The one thing I do like to see a quikscat for is a developing deep ocean disturbance, especially to determine if circulation has closed off.
This is a different topic if it's an EITHER / OR situation. In other words, is it either recon or QuikSat?
At any rate, recon usually doesn't fly out for disturbances well in the central or eastern Atlantic. So, we could depend solely on ships that happen to provide enough evidence that the circulation has closed off, or we could use a tool that is at least better than nothing. From a human impact point of view, recon is very important, particularly since the storms that tend to garner the most attn from recon are those that are likely to impact land areas in the western Atlantic. However, I find it odd to hear that the forecast process will not be affected by losing a tool such as Quikscat, particularly for those disturbances and/or storms that are away from the recon domain. Gosh knows that some tropical storm forecasts are absymal to begin with. This seems particularly to be true of weak systems (and those undergoing cylcogenesis) and for those with rapid variation in intensity (i.e. those that are rapidly intensifying or rapidly weakening). Can you ever be confident enough on your forecast to say that the loss of this tool will have no negative impact on your forecast, particularly given that some tropical systems are poorly forecast to begin with? [I certainly don't think quiksat is the end-all and be-all, otherwise I would hope we'd see excellent forecasts for every system/storm that moves through the Atlantic each year. As it is, I'd have to think that more soundings would help... Can we set up a system by which ships or buoys can release RAOBs? LOL] Even if the Quikscat data are only used a handful of times during the season, it still seems imprudent to say "The forecast will not be degraded if we don't have the QuikScat." (per a quote from Avila in the CNN article below).
I'm not incredibly well-versed in tropical storm forecasting and analysis, so my thoughts above should not be weighed too heavily. However, I thought I'd give my 2 cents. Ah, the political... err... forecast process.
We have at least one (and, I think two) NHC forecasters on Stormtrack, so it'd be interesting to hear what they have to say. As it is, given the circumstances, though, I wouldn't be surprised if these members don't feel it appropriate to comment.
EDIT: This subject is now the lead story on CNN.com -->
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/05/hurricane.furor/index.html ... I really have to think there's more to this story than we know. Personality conflicts? I don't know, but it really sounds like politics is flirting with science again (I'm *shocked*... .... ....). I can't imagine a group petitioning to remove their boss while in hurricane season. Apparently, it's severe enough that it can't wait until after hurricane season. There has to be more to this story than just some folks upset that their boss said forecast quality would decrease if Quikscat "died".
EDIT 2: Here's a little better article (and includes the names of those who have signed the petition)-->
Storm director's staff revolt widens: The staff rebellion at the National Hurricane Center grew dramatically, with nearly two dozen employees calling for the departure of director Bill Proenza. (Miami Herald). Per that article, the petition for resignation includes "Lixion Avila, James Franklin, Rick Knabb and Richard Pasch; hurricane forecasters Eric Blake, Dan Brown and Michelle Mainelli; meteorologists Wally Barnes, Robert Berg, John Cangialosi, Hugh Cobb, Martin Nelson, Gladys Rubio, Chris Sisko and Patricia Wallace; oceanographer Stephen Baig; executive officer Ahsha Tribble; administrative officer Vivian Jorge; and Proenza's administrative assistant, Evangelina Maruly." Now I'd REALLY be interesting in hearing from the NHC folks who are Stormtrack members...
