• While Stormtrack has discontinued its hosting of SpotterNetwork support on the forums, keep in mind that support for SpotterNetwork issues is available by emailing [email protected].

New Leadership at NHC?

Chris is right, this may go a little deeper than one may think. Proenza and NWS HQ and NOAA have a lot longer history than needs discussed. I may not agree with the way Proenza has handled this, but let's just say it is not surprising. Proenza may have a rift with the higher ups, but I think at the same time he is trying to get funding for the satellite regardless of how useful it is. One might think that when GOES 8 or 9 go down, they will be replaced. Sadly, if Quicksat is not replaced, what makes you think there is funding to replace GOES 8 or 9 when the time comes? That may be how NOAA thinks. "We had good forecasts without quicksat, we'll have good forecasts even without GOES 8 or 9." Ya, right. If you think forecasting will not be hindered without Quicksat, do you think forecasts will not suffer without GOES 8 or 9? I hope not. You may think this is a bit extreme, but I like having precedent set of replacing satellites when they are dated and need replacing. It is nice having as much data as possible. Just my 2 cents here which may not amount to much.
 
Satellites more than meets the eye

Scott Overpeck said:
Chris is right, this may go a little deeper than one may think. Proenza and NWS HQ and NOAA have a lot longer history than needs discussed. I may not agree with the way Proenza has handled this, but let's just say it is not surprising. Proenza may have a rift with the higher ups, but I think at the same time he is trying to get funding for the satellite regardless of how useful it is. One might think that when GOES 8 or 9 go down, they will be replaced. Sadly, if Quicksat is not replaced, what makes you think there is funding to replace GOES 8 or 9 when the time comes? That may be how NOAA thinks. "We had good forecasts without quicksat, we'll have good forecasts even without GOES 8 or 9." Ya, right. If you think forecasting will not be hindered without Quicksat, do you think forecasts will not suffer without GOES 8 or 9? I hope not. You may think this is a bit extreme, but I like having precedent set of replacing satellites when they are dated and need replacing. It is nice having as much data as possible. Just my 2 cents here which may not amount to much.
Click to expand...

Scott, you may be a bit outdated on your lingo... the Goes satellites 8 and 9 ARE dead. We now use 12 (EAST) and 11(West) with 13 on central US backup (for when either EAST or WEST dies). I continue to fall into the old Goes8 speak myself because she was sooo reliable at 9.5yrs, but just call them GOES-EAST and GOES-WEST...that way you won't have some PITA (like me) give you a lecture.

Also, the GOES program is well stocked up...with the NOP(e) group coming up already funded...and the GOES-R series slated for 2014. GOES-R will be a revolution in satellite imagery with 5 minute scans for the CONUS, .5km resolution for visible imagery and 15 other channels (3 in the visible range to make "true" color images).

As for Quikscat... as an operational user it is a great satellite for TC ANALYSIS...which of course helps forecasting but is not as crucial for the long range forecast. Bigger deal is the not finding the center or max wind like the recon...but it is the large swath of good sfc wind structure. It will be sorely missed in the TC world, but much more at the Ocean Prediction Center, TAFB and Honolulu that forecast wind and waves...that is where it will be HUGE loss.

Sorry to be off topic in this thread, but I wanted to clear up some of the satellite issues you had. Also, I will stay out of the political arena on this one ;)
 
My thoughts at first were that Bill Proenza was bucking the "system" and trying to do what was right for his organization and the public it serves. Since last Tuesday, my opinions have changed and I'm not really sure what to think.

With at least half of the NHC staff revolting against Proenza, much like everyone else, I think that there is a lot more going on behind the scenes. One statement Proenza made kind of "sheds a light" on his thinking. He made a quote stating that his subordinates have signed a petition against him. Subordinates?? That really rubbed me the wrong way and I think that he may have a mindset that his staff is inferior to him. I could be wrong, but thats how I read it. I have had a few bosses like this and Rich is correct in the statement that this is the type of boss that you want to call in sick the rest of your life for and just quit.

In addition to this, I also read a rumour back on July 4th that there is talks of possible restrictions of hurricane track model data. The rumour is that some senior staffers at NHC, including Proenza, want to restrict access to NHC model track data. I don't know if this rumour is true b/c I haven't read it anywhere else or been able to verify it conclusively. Has anyone on this board heard anything about this rumour?? :confused:
 
Rob Lightbown said:
In addition to this, I also read a rumour back on July 4th that there is talks of possible restrictions of hurricane track model data. The rumour is that some senior staffers at NHC, including Proenza, want to restrict access to NHC model track data. I don't know if this rumour is true b/c I haven't read it anywhere else or been able to verify it conclusively. Has anyone on this board heard anything about this rumour?? :confused:
Click to expand...

There's no way to pull that back... It'd be a violation of their Congressional mandate if they were to try - and you KNOW what kind of fuss AW would (correctly) start if this were to happen. It'd risk the entire NWS operation if Congress was involved because NWS willingly held back "potential life-saving information."
 
I think of this as two different issues and I am on board with everybody else that believes that there is a lot more to this story than we know. That interview (that was posted) was enlightening as to what is actually driving these people to call for their bosses removal.
I agree that he should be removed strictly because of the unrest he has obviously caused among the other employees at NHC. It is apparent that he is not a good manager in this particular environment and he needs to be replaced if that many people are upset.
On the other hand, I strongly disagree with the forecasters that are claiming the loss of QuikSCAT wouldn't matter. Proenza is right in pointing out the misalocation of funding by his superiors and I think the regular employees at NHC used the QuikSCAT issue as a vehicle to further their main cause when Proenza's QuikSCAT comments really didn't have anything to do with what they were upset about. Whether the loss of QuikSCAT decreases forecast accuracy 15%, 10%, or 1% doesn't really matter IMO. It is an important forecasting tool and it fills a niche that will not be replaced by any other available products. Proenza was right to point out the fact that if we can afford to blow a bunch of money on a celebration then we should be able to afford to replace a satellite.
The gest of my feelings are that they should replace Proenza and QuikSCAT.
 
I find it surprising that the removal of the NHC director is breaking news on the national networks.


Politics and forecasting combined, the result of Katrina. I dont think I like that.
 
There is another thread about the Quickscat satellite's imminent failure on this site as well!

http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/showthread.php?t=12887

When it comes to POLITICS, simply asking a question can destroy your career.

Just WATCH - When the satellite does fail, and a 160-MPH storm is tearing away at the US with a 12 hour advance warning (instead of 48) ... Then, maybe the NHC / US Govenment will say "OEEPS, he was right, we should not have fired him."

I will never work for the govenment - EVER!!

I worked for the city back in 1993, and was let go for NO REASON ... Later, the person they hired (to replace me) was making $10,000 less than me - That WAS "the reason".
 
Where did your example come from? QuickScat is NOT crucial to landfall forecasts. It's great for stuff over the middle of the ocean, and not too many people live in the middle of the ocean. Recon is crucial when hurricanes approach land, and because of his comments some in Congress openly stated they think recon funding should be cut so a new satellite can be built. The research he used was flawed, and his forecasters told him so, yet he went with it.

Bad idea.
 
rdale said:
The research he used was flawed, and his forecasters told him so, yet he went with it.
Click to expand...

Would you care to elaborate on that statement? Have you even actually read the paper Proenza referenced? The work went through the standard peer review process - one that is believed to be pretty effective in ensuring that published research is credible. It is my impression that the study itself is fine - but that Proenza mis-represented the information he released. Clearly, he felt very strongly about wanting the Quikscat replaced and tried to leverage this study to overplay the impact once it is lost, whereas some of the NHC forecasters apparently do not share his level of interest and are rather pissed they weren't asked what they thought he should be campaigning for. Also, there almost certainly has to be more to the story than this one issue which we likely will never hear about - which is particularly clear since it was not just the forecasters on staff that wanted to see him removed.
 
No - I'm going off Jeff Master's comments. And again there is more to the story, but nobody in the tropical world I've found says that the mainland US is in dire jeopary if QuickScat dies.

If you have the ability to put it in a short format - exactly what would cause the landfall errors if recon was good but QuickScat was gone?
 
rdale said:
If you have the ability to put it in a short format - exactly what would cause the landfall errors if recon was good but QuickScat was gone?
Click to expand...


I have not seen the study as it has not yet been published (though is near the top of the 'papers to appear' list so should soon be available). Speculating however, I don't get the impression that the study looked at landfall forecast errors at all - but simply forecast errors in TC positions. This could be done by having one experiment use all the available observations ingested into the initial condition used by the operational model, integrate the model to some time in the future and then look at the errors in the forecast relative to what came to be observed. So, this is an assessment that has to be done after the actual storm event. Then, the same experiment is done except the intial condition processing is denied the data from the Quikscat, was again integrated to some time in the future and was evaluated for the errors in the storm location relative to observations. Then, looking at the cumulative effect from many forecasts (a number of which for the same storms, but at different initial forecast times), the overall performance showed degraded forecast position estimates without the Quikscat data in the ingest.

The basic belief in model forecasts is that a better initial condition for the model at the beginning of a forecast cycle will generally (though not always) lead to a better forecast. The suggestion would then be that the information from the Quikscat is helpful if the forecast positions from the model run usining the Quikscat data in the ingest are generally closer to the observed storm locations than equivalent runs not ingesting the Quikscat data. Not knowing anything more about the study being referenced, I don't know if this improvement is most prevalent during any particular phase in the storm's development or geographic location - though with only 2 seasons considered I'm guessing this level of distinction was not pursued.
 
Glen Romine said:
Would you care to elaborate on that statement? Have you even actually read the paper Proenza referenced? The work went through the standard peer review process -
Click to expand...

The science is not flawed, it is the dataset... it was not expansive enough to show robust results. I believe it was only one season (2003) with limited intense hurricanes and TD cases. One season is not really enough, you need a good diversification...which is not typically the case across one season as global parameters such as MJO, ENSO, and placement of subtropical high tend not to vary enough. So a better database would expand to many more cases (over 100 would be good) with a diverse intensity gambit, as well as multiple seasons.

Overall, the science and methodology were good... and logical, but just like all results, you can view them anyway you want to prove your points ;)
 
Gregg Gallina said:
I believe it was only one season (2003) with limited intense hurricanes and TD cases. One season is not really enough, you need a good diversification...which is not typically the case across one season as global parameters such as MJO, ENSO, and placement of subtropical high tend not to vary enough. So a better database would expand to many more cases (over 100 would be good) with a diverse intensity gambit, as well as multiple seasons.
Click to expand...

The title of the study says it was done over two seasons - though still the number of forecasts looked at was only 19 (according to the review by Jeff Masters) for the 72 hr forecasts, he didn't mention the number of samples for the 48 hr forecasts, though you would assume more of these were available. I agree this is too small a number (at least for the 'known' 72 hr forecasts) to draw broad conclusions, though you can make decent statistical arguments with a sample size of around 30 if the data aren't too noisy, which is a little easier to compile than 100. Also, while I agree that there could be sensitivity of the data impact from differences in large scale pattern regimes, you could easily find a dozen or more other possible biases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top