Is the NHC track possible?

[yoda]

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.

I don't understand. The NHC is responsible for drawing and making the graphs. Why would a forecaster call something erroneous if he made it?

[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.

I don't understand. The NHC is responsible for drawing and making the graphs. Why would a forecaster call something erroneous if he made it?

How do you know that the NHC forecaster himself was responsible for drawing that graph?

Obviously, you are not getting it. I give up. Good night.

[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?

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.

I understand basic knowledge of hurricane tracks very well. The point I am trying to make is how do you know the NHC was indicating a deeper parabolic curve inland opposed to a more shallow one. It could go both ways dependent on interpretation of the map. Although I agree they I doubt they intend to imply those sharp changes of direction.

[yoda]

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.

I don't understand. The NHC is responsible for drawing and making the graphs. Why would a forecaster call something erroneous if he made it?

How do you know that the NHC forecaster himself was responsible for drawing that graph?

Obviously, you are not getting it. I give up. Good night.

The NHC makes the graph... that is the point. You brought in parabolic curves, which have more area than a line. A line is the simplest way between two points. I know what I am seeing and I understand.

[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?

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.

I don't understand. The NHC is responsible for drawing and making the graphs. Why would a forecaster call something erroneous if he made it?

How do you know that the NHC forecaster himself was responsible for drawing that graph?

Obviously, you are not getting it. I give up. Good night.

I really highly doubt that a nationally televised, web-published, public product that HAS the NHC TPC on it is not at least examined by a experienced forecaster before release to the public, and that the product is not what they feel is "the best" product to release.

[yoda]

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.

I don't understand. The NHC is responsible for drawing and making the graphs. Why would a forecaster call something erroneous if he made it?

How do you know that the NHC forecaster himself was responsible for drawing that graph?

Obviously, you are not getting it. I give up. Good night.

I really highly doubt that a nationally televised, web-published, public product that HAS the NHC TPC on it is not at least examined by a experienced forecaster before release to the public, and that the product is not what they feel is "the best" product to release.

That is correct. Parabolic curves? Never in a NHC map.

[ColinD]

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.

Well, if you want to use calculus you should think of infinitely small steps (dx) along the way which show a smooth curve and not straight lines. If you imagine that a parabolic graph is the path of an idealized hurricane and then picked points at days 1,2,3,4, and 5 on it and put down points you wouldn't then connect the dots to show the expected path.

You've mentioned the shortest distance between two points. However, hurricanes don't follow the shortest distance between two points, nor even do the forecasts. If they did, you would just connect the current location with the forecast 5 day location and that would be the "forecast track".

The NHC draws the lines straight between forecast locations as a convention. Take a look at the navy map ...

http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/tc_pages/04_ ... _full.html

[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.

Well, if you want to use calculus you should think of infinitely small steps (dx) along the way which show a smooth curve and not straight lines. If you imagine that a parabolic graph is the path of an idealized hurricane and then picked points at days 1,2,3,4, and 5 on it and put down points you wouldn't then connect the dots to show the expected path.

You've mentioned the shortest distance between two points. However, hurricanes don't follow the shortest distance between two points, nor even do the forecasts. If they did, you would just connect the current location with the forecast 5 day location and that would be the "forecast track".

The NHC draws the lines straight between forecast locations as a convention. Take a look at the navy map ...

http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/tc_pages/04_ ... _full.html

Yes... Good post.

[HurricaneGirl]

[yoda]

:eek:

What does that mean?

[hiflyer]

very interesting thread....and I think Stewart at the NHC was pointing out the same thing in his 5pm discussion yesterday about points.....

USERS ARE CAUTIONED TO NOT FOCUS ON THE SPECIFIC FORECAST POINTS
DUE TO FORECAST UNCERTAINTY...THE LARGE SIZE OF THE HURRICANE...AND
BECAUSE JEANNE COULD TAKE A MORE ROUNDED PATH NEAR LANDFALL THAN
IMPLIED BY SIMPLY CONNECTING THE 48 AND 72 HOUR FORECAST POINTS. A
60-HR POINT WOULD BE CLOSE TO 26.7N 79.8W WITH A 100-KT INTENSITY.

So why doesn't the NHC publish it that way? A first thought would be that the map/chart is a strictly computer generated image based on points and not a hand drawn line....

[yoda]

very interesting thread....and I think Stewart at the NHC was pointing out the same thing in his 5pm discussion yesterday about points.....

USERS ARE CAUTIONED TO NOT FOCUS ON THE SPECIFIC FORECAST POINTS
DUE TO FORECAST UNCERTAINTY...THE LARGE SIZE OF THE HURRICANE...AND
BECAUSE JEANNE COULD TAKE A MORE ROUNDED PATH NEAR LANDFALL THAN
IMPLIED BY SIMPLY CONNECTING THE 48 AND 72 HOUR FORECAST POINTS. A
60-HR POINT WOULD BE CLOSE TO 26.7N 79.8W WITH A 100-KT INTENSITY.

So why doesn't the NHC publish it that way? A first thought would be that the map/chart is a strictly computer generated image based on points and not a hand drawn line....

Do I need to explain why they use lines AGAIN?

[ay]

very interesting thread....and I think Stewart at the NHC was pointing out the same thing in his 5pm discussion yesterday about points.....

USERS ARE CAUTIONED TO NOT FOCUS ON THE SPECIFIC FORECAST POINTS
DUE TO FORECAST UNCERTAINTY...THE LARGE SIZE OF THE HURRICANE...AND
BECAUSE JEANNE COULD TAKE A MORE ROUNDED PATH NEAR LANDFALL THAN
IMPLIED BY SIMPLY CONNECTING THE 48 AND 72 HOUR FORECAST POINTS. A
60-HR POINT WOULD BE CLOSE TO 26.7N 79.8W WITH A 100-KT INTENSITY.

So why doesn't the NHC publish it that way? A first thought would be that the map/chart is a strictly computer generated image based on points and not a hand drawn line....

Do I need to explain why they use lines AGAIN?

No, its obvious to anyone who follows storms and knows how to read. The NHC has no reason to have hidden meanings in its forecasts. These lines are their very BEST educated guess of where this is going to go, but they allow for errors of sometimes 100's of miles in either direction. All you have to do is read.

[yoda]

very interesting thread....and I think Stewart at the NHC was pointing out the same thing in his 5pm discussion yesterday about points.....

USERS ARE CAUTIONED TO NOT FOCUS ON THE SPECIFIC FORECAST POINTS
DUE TO FORECAST UNCERTAINTY...THE LARGE SIZE OF THE HURRICANE...AND
BECAUSE JEANNE COULD TAKE A MORE ROUNDED PATH NEAR LANDFALL THAN
IMPLIED BY SIMPLY CONNECTING THE 48 AND 72 HOUR FORECAST POINTS. A
60-HR POINT WOULD BE CLOSE TO 26.7N 79.8W WITH A 100-KT INTENSITY.

So why doesn't the NHC publish it that way? A first thought would be that the map/chart is a strictly computer generated image based on points and not a hand drawn line....

Do I need to explain why they use lines AGAIN?

No, its obvious to anyone who follows storms and knows how to read. The NHC has no reason to have hidden meanings in its forecasts. These lines are their very BEST educated guess of where this is going to go, but they allow for errors of sometimes 100's of miles in either direction. All you have to do is read.

FINALLY!! A GOOD POST!!