CONTENT UPDATE to Page 165

The National Hurricane Center has changed two aspects of 3- and 5-day forecast cones. First, the cones are no longer drawn based on 10-year average-error circles around the forecast points. Instead, the cone width is set so that the center of the storm will be expected to stay inside the cone 2/3 of the time based on the average NHC forecasts errors over the last five years. The net effect of this change is small. The cone covering the first 72 hours of the forecast will be similar in size to one that would have been drawn under the old system, while the 96 and 120-hour parts of the cone will be slightly larger.

Secondly, the NHC now offers a version of the cone without the evil center line on its website. They still include the forecast points, however, so anyone with an ounce of imagination can mentally connect the dots.

This is a pointless addition, in my opinion. As I point out in the book, the center line is misleading, period. The odds of the center of tropical cyclone deviating significantly from that line are essentially the same as the storm staying “on track”. Why perpetuate the dissemination of a misleading graphic?

Okay, you asked, I’ll tell you why. The National Weather Service (the people in Washington, not the National Hurricane Center in Miami) did an internet survey where they asked people to vote on either the existing graphic with the line down the center or a similar graphic that was line-free. Well, guess what? The line won hands down. Fewer than 1000 people voted, and they had to have been weather-weenies because the process was hidden in the fine print at the top of the NHC webpage.

But, the survey was pseudo-science at its worst. They asked the opinion of people all over the country (or the world, I imagine) their choice for a communications tool used to help save lives and property in the hurricane zone. Why would you ask someone in Michigan (not to pick on Michigan) what graphic he or she would prefer if your goal is to communicate with people at risk from a hurricane? A Michiganite with an academic interest in hurricanes might, understandably, like the line. But that doesn’t make it a good graphic for emergency communications.

This ridiculous episode just further points to an inescapable conclusion. The entire package of National Weather Service and National Hurricane Center text products and graphics should be reevaluated by people that know something about communicating with the public. The system in use today is an extension of the bulletin package that was designed in the 1960s to communicate with the media (a much different media than now exists) and other government agencies. It was never intended for public dissemination.

The process should set as its goal determining the best way to inform and motivate people facing the treat of a hurricane. Period. And, the people in Washington should stay out of it.