kallend 2,180 #26 April 5, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote You can do a better job predicting storms and tornadoes to occur and specifically where or in the general areas and tell people to take cover... After that, it's up to the people to heed the warnings and take measures to protect themselves. Also, isn't that why homeowners have insurance on their homes? Chuck Yeah, and then when you have a super outbreak where thousands of homes are destroyed, you find reports of insurance companies short-changing clients to the point they can't even fucking rebuild! That's when the govt. needs to step in and straighten the insurance companies out. Make 'em pay up. Chuck Chuck More government regulation of private enterprise? Are you some kind of commie pinko liberal?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #27 April 5, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote You can do a better job predicting storms and tornadoes to occur and specifically where or in the general areas and tell people to take cover... After that, it's up to the people to heed the warnings and take measures to protect themselves. Also, isn't that why homeowners have insurance on their homes? Chuck Yeah, and then when you have a super outbreak where thousands of homes are destroyed, you find reports of insurance companies short-changing clients to the point they can't even fucking rebuild! That's when the govt. needs to step in and straighten the insurance companies out. Make 'em pay up. Chuck Chuck More government regulation of private enterprise? Are you some kind of commie pinko liberal? That's a stretch! You know what I'm saying. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #28 April 5, 2012 Quote Your math is as bad as your meteorology. The president's budget asks for a 7.6% increase in NOAA R&D. The GOP controlled house reduces it. But what abiyut storm prediction? Why are you hijacking your own thread to bring up new points? You were talking about slashing satellites and weather forecasting. So if R&D means weather satellites, yeah. I showed the budget proposal. By "slashing funding" do you also mean "not approving an asked for increase in funding?" I.e., satellites? That is, if NOAA wanted an extra $600 million for satellites this year but only got an extra $100 million? Please explain what last year's was, what NOAA wanted, and then what the House wants. I like to see facts. It's why I posted the actualy budget request. Funny you haven't even acknowledged it ir discussed it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,180 #29 April 5, 2012 Quote Quote Your math is as bad as your meteorology. The president's budget asks for a 7.6% increase in NOAA R&D. The GOP controlled house reduces it. But what abiyut storm prediction? Why are you hijacking your own thread to bring up new points? You were talking about slashing satellites and weather forecasting. So if R&D means weather satellites, yeah. I showed the budget proposal. By "slashing funding" do you also mean "not approving an asked for increase in funding?" I.e., satellites? That is, if NOAA wanted an extra $600 million for satellites this year but only got an extra $100 million? Please explain what last year's was, what NOAA wanted, and then what the House wants. I like to see facts. It's why I posted the actualy budget request. Funny you haven't even acknowledged it ir discussed it. Your link, page 7. 2013 request is 7.6% increase in "Research" over 2012. Also notice that since the House went GOP that NOAA got less than the president's budget requested. GOP doesn't like research that contradicts its religious beliefs. Same happened a few years back when a GOP controlled House prohibited the CDC from investigating gun deaths.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LyraM45 0 #30 April 5, 2012 QuoteSo what did funding cuts have to do with the tornadoes? Answer the question. I work for NOAA with the National Weather Service. I'm sure you're being coy trying to directly correlate the occurrence of severe weather phenomenon, particularly tornadoes, with the current budget cuts; I'm sure we both know that is not the case. What is being impacted directly is the warning and forecast services that are provided through NWS, which as others have stated, is also how other weather services and news outlets get their data. The ultimate goal of the NWS is to save lives and property with these services. NWS budget is such a minute amount of the entire federal budget, yet it's being hacked more aggressively than many other agencies. We've been threatened with cuts of 30%+ of a budget that is really small to begin with. Last year we were threatened with rolling black outs where some offices would see closures for up to 30 days at a time. Do you think proper warnings would have been out the other day had the Dallas forecast office been closed? Sure, the back up office would have taken over ops, but since they are understaffed due to budget cuts, would everything be handled just as well? Probably not, especially since the back up office was probably experiencing severe weather of their own. I think it's been shown time and time again that warning services are really valuable during times of severe weather. Other cuts would also drastically change the quality of data coming in (since offices potentially can't afford to put a balloon up twice a day for a sounding, which takes that atmospheric data and feeds it to the models which forecast potential severe weather-- no new data, no new model runs, and no new forecasts). There is a long list of potential impacts due to these budget cuts, but I've glossed over a few major ones that really would increase the likely hood of possible increased fatality numbers in severe weather situations if the NWS can not provide it's services. And don't even get me started on aviation weather services..... Don't get me wrong, I think the fat has to be trimmed in terms of federal spending. I just think it could be taken from things considered more 'non essential'. My position on this would be the same if I was still working private sector weather. Apologies for the lengthy post!Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #31 April 5, 2012 QuoteYour link, page 7. 2013 request is 7.6% increase in "Research" over 2012. Okay. I see that. QuoteAlso notice that since the House went GOP that NOAA got less than the president's budget requested. What president's budget? Obama's? When was there a budget passed? Perhaps you are referring to Page 6, where the the GOP congress kept giving more money than the GOP President requested (in 04, 05, 06). QuoteGOP doesn't like research that contradicts its religious beliefs. Perhaps. In that case, you would think that the satellites and climate research would be scrubbed. (A couple of them satellites are for climate research). But nope, funding is there. Also - what are your thoughts about GISS? You've got NOAA and GISS doing a bunch of the same stuff. A couple of NOAA satellites to go with the GISS satellites Glory (launch failed), Aquarius instrument, IceSAT. and the NPOESS Preparatory Project (which became the JPSS satellite for NOAA to complement the Jason-3 from NOAA (a partial explanation for the funding increase for NOAA). Why are climate satellites being put up by NASA and NOAA? NASA's earth sciences division got $1.8 billion in research funding in 2011. NOAA takes some of what NASA has, and NASA takes some of what NOAA has. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #32 April 5, 2012 Quote'm sure you're being coy trying to directly correlate the occurrence of severe weather phenomenon, particularly tornadoes, with the current budget cuts; I'm sure we both know that is not the case. You are 100% accurate with that assessment. QuoteWhat is being impacted directly is the warning and forecast services that are provided through NWS, which as others have stated, is also how other weather services and news outlets get their data. I absolutely agree! Quote I think it's been shown time and time again that warning services are really valuable during times of severe weather. Agreed again! QuoteI just think it could be taken from things considered more 'non essential' Which is why i brought up in another post, "Why is 40% of the NOAA budget going to satellites?" The FY 2013 Request is for $5.1B, an increase of $153.9M over the FY 2012 Estimate. The 2013 NWS budget proposal is for $972.2 million dollars - a little more that what NOAA asks for the JPSS satellite. A couple hundred million more than for the GOES+R Geostationary weather satellite. I am just opining that these cuts seem strange in that not a lot is being cut, but a lot less money seems available. Do you think that perhaps the satellites should take up a bit less of the funding to perform some more critical activities My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #33 April 6, 2012 They are budgeting a lot for satellites because the satellites that are up there are old. Many of them have gone well beyond their planned lifetime. Some are pretty close to failure (their solar cells are degrading and it won't be too long before they don't have enough power to operate). Those satellites are what give us the big picture for weather. Those satellites are the only thing giving us the big picture for weather. If those satellites (or even one or two of them) go down, then hurricane prediction will be back to the forties. And a lot of people will not be warned in time."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #34 April 6, 2012 QuoteWhich is why i brought up in another post, "Why is 40% of the NOAA budget going to satellites?" ...because satellites are expensive. Mind you, that's independent of whether any given satellite or system thereof is a good investment, but it should come as no surprise that if you're in the business of buying satellites with low TRL (i.e. new technology) payloads, you're going to be spending a lot on them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #35 April 6, 2012 Only one of them is dedicated to weather here in North America. I understand that, but there have been made budgetary priorities. It's been determined that satellites are the most important thing. That means other things get cut. Other things suffer. I'm not saying it's a lousy investment. I'm saying that money is finite and there have been decisions made as to where the money will go. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,180 #36 April 14, 2012 QuoteOnly one of them is dedicated to weather here in North America. I understand that, but there have been made budgetary priorities. It's been determined that satellites are the most important thing. That means other things get cut. Other things suffer. I'm not saying it's a lousy investment. I'm saying that money is finite and there have been decisions made as to where the money will go. This "priority" decision is CLEARLY on account of the GOP's desire to put a gag on NOAA's research on climate change. And just today we see how much the US has benefitted from NOAA's research: abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/forecasters-warn-life-threatening-storms-16138512#.T4l0t6tYuRw Quote Director Russ Schneider said it was just the second time in U.S. history that the center issued a high-risk warning more than 24 hours in advance. The first was in April 2006, when nearly 100 tornadoes tore across the southeastern U.S., killing a dozen people and damaging more than 1,000 homes in Tennessee. It's possible to issue earlier warnings because improvements in storm modeling and technology are letting forecasters predict storms earlier and with greater confidence, said Chris Vaccaro, a spokesman for the National Weather Service. In the past, people often have had only minutes of warning when a siren went off. Pity that research effort has to suffer on account of GOP pique.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #37 April 14, 2012 You realize that when something is spinning it can appear to spin either clockwise or counterclockwise depending on perspective. Example: your post is exactly the thing you are arguing can't happen because the GOP wishes to direct funding from storm warnings and into supercell formation. My point? Direct money from satellites to it. Or direct climate research money to GISS. Or take the climate money from GISS and give it to NOAA. Tell, me, John - why aren't you criticizing 40% of the NOAA budget going to satellites instead of weather warnings that save peoples' lives? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,180 #38 April 14, 2012 QuoteYou realize that when something is spinning it can appear to spin either clockwise or counterclockwise depending on perspective. Example: your post is exactly the thing you are arguing can't happen because the GOP wishes to direct funding from storm warnings and into supercell formation. My point? Direct money from satellites to it. Or direct climate research money to GISS. Or take the climate money from GISS and give it to NOAA. Tell, me, John - why aren't you criticizing 40% of the NOAA budget going to satellites instead of weather warnings that save peoples' lives? Weather warnings require satellite data. Jeez.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #39 April 14, 2012 QuoteQuoteYou realize that when something is spinning it can appear to spin either clockwise or counterclockwise depending on perspective. Example: your post is exactly the thing you are arguing can't happen because the GOP wishes to direct funding from storm warnings and into supercell formation. My point? Direct money from satellites to it. Or direct climate research money to GISS. Or take the climate money from GISS and give it to NOAA. Tell, me, John - why aren't you criticizing 40% of the NOAA budget going to satellites instead of weather warnings that save peoples' lives? Weather warnings require satellite data. Jeez. Which, of course, is why the NEXRAD weather radars are ground based.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #40 April 14, 2012 Like the satellite data they have for these weather warnings? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #41 April 14, 2012 Semi-on-topic It's even on the evening news here that the weather in the near future is going to suck for many of you. Which probably means it's really, really, really going to suck. So the best of luck to all concerned. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #42 April 14, 2012 QuoteWhich, of course, is why the NEXRAD weather radars are ground based. Radar of any type is only a small fraction of the system that allows NOAA to predict tornadoes. In fact, RADAR can pretty much ONLY tell what is happening in real time with precipitation. To predict what's happening several hours or a few days in advance, you absolutely have to have weather satellites which can not only see visible moisture in cloud form, but also water vapor which is invisible to the naked eye.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,180 #43 April 14, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou realize that when something is spinning it can appear to spin either clockwise or counterclockwise depending on perspective. Example: your post is exactly the thing you are arguing can't happen because the GOP wishes to direct funding from storm warnings and into supercell formation. My point? Direct money from satellites to it. Or direct climate research money to GISS. Or take the climate money from GISS and give it to NOAA. Tell, me, John - why aren't you criticizing 40% of the NOAA budget going to satellites instead of weather warnings that save peoples' lives? Weather warnings require satellite data. Jeez. Which, of course, is why the NEXRAD weather radars are ground based. And weather satellites are space based. Did you have a point or were you just trying to fake it?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #44 April 14, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou realize that when something is spinning it can appear to spin either clockwise or counterclockwise depending on perspective. Example: your post is exactly the thing you are arguing can't happen because the GOP wishes to direct funding from storm warnings and into supercell formation. My point? Direct money from satellites to it. Or direct climate research money to GISS. Or take the climate money from GISS and give it to NOAA. Tell, me, John - why aren't you criticizing 40% of the NOAA budget going to satellites instead of weather warnings that save peoples' lives? Weather warnings require satellite data. Jeez. Which, of course, is why the NEXRAD weather radars are ground based. And weather satellites are space based. Did you have a point or were you just trying to fake it? Haven't seen a tornado warning yet from a satellite radar map - they always seem to come from local doppler stations. So - did you have a point or just trying to fake it?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #45 April 14, 2012 Speaking of NOAA, they gave me this report this morning: http://www.dim.com/~ryoder/noaa-194F.png I think I'm going to need a bigger a/c unit. "There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,180 #46 April 14, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou realize that when something is spinning it can appear to spin either clockwise or counterclockwise depending on perspective. Example: your post is exactly the thing you are arguing can't happen because the GOP wishes to direct funding from storm warnings and into supercell formation. My point? Direct money from satellites to it. Or direct climate research money to GISS. Or take the climate money from GISS and give it to NOAA. Tell, me, John - why aren't you criticizing 40% of the NOAA budget going to satellites instead of weather warnings that save peoples' lives? Weather warnings require satellite data. Jeez. Which, of course, is why the NEXRAD weather radars are ground based. And weather satellites are space based. Did you have a point or were you just trying to fake it? Haven't seen a tornado warning yet from a satellite radar map - they always seem to come from local doppler stations. So - did you have a point or just trying to fake it? Why do you like displaying ignorance of science (and math)? To quote quade from just a few posts ago: "Radar of any type is only a small fraction of the system that allows NOAA to predict tornadoes. In fact, RADAR can pretty much ONLY tell what is happening in real time with precipitation. To predict what's happening several hours or a few days in advance, you absolutely have to have weather satellites which can not only see visible moisture in cloud form, but also water vapor which is invisible to the naked eye." Now, why don't YOU tell us which doppler radar was used to give 24 hours notice to Oklahoma and Kansas of today's severe weather?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #47 April 14, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou realize that when something is spinning it can appear to spin either clockwise or counterclockwise depending on perspective. Example: your post is exactly the thing you are arguing can't happen because the GOP wishes to direct funding from storm warnings and into supercell formation. My point? Direct money from satellites to it. Or direct climate research money to GISS. Or take the climate money from GISS and give it to NOAA. Tell, me, John - why aren't you criticizing 40% of the NOAA budget going to satellites instead of weather warnings that save peoples' lives? Weather warnings require satellite data. Jeez. Which, of course, is why the NEXRAD weather radars are ground based. And weather satellites are space based. Did you have a point or were you just trying to fake it? Haven't seen a tornado warning yet from a satellite radar map - they always seem to come from local doppler stations. So - did you have a point or just trying to fake it? Why do you like displaying ignorance of science (and math)? To quote quade from just a few posts ago: "Radar of any type is only a small fraction of the system that allows NOAA to predict tornadoes. In fact, RADAR can pretty much ONLY tell what is happening in real time with precipitation. To predict what's happening several hours or a few days in advance, you absolutely have to have weather satellites which can not only see visible moisture in cloud form, but also water vapor which is invisible to the naked eye." Now, why don't YOU tell us which doppler radar was used to give 24 hours notice to Oklahoma and Kansas of today's severe weather? Why don't YOU (or Quade) tell us which satellite radar gives us 24 hours notice of actual tornado occurrences?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #48 April 14, 2012 QuoteWhy don't YOU (or Quade) tell us which satellite radar gives us 24 hours notice of actual tornado occurrences? Well, for one thing, it's not radar. So, to specifically answer your question I can't tell you "which satellite radar gives us" anything, because, as I said, it's not radar. It's imaging sensors (cameras) that are sensitive to various wavelengths of light. By comparing the reflectivity of different wavelengths, it's possible to determine a wide range of things such as temperature and humidity (water vapor). Doing this on a constant basis and over time, other things can be determined such as wind speeds and directions. But even that isn't the entire picture, just a very big part. So, no, to answer your slightly incorrectly stated question, no ONE satellite "gives us 24 hours notice of actual tornado occurrences." However, the weather satellite system is part of the planet-wide weather data collection effort which enables tornado predictions several hours in advance.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #49 April 14, 2012 QuoteTo quote quade from just a few posts ago: "Radar of any type is only a small fraction of the system that allows NOAA to predict tornadoes. In fact, RADAR can pretty much ONLY tell what is happening in real time with precipitation. To predict what's happening several hours or a few days in advance, you absolutely have to have weather satellites which can not only see visible moisture in cloud form, but also water vapor which is invisible to the naked eye." Now, why don't YOU tell us which doppler radar was used to give 24 hours notice to Oklahoma and Kansas of today's severe weather? Hmmm. Satellites are but a piece of it, John. bakc when in days of my youth they had radar, barometers, anemometers, even radiosondes. And they would take data, use slide rules and plots the data and reductions of the data by hand. By the time they calculated what was going on there wasn't enough time or resources to tell people. Thus lead time has advanced by virtue of computers that can do the work. Satellites are very helpful. As are networks of barometers, thermometers, anemometers, wet bulbs, etc., and the systems in place to gather and reduce the data. Satellites are really handy. They can help predict the conditions existing for severe weather, which they used to do with ground-based instruments. Satellites just give a wider picture and actually gives photos of it. New instruments can lower the margins of error of the data. But what saves lives, John? 24 hours notice? Okay, could work by telling people to pay attention. The emergency broadcast system helps provide notice once events happen. Note that when doppler radar networks were installed the number of reported tornadoes rose dramatically. So satellites fulfill a role in disaster preparation. It's not that barometers and radiosondes didn't provide information. But satellites provided additional information - data to be reduced. And cool pictures. But what's the real evidence of nasty shit? Yep - doppler radar. If doppler picks up a hook echo, the weather service can put out notice of the projected path of the cell and warn of it. Also note that even with these hardcore satellite technologies, there are tonado spotters - eyes on the ground - provide information and context that are invaluable. Quit overly simplifying it, John. I can overly simplify it and look ridiculous, too. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #50 April 14, 2012 QuoteQuoteWhy don't YOU (or Quade) tell us which satellite radar gives us 24 hours notice of actual tornado occurrences? Well, for one thing, it's not radar. So, to specifically answer your question I can't tell you "which satellite radar gives us" anything, because, as I said, it's not radar. It's imaging sensors (cameras) that are sensitive to various wavelengths of light. By comparing the reflectivity of different wavelengths, it's possible to determine a wide range of things such as temperature and humidity (water vapor). Doing this on a constant basis and over time, other things can be determined such as wind speeds and directions. Moreso than direct observations, weather balloons, weather stations, and radar wind plots? QuoteBut even that isn't the entire picture, just a very big part. No, you want to *portray* it as a very big part. QuoteSo, no, to answer your slightly incorrectly stated question, no ONE satellite "gives us 24 hours notice of actual tornado occurrences." However, the weather satellite system is part of the planet-wide weather data collection effort which enables tornado predictions several hours in advance. Nothing on your linked page about prediction of tornadoes several hours before the actual event - in fact, there's nothing on your linked page about prediction at all. Wonder if that's because even local doppler can't pick up the signs until 15 minutes or so before the tornado actually forms? link NEXRAD is a primary factor in dramatic improvements in the accuracy and lead time of tornado warnings in the 1990s. Tornado warning lead time increased from less than five minutes prior to NEXRAD to 13 minutes; tornado warning accuracy increased from 40 percent to 75 percent; and, remarkably, flash flood warning lead time increased from 14 minutes to 54 minutes. A 2005 study concluded that following NEXRAD installation, improved tornado warnings resulted in 45 percent fewer fatalities and 40 percent fewer injuries annually. NEXRAD has become the primary data acquisition cornerstone of the National Weather Service’s severe weather warning program.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
