81–90 of 112 posts
I'd assume people closer to the central line have a greater chance of being hit. Is the auther saying people with a greater chance of being hit shouldn't prepare more?
"People who are inside the cone, but far from the center, tend to prepare less than those closer to the central line. All of these interpretations of the map are incorrect" I'd assume people closer to the central line have a greater chance of being hit. Is the auther saying people with a greater chance of being hit shouldn't prepare more?
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…
Hmmmm
"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've been living with hurricanes my entire life, and have been through many (the largest was Hugo in '89). The problem with all these cones is when they extend them beyond 72 hours. At that point, if we used your suggestion, the entire east coast could be in the cone. That means either no one pays attention, or everyone evacuates and next time ignores the warnings. What officials (and the news) need to do is tell eve…
As you know well having lived through Hugo, the S/S category pertains to the wind speed. However, it's the flooding and storm surge, not the wind, that are by far the most deadly features of a hurricane.
I'd be much more wary of a big, slow moving cat 2 arriving right at high tide and full moon than I would be a small, fast moving cat 4 arriving at low tide and a new moon, unless I have some particular reason to fear the wind and not the water (eg I'm in a mobile home on high ground).
Source: lived through or evacuated for multiple hurricanes.
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…
I've noticed this as well. In reality, outside the cone seems to happen pretty regularly. So far outside the cone that it is significant as a practical matter is much more rare, at least in terms of the 48 hour cone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
It wouldn’t hurt but it’s not urgent like I said.
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…
Also, staggered evacuation is a good thing, you don’t want everyone in a city to decide to leave at the same time.
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…