James Hilger
EF4
Seems like a scam to get money to me but it involves weather so I'm all for it, unless it means Vortex and the herd that follows. http://www.thecitywire.com/node/32109#.Ux-0daN5uO0
Bill being proposed to increase lead times
- Thread starter James Hilger
- Start date
Mike Smith
There is zero -- and I mean zero -- reliable evidence that one hour or longer lead times would save lives.
If anything, the events of May 20 and 31 in Central Oklahoma demonstrate the reverse is more likely given how we have educated the public over the last sixty years.
The scientific focus at this point should be on reducing false alarms.
If anything, the events of May 20 and 31 in Central Oklahoma demonstrate the reverse is more likely given how we have educated the public over the last sixty years.
The scientific focus at this point should be on reducing false alarms.
Last edited by a moderator:
Stephen Levine
EF4
Given the fickle and sudden nature of tornadoes, sometimes it's simply impossible to give a lead time much more than the current.
I believe that instead of trying to force what science has yet to accomplish, effort instead needs to go towards protecting residents' physical safety. This includes:
1) Requiring builders to adhere to known safe engineering building codes for all new homes and schools,
2) Retrofitting current public buildings and schools to include storm safe rooms and/or shelters, and
3) Requiring mobile home parks to have a safe refuge for their residents.
Continuing to allow building code violations and let violators get off free with no financial penalty, encourages continued suffering and loss of life. Attempting to legislate increased warning lead times does not strike at the heart of the problem.
In addition, the Federal Government needs to loosen up lending practices and encourage regional zoning law modification to allow for construction of storm safe monolithic domes and underground homes, including in suburban settings.
I believe that instead of trying to force what science has yet to accomplish, effort instead needs to go towards protecting residents' physical safety. This includes:
1) Requiring builders to adhere to known safe engineering building codes for all new homes and schools,
2) Retrofitting current public buildings and schools to include storm safe rooms and/or shelters, and
3) Requiring mobile home parks to have a safe refuge for their residents.
Continuing to allow building code violations and let violators get off free with no financial penalty, encourages continued suffering and loss of life. Attempting to legislate increased warning lead times does not strike at the heart of the problem.
In addition, the Federal Government needs to loosen up lending practices and encourage regional zoning law modification to allow for construction of storm safe monolithic domes and underground homes, including in suburban settings.
rdale
EF5
Ehh, that would be incorrect. I think you misunderstood the purpose of longer lead times. While this bill is not the right way to do it, using probabilities to extend the limits of information sharing would be an excellent idea.
Right now we have watches (4-8 hour long products), then a warning (0-30 minutes of lead time.) Notice a gap? Putting a product in the mix that uses probabilistic output would be a tremendous advantage to places that need a bit more of a "heads up" (hospitals, large manufacturing centers, sporting events, etc.
Pretty sure this topic has been hashed and rehashed on this forum.
This bill is basically a request for additional funding to upgrade computer technology or fund research projects that could end up increasing tornado lead times in the years to come. The Warn-on Forecast project focuses on this, and has for a few years now. Hour lead times are still years away, though.
Meteorologists (and scientists in general) are always in need of funding to conduct research to improve the lives of everyone. We'll take the money whenever we can get it. If the funding ever dries up, so will improvements in any meteorological technology.
This bill is basically a request for additional funding to upgrade computer technology or fund research projects that could end up increasing tornado lead times in the years to come. The Warn-on Forecast project focuses on this, and has for a few years now. Hour lead times are still years away, though.
Meteorologists (and scientists in general) are always in need of funding to conduct research to improve the lives of everyone. We'll take the money whenever we can get it. If the funding ever dries up, so will improvements in any meteorological technology.
rdale
EF5
This also forces NWS to develop a plan for incorporating social science research. Good stuff all around!
Mike Smith
Rob, please post links to the evidence you seem to think exists that indicates tornado warnings (the topic of the bill and this thread) with lead times longer than one hour save lives.
The bill doesn't talk about probabilities, it talks about warnings. The congressman introducing the bill rebuked NOAA's Kathryn Sullivan during a hearing for disagreeing that tornado warnings longer than an hour are a good idea. You say I am wrong: Put up or retract your statement, please.
The bill doesn't talk about probabilities, it talks about warnings. The congressman introducing the bill rebuked NOAA's Kathryn Sullivan during a hearing for disagreeing that tornado warnings longer than an hour are a good idea. You say I am wrong: Put up or retract your statement, please.
rdale
EF5
I agree the bill's language is poor in that regard. That's already being mentioned as a concern by many within the weather field. But it does say "forecasts and warnings" so it does have some leeway in terminology. I would expect that if this bill comes to fruition, that will be considered upon implementation.
Mike Johnston
EF5
While I'm all for increased funding for severe weather research, the notion that you can effectively legislate warning lead times is absurd. Also, increased lead times is hardly the holy grail of effective warnings. If anything, the goal should be improved accuracy of warnings which will likely come along slowly but doggedly. From the article, it appears support for the legislation among his colleagues in the region is skeptical.
Rob H
EF5
This bill is from Bridenstine R-OK. He tried pushing this last year, and it was pretty much exposed as a slam on govt. weather to help shift money to privatization of weather. I hope this is shot down, no offense to those in the private weather industry.
edit: I seem to recall it also discussing getting that money by de-funding climate research. Two birds with one stone, I suppose.
double edit: at least some of the old proposal is present in this one:
I don't see any mention of defunding climate research this time, but I'm not sure how to realistically interpret this part:
To me, that sounds like $100,000,000 that was allocated elsewhere in OAR will now go towards these new initiatives. This isn't extra funding, it's just being taken away from other subjects - I'm assuming climate-related studies are the only ones that can support that change in appropriation.
triple edit: long story short: defund climate research, spend the money on ambiguous goals with questionable value, and allow for large portions of that money to go to private entities which was not allowed before. Is that about right?
quadruple edit: congressman Bridenstine, if you question the motives I've attributed to him:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...m-bridenstine-says-us-spends-30-times-much-c/
Attacks Obama and has obvious agenda against "global warming" research
edit: I seem to recall it also discussing getting that money by de-funding climate research. Two birds with one stone, I suppose.
double edit: at least some of the old proposal is present in this one:
I don't see any mention of defunding climate research this time, but I'm not sure how to realistically interpret this part:
To me, that sounds like $100,000,000 that was allocated elsewhere in OAR will now go towards these new initiatives. This isn't extra funding, it's just being taken away from other subjects - I'm assuming climate-related studies are the only ones that can support that change in appropriation.
triple edit: long story short: defund climate research, spend the money on ambiguous goals with questionable value, and allow for large portions of that money to go to private entities which was not allowed before. Is that about right?
quadruple edit: congressman Bridenstine, if you question the motives I've attributed to him:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...m-bridenstine-says-us-spends-30-times-much-c/
Attacks Obama and has obvious agenda against "global warming" research
Last edited by a moderator:
rdale
EF5
This has good bipartisan support and per AMS is likely to be approved.
Rob H
EF5
Is the AMS or anyone else worried about this bill? On the surface - yay for more money for severe weather research, and yay for expanding possibilities for how to spend that money. As adults, we all know politics don't usually result in win-win scenarios, however.
rdale
EF5
I can't see what reason exists for worry. NOAA is upset because this could take some funding away from climate research, but every NWS forecaster or researcher I've talked to say that's a good tradeoff.
Plus the social science aspect could be HUGE.
Plus the social science aspect could be HUGE.
Mike Johnston
EF5
Could be, if done in an objective, focused manner without the opinions/biases of the researchers creeping in. Sometimes you can get the conclusions you want based upon how you ask the questions!
Similar threads
