HurricaneBelle wrote:RL3AO wrote:bg1 wrote:I've been wondering this for some time: why DON'T we have a dynamic cone that takes into account both past errors and current agreement/disagreement?
How would you define it? What errors do you account for? How long of a period? Which models do you use? Whats the process to change the models you use? Which ensembles? It's easy to ask why don't we have it. It's much harder to actually come up with something scientific to replace the current cone.
We already have a "cone" of sorts that takes into account error, the models, and most importantly, the scope of the expected impacts rather than the track-based cone that the public (and a large # of posters on this board) constantly misinterprets. NHC issues it with every advisory. It's the wind-speed probability map and for Jose it can be found here:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphic ... 0#contents
According to the website, this cone takes into account "error from previous years" which is similar wording to how the center forecast cone is created. Makes me think the error is not dynamic based on model guidance, just Monte Carlo simulations base on wind field size. Still a better impact cone though.
That being said, I think they could create a dynamic center forecast cone but it would need to be based on the models and statistics without manual changes. Until official NHC forecasts become worse than a computer generated forecast, the cone we have now is appropriate.