Hurricane cone is changing for 2024

[tolakram]

The hurricane cone is changing this upcoming hurricane season! Instead of a track forecast, the forecast will now include hazards. What you can expect where you live. This change was unveiled at #OSSTahoe.
@EdgewoodTahoe

Here is the info:
https://click2houston.com/weather/2024/01/23/houston-is-going-to-see-a-different-hurricane-forecast-this-year/

 https://x.com/KPRC2Anthony/status/1750217788009144620

[Hurricaneman]

The product keeps improving, I welcome this as many people think wind and coastal surge are the only problems but flooding rain is another big problem

[cycloneye]

Here is a video from one of Puerto Ricos mets conversation with Jaime Rhome of NHC about the new cone and more. Most is in English.

 https://twitter.com/adamonzon/status/1751199499978985666

[IsabelaWeather]

Honestly, I don't like it. I guess we will see when we get an actual storm on how it looks, but it looks far too " busy" based on the photos. Really seems to take away from what the cone represented. It was strictly to show the potential path, the watches and warnings told where people lived exactly what to expect...I dont understand why the cone we had used for years caused the average person so many issues, it wasnt exactly complicated.

[Hurricaneman]

Honestly, I don't like it. I guess we will see when we get an actual storm on how it looks, but it looks far too " busy" based on the photos. Really seems to take away from what the cone represented. It was strictly to show the potential path, the watches and warnings told where people lived exactly what to expect...I dont understand why the cone we had used for years caused the average person so many issues, it wasnt exactly complicated.

People thought that in the cone meant it was a certain hit which in most cases isn’t true but was a probability cone

[Teban54]

Honestly, I don't like it. I guess we will see when we get an actual storm on how it looks, but it looks far too " busy" based on the photos. Really seems to take away from what the cone represented. It was strictly to show the potential path, the watches and warnings told where people lived exactly what to expect...I dont understand why the cone we had used for years caused the average person so many issues, it wasnt exactly complicated.

People thought that in the cone meant it was a certain hit which in most cases isn’t true but was a probability cone

The cone isn't even a statement of probability or confidence interval for the specific storm. It just means that when averaged across all storms in recent history, the track error has a 67% chance of falling within the cone. No specifics are applied to this particular system: whether every single model shows the storm landfalling in New Orleans 5 days out, or whether the spaghetti plot spreads from Houston to Tampa, the cone will look the same -- whereas the actual situation and preparations needed are very different.

Hazardous effects can also occur well outside of the center of the storm and outside the cone, and those effects are often asymmetrical (the east side is typically the worst). Those are not captured when both the NHC and most news channels primarily use the cone (with a focus of the storm's center) in their communications.

[IsabelaWeather]

Honestly, I don't like it. I guess we will see when we get an actual storm on how it looks, but it looks far too " busy" based on the photos. Really seems to take away from what the cone represented. It was strictly to show the potential path, the watches and warnings told where people lived exactly what to expect...I dont understand why the cone we had used for years caused the average person so many issues, it wasnt exactly complicated.

People thought that in the cone meant it was a certain hit which in most cases isn’t true but was a probability cone

The cone isn't even a statement of probability or confidence interval for the specific storm. It just means that when averaged across all storms in recent history, the track error has a 67% chance of falling within the cone. No specifics are applied to this particular system: whether every single model shows the storm landfalling in New Orleans 5 days out, or whether the spaghetti plot spreads from Houston to Tampa, the cone will look the same -- whereas the actual situation and preparations needed are very different.

Hazardous effects can also occur well outside of the center of the storm and outside the cone, and those effects are often asymmetrical (the east side is typically the worst). Those are not captured when both the NHC and most news channels primarily use the cone (with a focus of the storm's center) in their communications.

I do think the cone should have been adjusted per confidence level though, I think if they made that change it probably would have helped with public awareness. Like, if the models and NHC is really confident, then the track would show less variation, but if confidence was low it would be bigger, I dont understand the standardized size on every storm.

[tolakram]

People thought that in the cone meant it was a certain hit which in most cases isn’t true but was a probability cone

The cone isn't even a statement of probability or confidence interval for the specific storm. It just means that when averaged across all storms in recent history, the track error has a 67% chance of falling within the cone. No specifics are applied to this particular system: whether every single model shows the storm landfalling in New Orleans 5 days out, or whether the spaghetti plot spreads from Houston to Tampa, the cone will look the same -- whereas the actual situation and preparations needed are very different.

Hazardous effects can also occur well outside of the center of the storm and outside the cone, and those effects are often asymmetrical (the east side is typically the worst). Those are not captured when both the NHC and most news channels primarily use the cone (with a focus of the storm's center) in their communications.

I do think the cone should have been adjusted per confidence level though, I think if they made that change it probably would have helped with public awareness. Like, if the models and NHC is really confident, then the track would show less variation, but if confidence was low it would be bigger, I dont understand the standardized size on every storm.

I agree with this. A static cone size of statistical forecast accuracy is something I just don't understand. Make the graphic show the forecast and confidence in that forecast.

[cycloneye]

Will begin around August 15th.

 https://twitter.com/NWSMiami/status/1753054116874691060

[cycloneye]

 https://twitter.com/AndyHazelton/status/1754909259790262307

[SFLcane]

 https://x.com/RyanNBC6/status/1754932116360401357

[johngaltfla]

To be honest, I expected the change to mean the cone would always include the state of Florida, even it if a storm formed in the Bay of Bengal.

[chaser1]

I enjoyed that immensely!

[Michele B]

I like it. I think most people are inclined to look at the cone and figure that if they're outside the cone, there would be no impacts to them.

Depending on the severity, size and direction of the storm, there could be different impacts for lots of folks outside of the cone, and maybe this new cone will make them sit up and take notice of the fact that they may face some impacts from a storm several hundred miles away.

[storm_in_a_teacup]

67% uncertainty is definitely a choice. That’s like 1 sigma error bars.

In my field we typically plot 3 sigma or 90% confidence interval contours but that would probably make the cone way too wide

(I mean we use 1 sigma error bars too but I hope the layperson understand that there’s a 1/3 chance you’re gonna be outside those)