NHC Cone of Uncertainty For After 3 Days Is Not Helpful
Moderator: S2k Moderators
Forum rules
The posts in this forum are NOT official forecasts and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K. For official information, please refer to products from the National Hurricane Center and National Weather Service.
-
gatorcane
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 23703
- Age: 47
- Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 3:54 pm
- Location: Boca Raton, FL
The 5 day cone is very rarely accurate people! How often is the 5 day cone correct? It also covers a 300+ mile swath which is totally unrealistic. If a storm is entering the Gulf from the Caribbean, this means that the entire Gulf is usually at risk. How realistic is that? I agree with Cyclonaut...the 5 day cone causes fear. We don't need a 5 day notice that a storm is coming. 3 days is more than enough. Until the NHC can perfect the 5 day outlook, then they should not even display it.
0 likes
-
Derek Ortt
boca_chris wrote: I agree with Cyclonaut...the 5 day cone causes fear. We don't need a 5 day notice that a storm is coming. 3 days is more than enough. Until the NHC can perfect the 5 day outlook, then they should not even display it.
With all due respect Boca_Chris, I do not think the 5 day cone causes fear. I think it is a good "forecasting tool" to alert people that the "potential" exist that a tropical storm or hurricane may affect your area in the next 3 - 5 day period and that everyone in that cone of "uncertainty" should pay close attention the the forecast untill that "potential threat" passes. Thoughts and comments welcomed.
Robert
0 likes
-
vbhoutex
- Storm2k Executive
- Posts: 29133
- Age: 74
- Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 11:31 pm
- Location: Cypress, TX
- Contact:
TampaFl wrote:boca_chris wrote: I agree with Cyclonaut...the 5 day cone causes fear. We don't need a 5 day notice that a storm is coming. 3 days is more than enough. Until the NHC can perfect the 5 day outlook, then they should not even display it.
With all due respect Boca_Chris, I do not think the 5 day cone causes fear. I think it is a good "forecasting tool" to alert people that the "potential" exist that a tropical storm or hurricane may affect your area in the next 3 - 5 day period and that everyone in that cone of "uncertainty" should pay close attention the the forecast untill that "potential threat" passes. Thoughts and comments welcomed.
Robert
Couldn't have said it better Robert.
Boca-Chris your comment about the Gulf is way off base because when a tropical cyclone gets into the GOM someone along the Gulf coast is going to experience it unless it dissapates in the middle of the GOM. Better to have everyone aware or as you say "scared" and nothing happen than to not have enough time to prepare and avoid the rush at the stores. I have been around for 53 years and 50 of those are on the Gulf coast and I can do nothing but applaud the NHC for their continued improvement over the years.
Since you are so dead set against the five day what do you propose they do? Say nothing about the possibility of a storm hitting till it is three days out?
0 likes
-
gatorcane
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 23703
- Age: 47
- Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 3:54 pm
- Location: Boca Raton, FL
I'm glad we had some good discussion on this topic. The majority of responses are in favor of the 5 day cone. I accept your opinion on the subject and have found self-edification through your responses. The bottom line is that the 5 day cone is useful even though it represents a very broad prediction 
0 likes
-
cyclonaut
-
senorpepr
- Military Met/Moderator
- Posts: 12542
- Age: 43
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2003 9:22 pm
- Location: Mackenbach, Germany
- Contact:
Boca_chris,
Take a look at NHC's graphic archives. When the Java loads up, click on the Watch/Warn 5-day button. I've posted the links to the individual systems below.
Hrcn Alex: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2004/AL ... hics.shtml
You really can't complain about the five-day forecaster here. It stayed within the cone throughout the life cycle. Although Alex formed near land to begin with, the forecasters at NHC should be given a hand for the forecast track of this system, especially since it was the first of the year after nearly an eight month break from forecasting Atlantic cyclones.
TS Bonnie: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2004/BO ... hics.shtml
During the formitive stages of Bonnie, the forecast was bad. Not only the five-day forecast, but the three-day forecast. You can't single out the five-day as being a point of failure here. The synoptic pattern was giving the forecasters a hard time. However, once Bonnie reformed in the GOM, the five-day forecast was really good. Overall, the five day was a success, once you discount the entire forecast process error at the beginning of the lifecycle, which, once again, was no fault to the five-day.
Hrcn Charlie: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2004/CH ... hics.shtml
Wow... Look at the first panel. Advisory one. Tell me that the five-day forecast is poor. That is a phenonmenal forecast. It had Charley passing just to the west of Jamaica and just to the west of Cuba. By advisory six, the forecast changes some. Jamaica is in the path as well as the western provinces of Cuba. Florida is also pin-pointed. Punta Gorta is well within the cone. The margin of error at this point is really low. Continue to step through and the Florida landfall is within 100mi even before Charley makes landfall in Jamaica. Step through the rest of the package and you'll see that the margin of error with Charley is really low. You must applaude the forecasting skills here. IMO, the five-day was a full success here.
Hrcn Danielle: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2004/DA ... hics.shtml
The five-day was really good with this system until advisory 20, when Danielle stalled to the SW of the Azores. However, until then it did a really good job. Once Danielle started moving again, she stayed inline with the five-day.
TS Earl: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2004/EA ... hics.shtml
With Earl's short life cycle, it's hard to judge the five-day here, but the biggest thing to remember is that the forecast was expecting a developed system when, in fact, the system fell apart.
Hrcn Frances: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2004/FR ... hics.shtml
The first few panels had Frances aimed toward Bermuda. Okay, that wasn't too good, but Bermuda wasn't in the cone, yet, and Frances was still developing. However, by advisory six, the cone points toward the Bahamas. Not to shabby in my book. Advisory 16 has the first landfall in the Bahamas. The forecast trend adjusts some, but overall, the five-day error is no more than the allotted error for three-days out. Advisory 24 points out Florida's landfalling point. The forecast never varies more than 50-100mi from that point forward. The five-day success here was right on. To say that the product is worthless and instills nothing but fear is illogical.
Hrcn Gaston: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2004/GA ... hics.shtml
There wasn't much of a life to this system, but nonetheless, the five-day forecast was really good.
TS Hermine: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2004/HE ... hics.shtml
There wasn't a five-day forecast on Hermine, once again, thanks to a short life. Nonetheless, the forecast was really good pointing to a Massachusetts landfall from the get-go.
Hrcn Ivan: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2004/IV ... hics.shtml
First, the inital forecasts of the landfall in the Lesser Antilles was fairly good. It was well within the margin of error. Instead of hitting the central islands, it hit the southern. Not too shabby. The forecasting of a landfall to Hispaniola didn't happen. That was a fault, but mainly due to the synoptic pattern. Even the three-day forecast was faulty. By advisory 19, western Cuba is a target. That was pretty good. By advisory 27, Florida was a target again, near where Charley made landfall. Of course, this was not correct in the long run. Advisory 30 had the actual landfall point in the cone. Advisory 47 had Ivan barely touching the western coast of Cuba. The margin of error here five days out was really good. Also at this point, the landfall in Alabama was focused in and had been since advisory 44. This is 84 hours out from when the landfall was first in the "cone." Nice leadtime. By the time Ivan made landfall in Alabama, they had 72 hours of leadtime when the track was over them and 156 hours (6.5 days) of leadtime from just being in the cone. Although at first a lot of attention was pointed toward Florida, the overall five-day forecast was pretty much a success here by pointing out the landfall point well ahead of time. The Louisianan landfall of Ivan can't really be focused for a five-day forecast because of it's short lifespan at that point.
Hrcn Jeanne: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2004/JE ... hics.shtml
The first part of the forecast was not too bad four days out. Remember, the dynamics of the system changed a lot when it hung up in Hispaniola. Nonetheless, the Bahamas had the lead time. At advisory 13, the South Carolina/Georgia border was targeted. The Florida landfall point, however, is well within the cone. By advisory 16, Florida was pointed toward, but by advisory 17, the system had become nearly stationary, causing havoc to the charts and to the forecasters' minds. After Jeanne started moving toward the US again, the timing of a trough played a huge problem with the forecast track. Nonetheless, Florida remained in the cone. In this case, the five day forecast didn't work out so well. Regardless, the cone itself did help out.
Hrcn Karl: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2004/KA ... hics.shtml
Karl's forecast was really good. There was some problems with the track well up north. Hints toward a Canadian landfall became hints toward an Icelandic landfall. Either way, the overall performance of the five-day here was fairly good.
Hrcn Lisa: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2004/LI ... hics.shtml
Although Lisa's forecasters battled a subtropical ridge that didn't know what it wanted to do. Regardless, the overall performance of the five-day track with Lisa was very good.
TS Matthew: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2004/MA ... hics.shtml
The inital panel of Matthew's forecast didn't verify at all with the end result. Once again, this isn't just a five-day problem. The one-day forecast had a hefty error for it's average.
STS Nicole: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2004/NI ... hics.shtml
Nicole's overall track wasn't too awful. It's somewhat difficult to judge because the system was a hybrid, but the overall track did verify with Nicole landing in Canada along the cone.
TS Otto: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2004/OT ... hics.shtml
Otto was another tough system for verify. Nonetheless, the forecast wasn't too great at first, but quickly snapped to a low margin of error.
Bottom lime, just looking at 2005's systems, the five-day forecast verified more often than not. Even if the track itself didn't line up, the cone gave a good heads up until the three-day cone defined things. It's a great tool to use for emergency crews and people in general to prepare for. It gives a good look foward at the time of an impending cyclone. Furthermore, it is a real asset for ships, not only military but commerical and private, whose forward speed is very limited and the extra 48 hours of prep time is worthy.
-Mike
Take a look at NHC's graphic archives. When the Java loads up, click on the Watch/Warn 5-day button. I've posted the links to the individual systems below.
Hrcn Alex: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2004/AL ... hics.shtml
You really can't complain about the five-day forecaster here. It stayed within the cone throughout the life cycle. Although Alex formed near land to begin with, the forecasters at NHC should be given a hand for the forecast track of this system, especially since it was the first of the year after nearly an eight month break from forecasting Atlantic cyclones.
TS Bonnie: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2004/BO ... hics.shtml
During the formitive stages of Bonnie, the forecast was bad. Not only the five-day forecast, but the three-day forecast. You can't single out the five-day as being a point of failure here. The synoptic pattern was giving the forecasters a hard time. However, once Bonnie reformed in the GOM, the five-day forecast was really good. Overall, the five day was a success, once you discount the entire forecast process error at the beginning of the lifecycle, which, once again, was no fault to the five-day.
Hrcn Charlie: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2004/CH ... hics.shtml
Wow... Look at the first panel. Advisory one. Tell me that the five-day forecast is poor. That is a phenonmenal forecast. It had Charley passing just to the west of Jamaica and just to the west of Cuba. By advisory six, the forecast changes some. Jamaica is in the path as well as the western provinces of Cuba. Florida is also pin-pointed. Punta Gorta is well within the cone. The margin of error at this point is really low. Continue to step through and the Florida landfall is within 100mi even before Charley makes landfall in Jamaica. Step through the rest of the package and you'll see that the margin of error with Charley is really low. You must applaude the forecasting skills here. IMO, the five-day was a full success here.
Hrcn Danielle: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2004/DA ... hics.shtml
The five-day was really good with this system until advisory 20, when Danielle stalled to the SW of the Azores. However, until then it did a really good job. Once Danielle started moving again, she stayed inline with the five-day.
TS Earl: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2004/EA ... hics.shtml
With Earl's short life cycle, it's hard to judge the five-day here, but the biggest thing to remember is that the forecast was expecting a developed system when, in fact, the system fell apart.
Hrcn Frances: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2004/FR ... hics.shtml
The first few panels had Frances aimed toward Bermuda. Okay, that wasn't too good, but Bermuda wasn't in the cone, yet, and Frances was still developing. However, by advisory six, the cone points toward the Bahamas. Not to shabby in my book. Advisory 16 has the first landfall in the Bahamas. The forecast trend adjusts some, but overall, the five-day error is no more than the allotted error for three-days out. Advisory 24 points out Florida's landfalling point. The forecast never varies more than 50-100mi from that point forward. The five-day success here was right on. To say that the product is worthless and instills nothing but fear is illogical.
Hrcn Gaston: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2004/GA ... hics.shtml
There wasn't much of a life to this system, but nonetheless, the five-day forecast was really good.
TS Hermine: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2004/HE ... hics.shtml
There wasn't a five-day forecast on Hermine, once again, thanks to a short life. Nonetheless, the forecast was really good pointing to a Massachusetts landfall from the get-go.
Hrcn Ivan: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2004/IV ... hics.shtml
First, the inital forecasts of the landfall in the Lesser Antilles was fairly good. It was well within the margin of error. Instead of hitting the central islands, it hit the southern. Not too shabby. The forecasting of a landfall to Hispaniola didn't happen. That was a fault, but mainly due to the synoptic pattern. Even the three-day forecast was faulty. By advisory 19, western Cuba is a target. That was pretty good. By advisory 27, Florida was a target again, near where Charley made landfall. Of course, this was not correct in the long run. Advisory 30 had the actual landfall point in the cone. Advisory 47 had Ivan barely touching the western coast of Cuba. The margin of error here five days out was really good. Also at this point, the landfall in Alabama was focused in and had been since advisory 44. This is 84 hours out from when the landfall was first in the "cone." Nice leadtime. By the time Ivan made landfall in Alabama, they had 72 hours of leadtime when the track was over them and 156 hours (6.5 days) of leadtime from just being in the cone. Although at first a lot of attention was pointed toward Florida, the overall five-day forecast was pretty much a success here by pointing out the landfall point well ahead of time. The Louisianan landfall of Ivan can't really be focused for a five-day forecast because of it's short lifespan at that point.
Hrcn Jeanne: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2004/JE ... hics.shtml
The first part of the forecast was not too bad four days out. Remember, the dynamics of the system changed a lot when it hung up in Hispaniola. Nonetheless, the Bahamas had the lead time. At advisory 13, the South Carolina/Georgia border was targeted. The Florida landfall point, however, is well within the cone. By advisory 16, Florida was pointed toward, but by advisory 17, the system had become nearly stationary, causing havoc to the charts and to the forecasters' minds. After Jeanne started moving toward the US again, the timing of a trough played a huge problem with the forecast track. Nonetheless, Florida remained in the cone. In this case, the five day forecast didn't work out so well. Regardless, the cone itself did help out.
Hrcn Karl: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2004/KA ... hics.shtml
Karl's forecast was really good. There was some problems with the track well up north. Hints toward a Canadian landfall became hints toward an Icelandic landfall. Either way, the overall performance of the five-day here was fairly good.
Hrcn Lisa: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2004/LI ... hics.shtml
Although Lisa's forecasters battled a subtropical ridge that didn't know what it wanted to do. Regardless, the overall performance of the five-day track with Lisa was very good.
TS Matthew: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2004/MA ... hics.shtml
The inital panel of Matthew's forecast didn't verify at all with the end result. Once again, this isn't just a five-day problem. The one-day forecast had a hefty error for it's average.
STS Nicole: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2004/NI ... hics.shtml
Nicole's overall track wasn't too awful. It's somewhat difficult to judge because the system was a hybrid, but the overall track did verify with Nicole landing in Canada along the cone.
TS Otto: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2004/OT ... hics.shtml
Otto was another tough system for verify. Nonetheless, the forecast wasn't too great at first, but quickly snapped to a low margin of error.
Bottom lime, just looking at 2005's systems, the five-day forecast verified more often than not. Even if the track itself didn't line up, the cone gave a good heads up until the three-day cone defined things. It's a great tool to use for emergency crews and people in general to prepare for. It gives a good look foward at the time of an impending cyclone. Furthermore, it is a real asset for ships, not only military but commerical and private, whose forward speed is very limited and the extra 48 hours of prep time is worthy.
-Mike
0 likes
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: StormWeather and 584 guests