NHC Director Bill Proenza re-assig,Ed Rappaport new director

[jasons2k]

I still find it odd that when the QuickSCAT/NOAA Anniversary story broke, everyone was on the side of Proenza. Jeff Masters, bloggers, NHC staff were all saying it would be a horrible thing to lose QuickSCAT, it would decrease forecast accuracy, etc. People were downright angry at NOAA for wasting millions of dollars on a non-existent celebration when we don't have adequate funding for research & equipment. Proenza was viewed as a hero.

Fast Forward a few weeks and everyone does a 180*. Suddenly the QS issue was blown out of proportion, we don't really need it, GOES & Recon are far more important, etc. Proenza is villified for using innacurate data, misrepresenting facts, and scaring the public. Some of the very same people who had supported his original argument had reversed course.

I understand why QS isn't an essential tool. But why the sudden change-of-heart? Did everyone forget that NOAA is wasting money on this celebration & branding campaign? I still think there's more to the story than what we're getting, but we'll probably never know the whole truth.

[dixiebreeze]

I doubt the action had anything to do with anything Proenza said. Sounds a lot more like sour grapes and shattered egos among the staff.

[Jevo]

Sorry I couldnt resist

[Air Force Met]

To tell you the truth.. i would like to know what he did wrong
i've heard that he was mad about abandoning the satelite.. and something about a budget problem..
but not having quikSCAT IS going to hurt the forcast accuracy, and dont you think that the department in charge of warning all the people about storms that are on the increase in the last few years should have all the money they need to do their job?
its not riling the masses its stating the obvious

But really... how much will it decrease the forecast accuracy? It won't change the course any--just the intensity forecast. Furthermore, if the storm is close enough to land that intensity will be a concern, then recon will already be scheduled for it, which will override anything QuikSCAT has to offer. Yeah, QuikSCAT is nice, but I don't see how it will create the decrease in accuracy as mentioned.

You are correct. Losing quikscat will mess up some forecasting when the storm is out to sea...but when it is closer to land...the loss of quickscat is really not going to mean jack. Proenza was guilty of over-dramatizing the situation and lying about the dangers. The necessity of quikscat is when you don't know if you have a closed LLC or not. Once recon is in range...all the concerns of quikscat not being there are laid to rest...and Proenza was over-playing his hand.
He was right about spending all the money on the anniversary. That's ridiculous. It's a stretch to say NOAA is 200 years old...and its an excuse to have a big party. But...Proenza has a habit of not listening to those who work for him and doing whatever he wants (being pigheaded)...yes...I have an inside source who worked directly for him...and I think THAT is what got him in trouble with the forecasters at the NHC. He wouldn't listen to what they were telling him.

To the rest...
As a PRO-MET I can tell you two things about us:
1) We HATE being wrong (at least the good ones do)...but we will tolerate it least we go mad...
and 2) If we are wrong or right...you better not misrepresent what we are saying...or ELSE.

Concerning #2...I can't tell you how many times people have misrepresented my forecast. "I thought you said it wasn't going to.....XYZ."

That infuriates us...and its worse if it goes beyond your inability to listen properly and you bold face lie.

That's what drew them out into a press conference. Listen guys...it is unheard of for government employees to do that...so you better BET you don't have the whole story...and you better BET YOUR LAST DOLLAR it was primarily his fault.

If you think about it logically...you will see what I am saying.

[MGC]

How ironic, the NHC in its initial discussion on TD-4E bases thier upgrade in part to data provided by QuickScat. Is this not the same tool some senior forecasters at the NHC say they can do without? I don't get it.......MGC

[HurricaneBelle]

If I see another college junior or senior using Wikipedia as a research source I'm going to do three things:

1) Flunk him.

2) Go stark raving mad.

3) Quit my job and find Jimmy Buffet. It's 5 o'clock somewhere.

Wikipedia is good for something you might be interested in, but don't exactly need all the objective material you can find. It isn't good for much else.

Yeah, but at least Wikipedia has Jimmy Buffett's name spelled correctly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_buffett

[Wthrman13]

How ironic, the NHC in its initial discussion on TD-4E bases thier upgrade in part to data provided by QuickScat. Is this not the same tool some senior forecasters at the NHC say they can do without? I don't get it.......MGC

It's not that QuickSCAT isn't useful and worth saving, it's just that it isn't critical. When the forecasters are saying they "can do without it", this is almost certainly what they mean. Phrasing it in this way just continues to cloud the water, IMO. If they didn't have it, chances are good that they would still have upgraded TD-4E anyway. I totally support working on a replacement for QuickSCAT, but in my opinion it is far less important than other tools we already have, such as Aircraft recon, GOES satellites, ship and buoy reports, etc., etc. It's one more tool that offers an incremental benefit. The problem is that now many people are under the impression that this satellite makes or breaks NHC forecasts, which is simply not true. Whatever legitimate concerns Proenza had, they are now pretty much obfuscated by this whole circus that has erupted. No, it's not entirely his fault, but he shares much of the blame.

[Ixolib]

This is the way ALL businesses should be run. I can't even count the number of "CEOs", "VPs", "DIRECTORs", and "MANAGERs" with whom I've been associated over the years who should have gone the way of Proenza. But alas, they stayed in their positions forever and a day to the demise of the staff and the company. In other words, a LOT of good people left the company - and continue to leave - because of ineffective leadership. Happens everyday all over America..... Sad.....

If he's not effective, why should his single-need outweigh the needs of everyone else. American business ought to take a lesson from this!!!!! I love it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[miamicanes177]

It's not that QuickSCAT isn't useful and worth saving, it's just that it isn't critical. When the forecasters are saying they "can do without it", this is almost certainly what they mean.

They can not do without QuckSCAT because this is 2007 and not 1707. We deserve accurate records for the history books. The people who will be living on this Earth 1 thousand years from now deserve to have an accurate account of all depressions and storms from 2007.

[caribepr]

Having watched this whole thing (from the perspective of a weather watcher, not anything close to an amature weather met, just someone who lives in a place with no evac and a fragile infastructure so...I pay serious attention), I first was upset about the QuickSCAT news- then the anniversary spending - basically pro-Pro (rebel without or with a cause...defy the powers that be for a good reason? You GO!).
But then when guys who I have been reading the forecasts of for years came out publicly, my iniitial reaction was...something much bigger is going on here that the public (me) is not privy to. As one of them, I'm not sure which, said, this problem started immediately upon his taking the directorship. Something else and more was going on, that seemed obvious. I can respect that.
I don't know, and will never know, what really happened here. All I know is, when the forecasters who I spend my hurricane season reading religiously came out with *there is a problem* I had to believe, there IS/WAS a problem. So, I am just glad it's moved on. I haven't lost an ounce of faith in the NHC, regardless of what will soon come next, discussions on bad forecasts, blah blah blah. My life and the life of my friends and family look to these dedicated men (and women, but I don't know of women whose forecasts I get, no doubt they are there somewhere in the figuring) who, when the caa-caa hits the fan, I'm glued to for information (just as I'm glued to S2K).
Conspiracy? Mutiny? Whatever...get over it, children, and hope Mr. Rappoport can soothe the troubled waters (no pun intended).
It's hurricane season. What's done is done. Let's watch the weather, prepared for the worst, hoping for the best and stop trying to figure out what the majority of us will never know anyway. This isn't some reality tv show, this IS the real deal.

[Air Force Met]

How ironic, the NHC in its initial discussion on TD-4E bases thier upgrade in part to data provided by QuickScat. Is this not the same tool some senior forecasters at the NHC say they can do without? I don't get it.......MGC

That's pretty much an over-simplification of the argument.

Quikscat is a useful tool for determining whether of not you do have an LLC in the open ocean...away from data and recon. Once a storm gets close enough to land to threaten it (and strong enough)...quikscat becomes a novelty. Proenza was saying that quikscat was priceless even in those situations...which is ridiculous. Once you have a storm of significant proportions that will cause damage...you already KNOW you have a closed LLC...and you already have a real good idea of the windfield. You also have recon flying in giving you updates on the strength...which quikscat can't do because of rain contamination. The track forecast is totally independent from quikscat because that is taken from computer modeling. However, Proenza was trying to sell the argument that the track forecast would degrade by 15-30% (can't remember the exact number)...and that was just a lie. I am sure they had internal talks about that...and every forecaster there told him that that was not reality...just like I would have told him. He probably told them (here is the speculation) to keep their mouths shut...I'm the director and this is our party line (i know people who have worked for him...and this is possible). Being the PROUD NHC types they are...and rightfully so..they said...No Way JOSE...you ain't misrepresenting my ability to forecast...give me a microphone.

METS are a proud bunch...especially THOSE mets...so that is what I imagine happened. Again...it is speculation and I could be 100% wrong. Poor Bill could have been beat up by Avila and Franklin in the Coke room...hog tied and then they did their press conference.

[MGC]

Well, I am of the opinion that you use all the tools available to make a good forecast. Sure QuickScat is down the list as far as invaluable tools go, but QuickScat is still quite useful in spotting incipient circulations. A replacement should be build and deployed.

I can only speculate on what really happened between Proenza and his staff. I believe it has to be something beyond Poenza's statements on QuickScat and the party money. Proenza's management style likely was the cause of the friction....MGC

[Air Force Met]

How ironic, the NHC in its initial discussion on TD-4E bases thier upgrade in part to data provided by QuickScat. Is this not the same tool some senior forecasters at the NHC say they can do without? I don't get it.......MGC

It's not that QuickSCAT isn't useful and worth saving, it's just that it isn't critical. When the forecasters are saying they "can do without it", this is almost certainly what they mean. Phrasing it in this way just continues to cloud the water, IMO. If they didn't have it, chances are good that they would still have upgraded TD-4E anyway. I totally support working on a replacement for QuickSCAT, but in my opinion it is far less important than other tools we already have, such as Aircraft recon, GOES satellites, ship and buoy reports, etc., etc. It's one more tool that offers an incremental benefit. The problem is that now many people are under the impression that this satellite makes or breaks NHC forecasts, which is simply not true. Whatever legitimate concerns Proenza had, they are now pretty much obfuscated by this whole circus that has erupted. No, it's not entirely his fault, but he shares much of the blame.

Correct. Here is an analogy:
If I am pulling a 90 day forecasting stint out in death valley...and my ability to get RADAR data goes down...well...that stinks. But guess what...I can do my job without it. I want it on the off chance I need it...but it isn't critical. If something arises that I might NEED radar...and I don't have it...I still have satellite images and obs from the surrounding area. Not having radar isn't going to keep me from putting out a decent forecast.

[weatherwindow]

the choice of ed rappaport was certainly the best move to restore the morale of the center...i would not expect bill proenza to return to the tpc in any position..unfortunately, i would not expect to see ed accept anything other than the current interim appointment...IMHO, the job search and vetting will continue in anticipation finding a permanent director for 2008....given this current debacle, my suggestion would be to return to the tradition of promoting from within the hurricane specialist ranks: NHC, HRD, and TAFB..however, i want to posit an important caveat. this tradition relied on the existence and survival of a certain collegial atmosphere. i hope that no permanent damage or irreparable divisions will prevent its restoration.....rich

[Wthrman13]

It's not that QuickSCAT isn't useful and worth saving, it's just that it isn't critical. When the forecasters are saying they "can do without it", this is almost certainly what they mean.

They can not do without QuckSCAT because this is 2007 and not 1707. We deserve accurate records for the history books. The people who will be living on this Earth 1 thousand years from now deserve to have an accurate account of all depressions and storms from 2007.

Which is completely irrelevant to my point. If you read my post again you will see that I support finding a replacement for the satellite.

[Air Force Met]

It's not that QuickSCAT isn't useful and worth saving, it's just that it isn't critical. When the forecasters are saying they "can do without it", this is almost certainly what they mean.

They can not do without QuckSCAT because this is 2007 and not 1707. We deserve accurate records for the history books. The people who will be living on this Earth 1 thousand years from now deserve to have an accurate account of all depressions and storms from 2007.

Uhhh...according to quikscat the thing east of the islands last week was a TD. We can do without it. Your curiosity doesn't a NEED make. We WANT it...we don't NEED it. But alas...this ISN'T the problem. It is misrepresenting the ability to accurately forecast and the "danger" to human lives not having quikscat would cause. If the NHC didn't have quikscat...they would err on the side of caution. They would upgrade. If something was just a TD for a little while...and was SOOOOO weak that the NHC never upgraded it because they had no SOLID data that it had a closed LLC...and then it went poof (sans quikscat finding something because it died)...then WHO CARES if it isn't in the record books? It's so insignificant as to not really matter. It's a waste of time.

Accurate records? I think you just want something to track for a day or so. I don't really think someone 1000 years from now is going to give a rats hind-end about some weak TD that was SO weak you needed a satellite derived wind field to determine it was even there in the first place....before it dissipated 12 hours later (and don't kid yourself...if it was there for any longer...it would be upgraded).

[Air Force Met]

It's not that QuickSCAT isn't useful and worth saving, it's just that it isn't critical. When the forecasters are saying they "can do without it", this is almost certainly what they mean.

They can not do without QuckSCAT because this is 2007 and not 1707. We deserve accurate records for the history books. The people who will be living on this Earth 1 thousand years from now deserve to have an accurate account of all depressions and storms from 2007.

Which is completely irrelevant to my point. If you read my post again you will see that I support finding a replacement for the satellite.

Yep. I support that too. I'm all for bigger and better toys. Get something that can see through the rain...and put more than 1 up there so I don't have to wait so freaking long to get an image!

[Aslkahuna]

I agree with Stratosphere 747, in order for Rappaport to succeed and whoever follows him to succeed, the ringleaders of the Palace Coup will have to be reassigned. Otherwise NHC Directors will have to keep watching their backs to the detriment of getting their jobs done properly.

Steve

[ronjon]

I agree with Steve and S747 about some staff needing reassigning. This one smells big time. There's two sides to every story and then there's the truth. It sounds like both sides escalated this thing out-of-control over damaged egos. I work in government as a scientist - have for 20 years. When I see this type of behavior it's usually one or two malcontents that start the drumbeat with staff that just poisons the whole environment. I usually find this takes place when some people don't have enough work to do or have some personal petty gripe that someone has held on to for years. Let's face it, you can place a lot blame AFM on Proenza, but what the staff did is totally - and I mean totally unprofessional. The staff might have won this battle but they lost the war. That war being the prestige and professionalism of the organization - a big one where people's lives are at stake.

[hurricanefloyd5]

That was so wrong to boot bill he was doing his job right and all the poiltics gets dragged into it and thats not right

every one that replaced BILL