Hurricane Myth vs. Fact

[wobblehead]

This information from the NOAA website:




Hurricane Myth vs. Fact

Myth: Funding for the National Hurricane Center (NHC) has been cut.
FACT:

The NHC budget has increased 37 percent from $4.6 million in FY 03 to $6.3 million in FY 07. The FY 2007 budget represents an increase of over 10 percent from the FY 06 allocation including funding for four senior-level hurricane forecasters who have been added to NHC staff.
The weather warning and forecast program is a clearly stated budget priority for NOAA. NOAA invests over $300 million per year for hurricane research and forecasting. Since FY 2005, the Administration has added over $40 million in additional resources to sustain and improve hurricane warnings and forecasts. The FY 08 President’s Budget for NOAA includes over $10 million in program increases for our hurricane program.
Myth: NOAA cut $700,000 from hurricane research programs.
FACT: NOAA Hurricane Research Program funding remains consistent with FY 06 funding levels. Funding for one program, the Joint Hurricane Testbed, was reallocated to a higher priority hurricane research project, an updated Hurricane Forecast Model (H-WRF) which will improve hurricane intensity and rainfall forecasts this year.

Myth: NOAA does not have a plan to replace QuikSCAT.
FACT: QuikSCAT is a NASA research satellite whose importance to hurricane forecasting was validated over several years after its launch in 1999. In 2006, NOAA convened a workshop of internal and external experts to study this issue; they recommended that NOAA develop a plan to replace QuikSCAT capability. As a result, a technical review group is preparing to recommend options for replacing QuikSCAT data. In the meantime, we are working with other U.S. and European satellites to ensure the continuity of QuickSCAT data.

Myth: If QuikSCAT fails, hurricane forecasters will be “blind.”
FACT: Wrong. While QuikSCAT provides important data that may reduce some of the uncertainty of our hurricane track forecast, forecasters have access to other observations of tropical storms. The primary hurricane monitoring satellite, GOES-12, is fully operational, with a back-up on orbit. In addition, polar orbiting satellites remain continuously operational with ground backup. These satellites are more essential to hurricane forecasting than QuikSCAT and are top priority. Satellite data is used in combination with hurricane buoys, hurricane hunter aircraft, air-borne Doppler radar, dropwindsondes, and the experience and skill of NOAA’s forecasters to predict tropical storm impacts.

Myth: If we lose QuikSCAT data, more lives will be put at risk during a hurricane.
FACT: Absolutely not. NOAA’s number one priority is to protect lives. In certain circumstances, QuikSCAT data has helped refine the accuracy of hurricane track forecasts. The loss of QuikSCAT data could potentially increase the size of the warned area. However, data from aircraft are considered most critical for forecasting landfalling storms.

Myth: NOAA is spending millions on a 200th anniversary “celebration” instead of funding hurricane research priorities.
FACT: The 200th program is part of NOAA’s normal outreach activities run every year to provide people with information about the services NOAA offers that can saves lives and property, protect natural resources and benefit the economy. Because of other funding priorities, NOAA’s National Weather Service did not contribute funds to this outreach and education program.

For more information contact the NOAA Office of Communications at (202) 482-6090 or visit our Web site at http://www.noaa.gov/.


NOAA Public Affairs | Reporter Resources | NOAA Home Page || NOAA Backgrounders

Updated July 2007

[JonathanBelles]

Sounds like a cover up to me.

[wobblehead]

Some damage control for sure. It does make me wonder if Proenza was pulling a stunt to drum up public support to pressure congress for more money or, as it seems now, he was way out in left field.

[WindRunner]

Myth: If we lose QuikSCAT data, more lives will be put at risk during a hurricane.
FACT: Absolutely not. NOAA’s number one priority is to protect lives. In certain circumstances, QuikSCAT data has helped refine the accuracy of hurricane track forecasts. The loss of QuikSCAT data could potentially increase the size of the warned area. However, data from aircraft are considered most critical for forecasting landfalling storms.

Umm, why does NOAA think this is true? Granted, warned areas are based off of average track error and losing QS would inrease error over the open ocean, but we all know that QS isn't used and often shouldn't be used near land, as we have better data sources. Therefore near-land forecasts wouldn't be affected, therefore posing no need to increase warned area.

I'm sure this has been said several times before, but I find it suprising that this information is still being distributed by NOAA.

[CrazyC83]

A larger warning area could create a scenario of "crying wolf"...

[superg77]

That is such a measly budget. Are we supposed to be impressed with a 37% increase over a four year period? You would think after 2005 it would be much higher - like double or triple. I think Proenza was trying to drum up public support for lots of phone calls to be made to Washington but his effort failed.

[MGC]

CYA....MGC

[Berwick Bay]

I agree with several of the responses in this thread, another words "CYA". I don't really like the title to this thread either. I thought I'd be reading about hurricanes, not a govt. agency with public relations problems.

[Toadstool]

I agree... surprising the end of the article didn't finish with...
$$ FORECASTERS AVILA & FRANKLIN $$

[wobblehead]

I agree with several of the responses in this thread, another words "CYA". I don't really like the title to this thread either. [/b]I thought I'd be reading about hurricanes, not a govt. agency with public relations problems.

The thread title is exactly as that listed on the NOAA website. No intention on my part to deceive anyone here.

[TreasureIslandFLGal]

I agree with several of the responses in this thread, another words "CYA". I don't really like the title to this thread either. I thought I'd be reading about hurricanes, not a govt. agency with public relations problems.

Yeah, I know what you mean. It's like when I've gone into invest threads and had to sift through speculative pagan sensibilities and opaque poetry to find a morsel of fact based information!