quade 4 #51 April 14, 2012 QuoteI can overly simplify it and look ridiculous, too. Quod erat demonstrandum, baby.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #52 April 14, 2012 Quotelink 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 You should really read what you're copying, pasting and bolding sometimes. So, what NEXRAD radar is giving us 24 hours advanced notice?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #53 April 14, 2012 QuoteQuotelink 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 You should really read what you're writing sometimes. You mean where it states that tornadoes can't be detected more than 15-20 minutes before the actual event, contrary to your claim? QuoteSo, what NEXRAD radar is giving us 24 hours advanced notice? Unlike you, I made no claim that *ANY* radar can forecast tornadoes hours or days before the event. From NOAA, again: "Each NWS forecast office uses output from at least one Doppler radar in the area to help to determine if a warning is needed. Doppler radar signatures can tell warning meteorologists a great deal about a thunderstorm's structure, but usually can't see the tornado itself. This is because the radar beam gets too wide to resolve even the biggest tornadoes within a few tens of miles after leaving the transmitter. Instead, a radar indicates strong winds blowing toward and away from it in a way that tells forecasters, "An intense circulation probably exists in this storm and a tornado is possible." Possible doesn't mean certain, though. That is why local forecasters must also depend on spotter reports, SPC forecast guidance on the general severe weather threat, and in-house analysis of the weather situation over the region containing thunderstorms, to make the best-informed warning decisions."Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #54 April 14, 2012 QuoteQuoteI can overly simplify it and look ridiculous, too. Quod erat demonstrandum, baby. So was I wrong? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #55 April 14, 2012 Quote Quote Quote I can overly simplify it and look ridiculous, too. Quod erat demonstrandum, baby. So was I wrong? Oh no, I'd say the statement I quoted above is 100% accurate. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #56 April 14, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuotelink 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 You should really read what you're writing sometimes. You mean where it states that tornadoes can't be detected more than 15-20 minutes before the actual event, contrary to your claim? Do you not understand the difference between the words "prediction" and "detection"?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #57 April 14, 2012 I am speaking of the rest of the other post and the technologies and techniques available. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #58 April 14, 2012 Quote I am speaking of the rest of the other post and the technologies and techniques available. On the other hand, I'm just having a bit of fun. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #59 April 14, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotelink 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 You should really read what you're writing sometimes. You mean where it states that tornadoes can't be detected more than 15-20 minutes before the actual event, contrary to your claim? Do you not understand the difference between the words "prediction" and "detection"? Do you not understand the difference between "watch" and "warning", which is what Kallend specifically stated in post 38? The satellite data may help the forecasters predict a weather pattern, but it's the local radar, local observations and local data that the meteorologist uses to issue a warning that severe weather is occurring / about to occur. That's why the NOAA Storm Prediction Center issues watches for general areas that severe weather *may* happen in, and local NOAA weather stations issue warnings in the areas where the severe weather actually develops - they have the most accurate data.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,180 #60 April 14, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuotelink 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 You should really read what you're writing sometimes. You mean where it states that tornadoes can't be detected more than 15-20 minutes before the actual event, contrary to your claim? Do you not understand the difference between the words "prediction" and "detection"? Do you not understand the difference between "watch" and "warning", which is what Kallend specifically stated in post 38? The satellite data may help the forecasters predict a weather pattern, but it's the local radar, local observations and local data that the meteorologist uses to issue a warning that severe weather is occurring / about to occur. That's why the NOAA Storm Prediction Center issues watches for general areas that severe weather *may* happen in, and local NOAA weather stations issue warnings in the areas where the severe weather actually develops - they have the most accurate data. You could have read the linked article before heading off into a particularly stupid semantic game. The purpose and value of weather satellites is not in dispute by anyone except you.... 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 #61 April 14, 2012 QuoteThe purpose and value of weather satellites is not in dispute by anyone except you You are somewhat overstating the usefulness in terms of weather warnings. But you haven't answered the question: Do you think that satellites should take 40% of NOAA funding or that some should be directed to weather warnings? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,180 #62 April 14, 2012 QuoteQuoteThe purpose and value of weather satellites is not in dispute by anyone except you You are somewhat overstating the usefulness in terms of weather warnings. But you haven't answered the question: Do you think that satellites should take 40% of NOAA funding or that some should be directed to weather warnings? The folks qualified to answer that question are the NOAA staff, NOT you, not me, nor mnealtx.... 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 #63 April 14, 2012 QuoteYou could have read the linked article before heading off into a particularly stupid semantic game. And you could have spent about 3 femtoseconds in thought before saying that weather warnings *require* satellite data, especially given that the first recognized tornado warning was in 1948, almost 30 years before the first GOES launch. QuoteThe purpose and value of weather satellites is not in dispute by anyone except you. I haven't disputed the purpose or the value - nice try at a strawman, though.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #64 April 15, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe purpose and value of weather satellites is not in dispute by anyone except you You are somewhat overstating the usefulness in terms of weather warnings. But you haven't answered the question: Do you think that satellites should take 40% of NOAA funding or that some should be directed to weather warnings? The folks qualified to answer that question are the NOAA staff, NOT you, not me, nor mnealtx. I asked what you think. Not what a person qualified to discuss budget priorities using taxpayer money thinks. What do YOU think? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,180 #65 April 15, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe purpose and value of weather satellites is not in dispute by anyone except you You are somewhat overstating the usefulness in terms of weather warnings. But you haven't answered the question: Do you think that satellites should take 40% of NOAA funding or that some should be directed to weather warnings? The folks qualified to answer that question are the NOAA staff, NOT you, not me, nor mnealtx. I asked what you think. Not what a person qualified to discuss budget priorities using taxpayer money thinks. What do YOU think? I think it best to leave budget priorities in a highly technical research area to those who know what they are doing. NOAA does an excellent job overall and I don't think the GOP politicians, or you, should be second guessing them. The GOP attack is very clearly politically motivated. Just like their attack on CDC a few years back.... 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 #66 April 15, 2012 QuoteI think it best to leave budget priorities in a highly technical research area to those who know what they are doing Okay. Mind if I hold you to this? Because I will and I better not read you mentioning about the budgeting for defense again. You aren't a defense expert and they know what needs money. You are talking yourself into a helluva corner and I'm merely providing you a chance to get out. I personally think that there should ALWAYS be some oversight of people who would spend other peoples' money on themselves. QuoteI don't think the GOP politicians, or you, should be second guessing them Is it okay for Democrats to second guess? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,180 #67 April 15, 2012 QuoteQuoteI think it best to leave budget priorities in a highly technical research area to those who know what they are doing Okay. Mind if I hold you to this? Because I will and I better not read you mentioning about the budgeting for defense again. You aren't a defense expert and they know what needs money. You are talking yourself into a helluva corner and I'm merely providing you a chance to get out. I personally think that there should ALWAYS be some oversight of people who would spend other peoples' money on themselves. QuoteI don't think the GOP politicians, or you, should be second guessing them Is it okay for Democrats to second guess? The big DIFFERENCE is that I'm not telling the DoD what its priorities should be. You ARE telling NOAA what its priorities should be.... 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
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #68 April 15, 2012 QuoteQuoteThe purpose and value of weather satellites is not in dispute by anyone except you You are somewhat overstating the usefulness in terms of weather warnings. But you haven't answered the question: Do you think that satellites should take 40% of NOAA funding or that some should be directed to weather warnings? Honest question - How much did they spend on satellites in past years? And how much is projected for future years? My understanding is that there are several satellites in pretty desperate need of replacement. And once they are replaced, the cost won't be there in the future."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
kallend 2,180 #69 April 15, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe purpose and value of weather satellites is not in dispute by anyone except you You are somewhat overstating the usefulness in terms of weather warnings. But you haven't answered the question: Do you think that satellites should take 40% of NOAA funding or that some should be directed to weather warnings? Honest question - How much did they spend on satellites in past years? And how much is projected for future years? My understanding is that there are several satellites in pretty desperate need of replacement. And once they are replaced, the cost won't be there in the future. I don't think our legal beagle friend appreciates that before you can have warnings you need forecasts, and that to get forecasts you need data.... 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 #70 April 15, 2012 QuoteI don't think our legal beagle friend appreciates that before you can have warnings you need forecasts, and that to get forecasts you need data. And I don't think that you even want to hear my point that: (1) we have satellites; and (2) we have data from lots of different sources. Satellites are so good they still sned planes into hurricanes for data. They still send up radiosondes. They still have radar. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #71 April 15, 2012 QuoteMy understanding is that there are several satellites in pretty desperate need of replacement. And once they are replaced, the cost won't be there in the future Yep. And two weather satellites are planned - one that is geostationary and one that is polar orbiting. The polar orbiting one will orbit every 90 or so minutes, meaning that it'll give real time weather data for about 10 or 15 minutes for 3 or 4 orbits, not be over the US for the next six hours, and then give another set of data for 10 or fifteen minutes per pass. As they learned at Fitzpatrick, weather can change a lot in 45 minuts to six hours. Kallend is playing politics and spin. He's an amateur at it. I know satellites need replacing. But for John to suggests that republicans prevented wearher warnings from happening (and used weather warnings provided as proof) and for him to suggest that property damage was the repuslt of republican policies (which is silly) and for kallend to suggest that new satellites are necessary to provide the warnings we are receiving is also silly. Ps - kallend - I'll hold you at your word and suggest that you never challenge a DOD budget request ever again. LEave it to the Department of Defense to say how much of your money it needs. Or perhaps John should stay out of any other debate about where money is spent for lack of expertise. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,180 #72 April 15, 2012 QuoteQuoteMy understanding is that there are several satellites in pretty desperate need of replacement. And once they are replaced, the cost won't be there in the future Yep. And two weather satellites are planned - one that is geostationary and one that is polar orbiting. The polar orbiting one will orbit every 90 or so minutes, meaning that it'll give real time weather data for about 10 or 15 minutes for 3 or 4 orbits, not be over the US for the next six hours, and then give another set of data for 10 or fifteen minutes per pass. As they learned at Fitzpatrick, weather can change a lot in 45 minuts to six hours. Kallend is playing politics and spin. He's an amateur at it. I know satellites need replacing. But for John to suggests that republicans prevented wearher warnings from happening (and used weather warnings provided as proof) and for him to suggest that property damage was the repuslt of republican policies (which is silly) and for kallend to suggest that new satellites are necessary to provide the warnings we are receiving is also silly. Ps - kallend - I'll hold you at your word and suggest that you never challenge a DOD budget request ever again. LEave it to the Department of Defense to say how much of your money it needs. Or perhaps John should stay out of any other debate about where money is spent for lack of expertise. Lame-O. And you know it. You are challenging the internal details of NOAA's request on the basis of topics you know nothing whatever about. This bears no relation to wanting to bring the DoD budget in line with those of other nations and to stop it taking us into bankruptcy. What YOU are doing is akin to disputing the breakdown between DoD spending on reactor fuel for submarines, radars for the air force and uniforms for the army.... 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
mpohl 1 #73 April 15, 2012 Not even sure why anybody would want to argue w/ lawrocket or mnealtx. Obviously they are from the intellectual heartland. Gosh, how I wish we could give TX back to Mexico. (And I lived in Harris Cty.!) But even the Mexicans won't adopt those two dimwits!!! http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/us/violent-storms-cut-across-the-central-plains.html?_r=1&hp QuoteQuoteMy understanding is that there are several satellites in pretty desperate need of replacement. And once they are replaced, the cost won't be there in the future Yep. And two weather satellites are planned - one that is geostationary and one that is polar orbiting. The polar orbiting one will orbit every 90 or so minutes, meaning that it'll give real time weather data for about 10 or 15 minutes for 3 or 4 orbits, not be over the US for the next six hours, and then give another set of data for 10 or fifteen minutes per pass. As they learned at Fitzpatrick, weather can change a lot in 45 minuts to six hours. Kallend is playing politics and spin. He's an amateur at it. I know satellites need replacing. But for John to suggests that republicans prevented wearher warnings from happening (and used weather warnings provided as proof) and for him to suggest that property damage was the repuslt of republican policies (which is silly) and for kallend to suggest that new satellites are necessary to provide the warnings we are receiving is also silly. Ps - kallend - I'll hold you at your word and suggest that you never challenge a DOD budget request ever again. LEave it to the Department of Defense to say how much of your money it needs. Or perhaps John should stay out of any other debate about where money is spent for lack of expertise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #74 April 15, 2012 I guess I am a dimwit, but one who is smart enough to know the rules. I reckon you're so smart and intellectual that the rules just don't apply to you. Read up on the psychology of it. Note: I have an immense personal respect for kallend. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #75 April 16, 2012 QuoteThe polar orbiting one will orbit every 90 or so minutes, meaning that it'll give real time weather data for about 10 or 15 minutes for 3 or 4 orbits, not be over the US for the next six hours, and then give another set of data for 10 or fifteen minutes per pass. As they learned at Fitzpatrick, weather can change a lot in 45 minuts to six hours. The entire point of a polar orbit isn't to cover one part of the Earth, but the entire Earth. This is required data not only for weather reports in the US, but also anywhere our military happens to be operating. It's a system. It's all required weather data collection.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
