albertocairo

4 ms·

1.
by albertocairo 7y ago
One last thing: risks aren't necessarily higher on the center line. Just to give you an example: if you live in a low-level region far from the center line but that is prone to flooding, risks may be higher than if you are by the line
2.
by albertocairo 7y ago
That might be true mathematically but talking to forecasters who work on this, they greatly de-emphasize the center line. Instead, they do emphasize that the forecast is the cone, not the center line alone. They direct your attention away f
3.
by albertocairo 7y ago
Apparently it was an oversight (moving the cone slightly to the right or left on the map) and will be corrected.
4.
by albertocairo 7y ago
The challenge is that, eventually, the forecast of one storm will be wildly off. This is inevitable. But that doesn't mean that the forecast was necessarily incorrect. I think that this is what it's crucial to explain to the publi
5.
by albertocairo 7y ago
These are the most relevant paragraphs: NHC tropical cyclone forecast tracks can be in error. This forecast uncertainty is conveyed by the track forecast "cone", the solid white and stippled white areas in the graphic. The solid w
6.
by albertocairo 7y ago
Forecasts are getting better and better, but they still have large uncertainty. The piece explains the cone as the NHC itself explains it. Scroll down here: https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at5+shtml/20460
7.
by albertocairo 7y ago
Yes, exactly. The cone is as accurate as it can be, by which I mean: accurate but with a huge degree of uncertainty. The challenge is that some readers tend to read it as deterministic, and get it wrong by: 1. Thinking "If I'm ins
8.
by albertocairo 7y ago
By the way, thank you for being so thorough and attentive.
9.
by albertocairo 7y ago
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