Is the NHC track possible?

[logybogy]

I find it really hard to believe it's going to go due west for 2 days and then miracously turn almost due North North West fifty miles off the coast of Broward/Palm Beach and spare south florida.

If it turns, it'll be a hell of a lot more gradual than this, especially with the way the ridge looks on water vapor

[yoda]

Due N? It turns NW due to the periphery around the high... I can take that track hands down.

[Dmetal81]

Almost as hard to believe as a loop in the middle of the atlantic? Or Ivan travelling back down the atlantic seaboard and reemerging in the GOM? Stranger things have happened.....

[logybogy]

Look at the water vaper. The high continues to build west.

http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/DATA/RT ... -loop.html

[Dmetal81]

This would be as forecasted then, notice the high still doesnt extend all the way into florida, also, the high is forecast to be moving east and receding as Jeanne reaches florida.

[SwampDawg]

Ok...enough of this..is anyone ready for winter yet??

[yoda]

Ok...enough of this..is anyone ready for winter yet??

Ooh! Ooh! I AM!!!

[LarryWx]

The problem is with this website's track's "dots" being connected by STRAIGHT LINES. The intent of the NHC is for them to instead be connected with smooth curves since that is how hurricanes generally track. I see this as a very misleading and downright erroneous graph. This is very disappointing since this is a NWS graph and it needs to be corrected.

[yoda]

The problem is with this website's track's "dots" being connected by STRAIGHT LINES. The intent of the NHC is for them to instead be connected with smooth curves since that is how hurricanes generally track. I see this as a very misleading and downright erroneous graph. This is very disappointing since this is a NWS graph and it needs to be corrected.

How's it misleading? The dots are where the eye is supposed to be...

[LarryWx]

The problem is with this website's track's "dots" being connected by STRAIGHT LINES. The intent of the NHC is for them to instead be connected with smooth curves since that is how hurricanes generally track. I see this as a very misleading and downright erroneous graph. This is very disappointing since this is a NWS graph and it needs to be corrected.

How's it misleading? The dots are where the eye is supposed to be...

Think before you roll your eyes.

Yes, the dots are where the eye is supposed to be. The problem isn't with the dots themselves, but rather with HOW THE DOTS ARE CONNECTED. It is total nonsense for them to be connected by straight lines rather than by a smooth parabolic curve!

For example:
1) Consider the line drawn from the 8 PM SAT position to the
8 PM SUN position. This nonsense implies landfall near the Cape Canaveral/Daytona area. In my opinion, it shouldn't be a LINE in the first place. It should be a parabolic curve that first crosses FL near Vero Beach and then rides up the coast NNWwesterly to the Canaveral/Daytona area.

2) Consider the line drawn from the 8 PM SUN position to the
8 PM MON position. I guarantee that the intent of the NHC is NOT for a sudden NNE straight line offshore from Daytona to Beaufort, SC after having moved NNWerly just before that time.

In reality, the NHC is implying a smooth parabolic track that rides the coast more or less from Vero to Savannah and then goes inland into SC.

3) The track in NC is actually much more inland than this erroneous graph shows.

[Dmetal81]

In reality its not the straight line to follow anyways, but the cone of probability. Hurricanes never stay on forecasted paths. They wobble too much, so to even follow that line exactly for planning purposes would be folly. They readily admit large errors even in their 24 hr forecasts, so why would anyone "follow the line"?

[yoda]

Ah, I understand you reasoning. But using parabolic curves only increases the area of the possible track. Therefore, using straight lines, it is the quickest to a point. Using lines is used IMO as a way of saying track.. and then the shaded region is possible areas it could go.

[ericinmia]

The lines are simply a means of saying:
"The storm is going to travel from this point to this point, should our forecast hold true."
It is not meant to accurately portray the actual track of where the eye will pass over, although, i understand how that could be easily misinterpreted.
-Eric

[LarryWx]

Ah, I understand you reasoning. But using parabolic curves only increases the area of the possible track. Therefore, using straight lines, it is the quickest to a point. Using lines is used IMO as a way of saying track.. and then the shaded region is possible areas it could go.

What on Earth are you saying? You're not making any sense in my opinion. I think you're grasping at straws. I say the graph wasn't drawn correctly and I'm sticking to it.

[yoda]

Ah, I understand you reasoning. But using parabolic curves only increases the area of the possible track. Therefore, using straight lines, it is the quickest to a point. Using lines is used IMO as a way of saying track.. and then the shaded region is possible areas it could go.

What on Earth are you saying? You're not making any sense in my opinion. I think you're grasping at straws. I say the graph wasn't drawn correctly and I'm sticking to it.

How am I not making sense? I was using calculus to illustrate my point.... oh well. Grasping at straws I am not.

[LarryWx]

The lines are simply a means of saying:
"The storm is going to travel from this point to this point, should our forecast hold true."
It is not meant to accurately portray the actual track of where the eye will pass over, although, i understand how that could be easily misinterpreted.
-Eric

Yes, they can be badly misinterpreted. The straight lines should not be there period. Why imply a track that doesn't match the projected curved track? I'd rather no lines be drawn for that matter.

[Dmetal81]

Question... if the NHC's track takes it more inland then its graphic, where is the graphic for that? Otherwise, how do you know the NHC's track takes it more inland than it says?

[LarryWx]

In reality its not the straight line to follow anyways, but the cone of probability. Hurricanes never stay on forecasted paths. They wobble too much, so to even follow that line exactly for planning purposes would be folly. They readily admit large errors even in their 24 hr forecasts, so why would anyone "follow the line"?

Actually, I don't disagree with your point. But I'd still rather NO track be shown instead of this track.

[yoda]

Yes, they can be badly misinterpreted. The straight lines should not be there period. Why imply a track that doesn't match the projected curved track? I'd rather no lines be drawn for that matter.

No lines? Then what would you have then have? Nothing? That is impossible. A line is required.

Question... if the NHC's track takes it more inland then its graphic, where is the graphic for that? Otherwise, how do you know the NHC's track takes it more inland than it says?

The track is a basis from the model consensus. If the models move back left, the track moves west. That is also why there is that big shaded cone region, which means that the TC could go anywhere in that area.

[LarryWx]

Question... if the NHC's track takes it more inland then its graphic, where is the graphic for that? Otherwise, how do you know the NHC's track takes it more inland than it says?

Very basic knowledge of hurricane tracks/common sense. Think of the implied parabolic curve.

I would bet you that if you were to ask the NHC forecaster about this, he would call it erroneous. I'd like to know who is responsible for drawing the graphs this way.