FLYING BLIND: Budget cuts are beginning to impair government scientists' ability to monitor hurricanes--and they are predicting a lot of the tropical cyclones this year.
Image: NASA
This year's Atlantic hurricane season will be "above normal," with 12 to 18 storms, thanks in part to unusually warm ocean temperatures, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said yesterday.
Six to 10 of those storms are likely to reach hurricane strength, the agency said in its initial forecast for the 2011 storm season, which begins June 1 and ends Nov. 1. NOAA forecasters expect three to six of those storms to become major hurricanes with winds reaching 111 miles per hour or greater.
"The active Atlantic hurricane era that we entered back in 1995 continues," NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco said. "During this period, the conditions in the oceans and the atmosphere have produced a larger number of storms and more powerful hurricanes."
This year, NOAA forecasters expect above-average warmth in the tropical Atlantic Ocean and the continuing influence of La Niña to drive a high level of storm activity.
The region's surface waters are 2 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the average of this time of year, providing an extra burst of fuel to developing storms. Meanwhile, the current La Niña weather pattern -- expected to remain in place through early summer -- reduces the wind shear that can hinder hurricane development.
Speaking with reporters yesterday, Lubchenco touted her agency's forecasting ability, calling NOAA's forecast for last year's hurricane season "spot on." But she also warned that spending cuts enacted by Congress threaten NOAA's ability to produce detailed hurricane forecasts and track storms in the future.
"Because we have insufficient funds in the [fiscal] '11 budget, we are likely looking at a period of time a few years down the road where we will not be able to do the severe storm warnings and long-term weather forecasts that people have come to expect today," Lubchenco said in remarks at NOAA's Satellite Operations Center in Suitland, Md.
A 'coverage gap' in future years
The agency had sought $910 million this year for its Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS), which will provide data for weather forecasts, search-and-rescue operations and climate change research. But Congress approved just $382 million for the program.
NOAA says it has enough money to launch the first JPSS satellite in October. But the agency says this year's budget shortfall will force it to delay the launch of the program's second orbiter by 14 to 18 months, beyond the expected lifetime of the first satellite. The likely result is a gap in crucial weather and climate data (ClimateWire, May 4).
"Satellites are a must-have when it comes to detecting and tracking dangerous tropical weather. Not having satellites and their capabilities could spell disaster," Lubchenco said yesterday. "NOAA's satellites underpin hurricane forecasts by providing meteorological data over vast areas where we don't have other means of information."
The information those satellites collect is also key to understanding climate change -- an unpopular topic on Capitol Hill -- but the agency has downplayed that aspect as it presses lawmakers for more cash.
"We are working very closely with Congress for this satellite program," Lubchenco said. "We continue to emphasize how much, how important this program is as a matter of public safety. This is of national significance, and we are hopeful we will be able to get the funding to get this program back on track."
A major scientific group echoed those concerns yesterday.
"Funding JPSS is a national preparedness issue," Christine McEntee, executive director of the American Geophysical Union, said in a statement yesterday. "A gap in satellite coverage could jeopardize everything from agriculture and aviation safety, to the oil and gas industry, to wildfire response and other search and rescue operations."
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
14 Comments
Add CommentIt seems like a no brainer to keep satelites up to date as we move into an active period and with climate change. Wait until a NAvy ship is caught off guard by a huricane, then maybe they will take note they chose not to learn about the storms in time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe just cannot expect the anti-science party to provide any funding for intelligent needs -- just more bloated funding for the military/industrial complex.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGet used to it folks. A 14 trillion dollar debt is going to bleed science and technology as well as other programs. 'It ain't going away'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThose who cheer on 1.3 billion dollar Shuttle missions need a reality check.
Maybe NASA can contribute some of their wasted manned mission dough for something of greater consequence. How about the military? The government just gave $2B to Egypt. Maybe the Egyptians can give us a few bucks back. I guess I made my point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Get used to it folks. A 14 trillion dollar debt is going to bleed science and technology as well as........"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this.........................................our future!
Well
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissaid ...
Only one more to go then it's all over.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor future trips up to ISS , refer to the Russians.
oh were they that costly? I read $500 M each launch. yes the big glorious manned program for the past 10 years has been largely a waste. Wonder though if the current new particle detector experiment they are installing needed manned intervention?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFixing the Hubble was arguably "worth it"
Maybe we will start spending some $ on the oceans.
Meanwhile, Israel gets $3 billion per year in foreign aid. And they're just the largest recipient our taxpayer dollars, not by any means the only. When is the U.S. going to start using OUR money for purposes that benefit US?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not sure I understand the benefit/cost ratios. The most expensive hurricanes hitting land have coincided with the highest levels of technology and forecasting, haven't they? Does all our predictive capabilities and detailed knowledge of storms feed hysteria which later results in insurance claims? Perhaps we've reached a point of saturation on detail on forecasts. Isn't it good enough to know there is a hurricane approaching, how detailed does the data need to be in order to warn people to get out of the way? Even with the knowledge of the approaching storm, is there much we can effectively do to prevent damage? Just wondering why all of our forecasting capabilities haven't led to cheaper and safer storms outcomes. Maybe they have.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPresumably Scientific American contributer Michael Shermer would say, "if there is not market driven funding, then it shouldn't be funded"... that kind of perverse economically-libertarian view enables the kinds of spending the US does on wellbeing promotion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGovernments should spend on wellbeing, including disaster detection, and it's not coincidental that Scandinavia & western Europe at large has the highest rates of human wellbeing on Earth via public (socialist) spending on important things.
-as Rachel Maddow has pointed out recently, there is not necessarily a market driven desire to build things like Hoover dam. Capitalism does not cover the most important things in life & so taxed funds spent on things like hurricane detection is important.
that debt should be destroyed via higher taxes, especially on those who have gained the most capital in our country... the debt is not cutting important programs, but some actions of some brainwashed capitalists (mostly in the GOP) is
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRachel Maddow ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWouldn't she qualify as a left-wing-nut?
Actually, listen to her some time. Quote her in Scientific American.
Enlighten us all. Please.
I firmly believe that one of the reasons we name more storms these years is early satellite detection. Some storms each year are detected and determined by satellite info to be tropical storms, while still far out to sea. Some die without ever coming near landfall. These storms would have never been counted just a few decades back, although I am sure they were out there, and now they inflate the total number of storms. Yes, we have more named storms now, but I question whether there are actually more in fact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this