MWatkins wrote:Larry...
First of all great topic...it was well-thought out with really good examples...and I have often wondered the same thing...in fact I used to do that ALL the time when I graphed all of these tracks in XL back in the day...in fact I used curved/smoothed lines in my graphing tool rather than linier displays between points.
With that in mind, I think there would be the same problems with a curved line vs. a straight line between points. For example, how would you show the curve? If a storm was forecast to move westward for 9 hours, then due north for three, then the curve should be sharper and later in the grid than a storm that moves W for 6 hours and N for 6 hours.
Also, we know for a fact that storms wobble along track (see 1.54 million posts from last year on which was Ivan was moving (NW vs. WNW)) so how does that get communicated? After thinking about this all day, I believe I've rested on the opinion that you don't solve any of the problems the line causes with a curve...the same uncertainty is still there.
Furthermore...I wonder if any more detail is put into the line itself (in terms of how it's displayed) then wouldn't that tend to put more focus on the line and less on the dreaded cone of uncertainty.
However...perhaps a compromise can be reached. Perhaps more data points should be included when displaying the track. Perhaps adding 6 hour plots for the first 36 hours, then going to 12 through 120 would be the way to go. The forecast plots are determined at the 60, 84 and 108 hour intervals anyway...why not just include them in the track forecast instead of leaving a 24 hour gap in the forecast after 48 hours? Unless these gaps are intentional late in the period to convey uncertainty. It's also just as likely that the 12 to 24 hour track time spacing is done that way because that's the way it's always been done. Anyway more datapoints would help your concern about the shape of the track especially in the short term. But it may add to the line vs. cone concern.
Anyway...great post. If nothing else...it's a great example of how inexact and difficult hurricane track forecasting can be...
MW
Thanks Mike! It is interesting that you had thought along the same lines. I agree with you and others that whatever line there is of questionable value at best and that it isn't good to put too much emphasis on the line itself. To be truthful, I'd almost rather just have the dots with NO line or even no dots and just cones. Also, I personally wouldn't be crying if they got rid of the 4-5 day forecasts.
I still say that IF there must be a line, I'd prefer a smooth curve just like model curves. Regardless, I really like your idea of more data points by the way. That would certainly help make it smoother.
