I think we are forgetting about the hype that the news media brings about when the probability cone is placed close to a certain location. Let's take a little example here: Suppose 5-day forecasts were out when Debby (2000). Around the 19th, I believe, much of the hype about Debby making landfall as a category 4 hurricane in South Florida cranked up. My questions is this: What would a 5-day forecast on the 17th conveyed to Floridians? What would the media do if it the cone of probability was pointing in S. Fla's general direction? If any decent CV storms threaten the US this year, I'll be very interested to see how the media conveys a hurricane hitting a certain location at 5 days.
You are assuming the media is going to hype the 5 day forecast and start saying a storm will hit a location in 5 days. As much as the media can and does hype things, I don't agree that they will be hyping the 5 day "landfall locations" if indeed any are given, which I doubt. I too an going to be interested to see if there are any changes in the way the media handles the new forecast, but I think you are assuming that they will give a certain location like Melbourne or Miami in the 5 day. We will have to wait and see unless someone can probvide us with prior knowledge.
Other points:
1. The NHC should regulate how the media conveys information. Unless a storm is threatening an area enough to raise a hurricane watch, no claims of a landfall should be made. Instead, warnings should be conveyed in an informational, non-sensational way.
I agree fully with your last sentence. However, you will hear screams of "CENSORSHIP" if there is any attempt to "regulate" the media and how it conveys information. The only way they will be able to "regulate" how it is conveyed to the public is by limiting the amount of information they provide to the media. Unfortunately(maybe), this is all but impossible in this day of immediate information availibility from multiple sources.
2. People should ignore the media when a storm seems destined towards their location during days 4-5 period of a forecast. Instead, I'd acutally recommend that people listen to a NOAA weather radio or get advisories VIA computer. The media should only be used if a storm is very close or if interests in a certain area have no other means of information.
Good luck with this one. Millions of people have no idea what a NOAA radio is. Millions do not have computer access and many of the millions that do are not versed in the weather sites and weather information availability on the internet. Again, limiting the media access or access to the media will raise screams of "CENSORSHIP"!
3. Making 5-day forecasts available this soon may prove to be a mistake simply because of misinterpretation by users.
I agree and disagree here. Some of us that are more versed than the general public about tropical weather may even misinterpret this information. Hopefully not, but it is a possiblility. Some of us have misinterpreted what we have recieved from the NHC prior to the implementation of the 5 day forecast, so... it remains to be seen.
Finally, Derek, I was wondering by what you meant when you said that the public only uses Public Advisories. Well, the general public also sees forecasted tracks, which is actually a seperate product from the public advisory. The public advisory gives little more than current information on the intensity and current heading of a storm. Just wanted to clarify there.
Good point. However, I feel that most of the media, at least in Hurricane prone areas is pretty good about not overhyping these products. I'm not saying it isn't done, but I haven't seen any that has disturbed me in the past . Hopefully, they will continue to be "conservative" along these lines.
To say the least it will definitely be interesting to see how all of this pans out or changes with the new format!
