Hurricane Chief Warns Worse Forecasts Ahead if Key Sat Fails

This is the general tropical discussion area. Anyone can take their shot at predicting a storms path.

Moderator: S2k Moderators

Forum rules

The posts in this forum are NOT official forecasts and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K. For official information, please refer to products from the National Hurricane Center and National Weather Service.

Help Support Storm2K
Message
Author
User avatar
gatorcane
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 23692
Age: 47
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 3:54 pm
Location: Boca Raton, FL

Hurricane Chief Warns Worse Forecasts Ahead if Key Sat Fails

#1 Postby gatorcane » Fri Mar 16, 2007 3:11 pm

Just released :eek:

Hurricane Center chief warns worse forecasts ahead if key satellite fails

By JESSICA GRESKO
Associated Press
Posted March 16 2007, 3:50 PM EDT

MIAMI -- Certain hurricane forecasts could be up to 16 percent less accurate if a key weather satellite that is already beyond its expected lifespan fails, the National Hurricane Center's new director said Friday in calling for hundreds of millions of dollars in new funding for expanded research and predictions.

Bill Proenza also told The Associated Press in an wide-ranging interview that ties between global warming and increased hurricane strength seemed a ``natural linkage.'' But he cautioned that other weather conditions currently play a larger part in determining the strength and number of hurricanes.

LocalLinks

One of Proenza's immediate concerns is the so-called ``QuikScat'' weather satellite, which lets forecasters measure basics such as wind speed. Replacing it would take at least four years even if the estimated $400 million cost were available immediately, he said.

It is currently in its seventh year of operation and was expected to last five, Proenza said, and it is only a matter of time until it fails.

Without the satellite providing key data, Proenza said, both two- and three-day forecasts of a storm's path would be affected. The two-day forecast could be 10 percent worse while the three-day one could be affected up to 16 percent, Proenza said.

That would mean longer stretches of coastline would have to be placed under warnings, and more people than necessary would have to evacuate.

Average track errors last year were about 100 miles on two-day forecasts and 150 miles on three-day predictions. Track errors have been cut in half over the past 15 years. Losing QuikScat could erode some of those gains, Proenza acknowledged, adding he did not know of any plans to replace it.

Proenza, 62, also discussed a series of other concerns, naming New Orleans, the Northeast and the Florida Keys as among the areas most vulnerable to hurricanes. Apart from working with the media and emergency managers to help vulnerable residents prepare, he proposed having students come up with plans at school to discuss with their parents.

He said he believes hundreds of millions of dollars more money is needed to better understand storms.

At the same time, he strongly opposed a proposal to close any of the National Weather Service's 122 offices around the nation or have them operate part time, saying ``weather certainly doesn't take a holiday.''

Proenza took over one of meteorology's most highly visible posts in January. His predecessor, Max Mayfield, had held the top spot for six years.

Like Mayfield, Proenza stressed the importance of preparedness, but he also set out slightly different positions. Global warming was one of them.

Last year, the Caribbean and western Atlantic had the second-highest sea temperatures since 1930, but the season turned out to be quieter than expected, Proenza said.

``So there's got to be other factors working and impacting hurricanes and tropical storms than just sea surface temperatures or global warming,'' he said.

His comments distinguished him from Mayfield, who had said climate change didn't substantially enhance hurricane activity, especially the number of storms.

Both men talked about being in a period of heightened hurricane activity since 1995, as part of a natural fluctuation.


http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/ ... -headlines
0 likes   

User avatar
HURAKAN
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 46086
Age: 38
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 4:34 pm
Location: Key West, FL
Contact:

#2 Postby HURAKAN » Fri Mar 16, 2007 3:47 pm

Money should be spent to replace these satellites, without them we're almost blind.
0 likes   

Derek Ortt

#3 Postby Derek Ortt » Fri Mar 16, 2007 5:57 pm

Was that article taken out of context

Losing QS should cause greater intensity errors, including in the initial analysis of weak systems (as well as determining if systems are actually TCs or open waves) as it detects surface winds.

Many other sats though would cause severe track errors and all need to be replaced before the fail. The stakes are too high to risk going even a month of a season without them
0 likes   

wjs3
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 633
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:57 am

#4 Postby wjs3 » Sat Mar 17, 2007 6:45 am

I agreeDerek:

QS has always seemed most useful in closing off circulations or supporting intensity estimates in open ocean (beyond recon) ranges.

Especially misleading is that loss of QS means more of the coast would have to be placed under warning. I just don't think that's correct. By the time a system is within "warning" range, it's in recon range too, typically...and, QS isn't really used in track forecasting...unless somehow surface wind estimates fromQS are entered in models??? I don't think so, but don't know. I would think that the recon and other satelliete tools would be more than adequate than QS in a landfalling situation that I can recall.

WJS3
0 likes   

User avatar
vacanechaser
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1461
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 9:34 pm
Location: Portsmouth, Va
Contact:

#5 Postby vacanechaser » Sat Mar 17, 2007 11:33 am

wjs3 wrote:I agreeDerek:

QS has always seemed most useful in closing off circulations or supporting intensity estimates in open ocean (beyond recon) ranges.

Especially misleading is that loss of QS means more of the coast would have to be placed under warning. I just don't think that's correct. By the time a system is within "warning" range, it's in recon range too, typically...and, QS isn't really used in track forecasting...unless somehow surface wind estimates fromQS are entered in models??? I don't think so, but don't know. I would think that the recon and other satelliete tools would be more than adequate than QS in a landfalling situation that I can recall.

WJS3


couldnt agree more... just sounds like a tactic to get funding.. of course it needs to be replaced.. but he is now trying to play the game of finding or getting the money from the gov't...

i also noticed his linkage comment to global waming, where max did not believe that... just interesting to me..


Jesse V. Bass III
http://www.vastormphoto.com
Hurricane Intercept Research Team
0 likes   
Jesse V. Bass III
http://www.vastormphoto.com
Hurricane Intercept Research Team

User avatar
wxman57
Moderator-Pro Met
Moderator-Pro Met
Posts: 22997
Age: 67
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 8:06 pm
Location: Houston, TX (southwest)

#6 Postby wxman57 » Sat Mar 17, 2007 12:29 pm

Last year, the Caribbean and western Atlantic had the second-highest sea temperatures since 1930, but the season turned out to be quieter than expected, Proenza said.

``So there's got to be other factors working and impacting hurricanes and tropical storms than just sea surface temperatures or global warming,'' he said.

His comments distinguished him from Mayfield, who had said climate change didn't substantially enhance hurricane activity, especially the number of storms.

Both men talked about being in a period of heightened hurricane activity since 1995, as part of a natural fluctuation.


I think that the reporter is trying to make a story here. Both Mayfield and Proenza are saying the exact same thing. Each said that global warming doesn't appear to be the culprit.

Proenza: "there's got to be other factors working and impacting hurricanes and tropical storms than just sea surface temperatures or global warming"

Mayfield: "climate change didn't substantially enhance hurricane activity, especially the number of storms"

So where's the disagreement there?
0 likes   

User avatar
gatorcane
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 23692
Age: 47
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 3:54 pm
Location: Boca Raton, FL

#7 Postby gatorcane » Sat Mar 17, 2007 12:57 pm

wxman57 wrote:
Last year, the Caribbean and western Atlantic had the second-highest sea temperatures since 1930, but the season turned out to be quieter than expected, Proenza said.

``So there's got to be other factors working and impacting hurricanes and tropical storms than just sea surface temperatures or global warming,'' he said.

His comments distinguished him from Mayfield, who had said climate change didn't substantially enhance hurricane activity, especially the number of storms.

Both men talked about being in a period of heightened hurricane activity since 1995, as part of a natural fluctuation.


I think that the reporter is trying to make a story here. Both Mayfield and Proenza are saying the exact same thing. Each said that global warming doesn't appear to be the culprit.

Proenza: "there's got to be other factors working and impacting hurricanes and tropical storms than just sea surface temperatures or global warming"

Mayfield: "climate change didn't substantially enhance hurricane activity, especially the number of storms"

So where's the disagreement there?


You are right. The reporter needs to provide much stronger evidence. All the reporter claims is

"His comments distinguished him from Mayfield, who had said climate change didn't substantially enhance hurricane activity, especially the number of storms."

But the reporter doesn't back it up at all (at least I don't see any difference in the quotes WxMan referenced)
0 likes   

User avatar
Category 5
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 10074
Age: 35
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 10:00 pm
Location: New Brunswick, NJ
Contact:

#8 Postby Category 5 » Sat Mar 17, 2007 5:21 pm

The satelittes needs to be replaced, if we lose them it's almost like going back several decades.
0 likes   

Derek Ortt

#9 Postby Derek Ortt » Sat Mar 17, 2007 6:41 pm

can we stop with the hyperbole?

We wont be going back decades if QS is not replaced. All other sats will be working.

At worst, we'd be back to 1999 in terms of observations. Not ideal, but not the end of the word

Hyperbole is NOT the method to use to achieve one's ends... it turns people off to the cause
0 likes   


Return to “Talkin' Tropics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cainjamin, Google Adsense [Bot], Hurricaneman, LAF92, lolitx, MetroMike, Stratton23, wwizard and 43 guests