them to make sure they matched your narrative? Seems important considering it is a piece about graphics and interpretation. Again appreciate you taking the time to join the discussion.

Apparently it was an oversight (moving the cone slightly to the right or left on the map) and will be corrected.
Post reply on HN