kallend 2,182 #1 April 4, 2012 Fascinating that Rep. Jeb Hensaerling (R, Texas) voted in favor of cutting the NOAA budget to study violent storms and storm prediction. He also voted to slash more than $500 million from the budget for weather prediction satellites. And he supported a GOP attempt to cut funding for FEMA, which helps people get through disasters like the tornado that just struck his district. I hope he doesn't now try to get federal disaster assistance. We know that Mitt Romney thinks it "simply immoral" to send disaster relief to communities struck by tornados. He said it explicitly during the June 13 2011 GOP debate in answer to a question by moderator John King.... 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 #2 April 4, 2012 Yes. Because we know that Accuweather and AWIS don't exist. There were no severe weather warnings, tornado watches, etc. yesterday, were there? Oh, wait. Yes there were. We also know that had funding to NOAA not been cut, these tornadoes would not have happened. Face it - Hensaeling CAUSED these tornadoes to occur. Tornadoes are opportunistic and patient destructors. They've stayed away from Texas for decades but decided to return yesterday from nowhere! My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 334 #3 April 4, 2012 You can buy a lot of trailers for $500 million. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #4 April 4, 2012 QuoteYes. Because we know that Accuweather and AWIS don't exist. There were no severe weather warnings, tornado watches, etc. yesterday, were there? Oh, wait. Yes there were. Where do you think Accuweather and AWIS(?) get their data? Quote We also know that had funding to NOAA not been cut, these tornadoes would not have happened. Face it - Hensaeling CAUSED these tornadoes to occur. Tornadoes are opportunistic and patient destructors. They've stayed away from Texas for decades but decided to return yesterday from nowhere! Nice strawman, but I would have expected a less obvious one from a lawyer.... 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 #5 April 4, 2012 does NOAA charge for the data? I hope so. John - you are arguing that the funding cuts caused this disaster. Show me a causal link between the funding cuts and the tornadoes and I'll eat my words. You're posting political bs. Note - I didn't argue with your point about FEMA cuts. Because it's valid. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #6 April 4, 2012 QuoteYes. Because we know that Accuweather and AWIS don't exist. There were no severe weather warnings, tornado watches, etc. yesterday, were there? Oh, wait. Yes there were. Distribution is not the same thing as creation. AccuWeather is pointless without NOAA.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #7 April 4, 2012 Quotedoes NOAA charge for the data? I hope so. John - you are arguing that the funding cuts caused this disaster. No I am NOT. Your reading skills are better than that. You are just creating a strawman.... 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 #8 April 4, 2012 So what did funding cuts have to do with the tornadoes? Answer the question. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #9 April 4, 2012 Quote So what did funding cuts have to do with the tornadoes? Answer the question. Nothing, and I didn't claim it did.Cutting funding for storm prediction research and technology WILL have a negative effect in the future. But you know that. Your strawman isn't working.... 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
billvon 3,132 #10 April 4, 2012 >So what did funding cuts have to do with the tornadoes? Creating the tornadoes? Nothing, of course. Our ability to predict them? It is reasonable to believe if our primary source of weather data is reduced or removed, that predicting severe weather will become more difficult/expensive. Is that worth the savings? Are the savings you get by reducing available weather information worth the additional costs caused by not having good forecasts? That's the question. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 35 #11 April 4, 2012 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."Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #12 April 4, 2012 >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. Agreed on all counts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 35 #13 April 4, 2012 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. Agreed on all counts. Look at last year's super outbreak. The forecasters were predicting a major tornado event 2 or 3 days in advance and the tor-con rating was a 10 out of 10. It turned out to be arguably the most destructive day ever by tornadoes in US history, and over 300 died, 250+/- in Alabama alone. That's not to say most of those deaths were in part because people didn't heed the warnings and take cover. Many of the tornadoes were EF3 and up, and hit a lot of populated areas. Hope we never see another day like that in our lifetimes. "Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #14 April 4, 2012 Take a look at this. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2012/pdfs/FY13_Briefing_021612_final.pdf Page 7. Looks to me like NOAA ITSELF is asking to put 40% of its budget into satellites. Some high dollar, high glory things. That's a 40% increase in funding from 2011 for satellites. The NOAA budget is actually larger than it has been Page 12 shows the NWS proposed budget. Local Warnings and forecasts are getting about $30 million cut off from last year, leaving a scant $693.2 million - about a 3% cut. So, if it is NOAA itself asking for this change in budgetary priorities (while the budget proposals refer to "president" we know it's the department itself), should you be questioning NOAA itself or politicians? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #15 April 4, 2012 I'm not seeing a response. Do you think that NOAA chiefs should be sacked for putting all that money into satellites at the expense of weather forecasting and local weather warnings? Think a $500 million dollar budget cut for satellites is warranted considering that satellite funding has increased $600 million in two years? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #16 April 4, 2012 QuoteYou 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? That part of Texas has always been a portion of the 'tornado belt'. I don't understand why, the government should have to take care of them. Life's a risk and ya' takes your chances. Like you said too, people need to heed warnings. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #17 April 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteYou 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? That part of Texas has always been a portion of the 'tornado belt'. I don't understand why, the government should have to take care of them. . Chuck Maybe they expect God to bless Texas.... 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 #18 April 5, 2012 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? That part of Texas has always been a portion of the 'tornado belt'. I don't understand why, the government should have to take care of them. . Chuck Maybe they expect God to bless Texas. Maybe. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 35 #19 April 5, 2012 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! "Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #20 April 5, 2012 www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/ No wonder the GOP is cutting NOAA's research budget.... 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 #21 April 5, 2012 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/2 No wonder the President is cutting NOAA's research budget. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #22 April 5, 2012 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 just capitalism and the free market. Don't like it? Use a different insurance company next time...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Meso 38 #23 April 5, 2012 QuoteYes. Because we know that Accuweather and AWIS don't exist. There were no severe weather warnings, tornado watches, etc. yesterday, were there? Oh, wait. Yes there were. As mentioned, all other sources get their information from the NOAA, tornado warnings are issued by the SPC division of the NOAA and only they may issue legal tornado warnings. It is my understanding that it is illegal for other companies to issue official warnings. The NOAA is the core of weather forecasting, even in South Africa we are relying on NOAA generated products like the GFS model runs. The fact that their data is freely available is something that I actually brought up in a draft to South African parliament a few months ago, because the current government sponsorship and budget of the NOAA is how it should be. There is a strong focus on saving lives and increasing tornado warning times. In contrast we have a situation here where the Government doesn't provide a large enough budget for the local weather service and in turn our national weather service has become a 'pay for' service. Charging people for radar availability. The company is almost falling apart, the radars are hardly online because they don't have the government budget needed to maintain them properly, and in turn we have tornadoes here that aren't even warned. They will sweep through communities without anyone knowing a thing. The idea of cutting NOAA budget is pathetic. It is an area that is constantly being developed and constantly improving in regards to saving lives. Over the past 20 years tornado warning time has increased dramatically. Because now instead of having to wait for a sighting by a spotter, one can see debris balls and hook echos on radar. There is constant progression with this, and I'm sure that if research continues it will continue to increase tornado warning times. Funny part is that I bet these people trying to cut down on satellite and development budgets are the ones who go off at forecasters when they are unable to get a forecast track right. Hurricanes play a major part in this too and you definitely need high quality expensive equipment if you want to accurately develop the model algorithms to improve forecasts. Doesn't matter what political party one is, being stingy on the NOAA budget is just stupid and will end up costing lives and bringing down one of the areas where the U.S is admirable in. A lot of my storm chaser mates over there are actively involved in chasing storms with the help of these 'over priced satellites' and radars, and they are the ones who are then able to find the funnel clouds and report back to the NOAA to get warnings out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #24 April 5, 2012 Quotehttp://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/2 No wonder the President is cutting NOAA's research budget. 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.... 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 #25 April 5, 2012 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
