Maybe a turbulent future for the nation's weather satellite program

[meteorologist]

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/17/137251742/blind-eye-in-the-sky-weather-satellites-lose-funding

[isohume]

Polar orbiting satellites are fun to look at and are great for case studies and research projects. However, since NOAA has little interest in making them operationally available in AWIPS it relegates their use and utility to hindcasts, rather than for forecasting like this article suggests. There will be no "doomsday" associated with a possible gap in this type of data.

[dtk]

Polar orbiting satellites are fun to look at and are great for case studies and research projects. However, since NOAA has little interest in making them operationally available in AWIPS it relegates their use and utility to hindcasts, rather than for forecasting like this article suggests. There will be no "doomsday" associated with a possible gap in this type of data.

Whoa now....polar orbiting satellites are absolutely critical for initializing forecast models (we've shown time and time again that AMSU-A is our single most important data source in forecast error reduction, outside of radiosondes). Without these programs/observations, NWP skill would degrade and would in fact impact forecasting (since we rely so heavily on NWP).

[k***]

That's some serious hyperbole.

[isohume]

Whoa now....polar orbiting satellites are absolutely critical for initializing forecast models (we've shown time and time again that AMSU-A is our single most important data source in forecast error reduction, outside of radiosondes). Without these programs/observations, NWP skill would degrade and would in fact impact forecasting (since we rely so heavily on NWP).

Oh I'm not talking about the models. All data is good for that I suppose. I'm saying operationally (near-term forecasting) they are rarely if ever used and have little utility unlike the GOES sats.

[wi_fl_wx]

In the US, the WSR-88D and weather balloon soundings have things covered fairly well. But for the other 98% of the planet, MW satellite coverage is essential for data assimilation. For US events, hurricane and Nor'Easter prediction would be hurt the most. The MW satellite images are showing the best potential in improving hurricane RI prediction. Avoiding even one false alarm of a major hurricane landfall or major snowstorm over a populated area pays for a decade of the satellite program. Not to mention the innumerable research benefits.

Congress will pay up eventually, and hopefully there will not be any delays. It would be stupid to delay the program since everyone will have to be fired and re-hired (at a higher cost) if there is a gap in the program. It is unfortunately that many legislators seem to be opposed to scientific research. Many of them appear to have absolutely no understanding of the technical complexities behind daily weather forecasts, specifically observations and numerical modeling. I suspect that some lobbying is opposed to the satellite program because it may prove beneficial to the anthropogenic climate change theories. It's not easy to measure the decline of the polar ice cap without a satellite--and data gaps are great for damaging the credibility of statistical studies.

[isohume]

In the US, the WSR-88D and weather balloon soundings have things covered fairly well. But for the other 98% of the planet, MW satellite coverage is essential for data assimilation. For US events, hurricane and Nor'Easter prediction would be hurt the most. The MW satellite images are showing the best potential in improving hurricane RI prediction. Avoiding even one false alarm of a major hurricane landfall or major snowstorm over a populated area pays for a decade of the satellite program. Not to mention the innumerable research benefits.

I doubt anything of this magnitude would occur by losing a polar orbiter. Anyway...the TRMM TMI should be able to cover the "gap" in tropical MW imagery, if in fact, one occurs.

[chris87]

I doubt anything of this magnitude would occur by losing a polar orbiter. Anyway...the TRMM TMI should be able to cover the "gap" in tropical MW imagery, if in fact, one occurs.

You do understand the role of MW imagery (mainly sounders, like AMSU), and how they are the single most important observation in data assimilation?

[isohume]

You do understand the role of MW imagery (mainly sounders, like AMSU), and how they are the single most important observation in data assimilation?

Yeah sure do...and the TRMM is not a true polar orbiter so I doubt this type of data will be severely weaned, if at all. The temporal resolution of POI is not good of course, but for model input, yes I agree...added valuable information. The GOES sounder channels provide rather comprehensive coverage and are timely themselves as far as data assimilation goes as well.

[wi_fl_wx]

TRMM is technically a polar orbiter, just with a very high inclination angle. It has all of the other characteristics of a polar orbiter. It was supposed to be sitting at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean right now, but the operational community pressured NASA into extending the mission at the expense of controlling where TRMM crashes. TRMM is well beyond its expected lifetime and could fail tomorrow. It should last until GPM in 2013, but there's no guarantee since it's already 14 years old.

Yeah the GOES sounders are good for day-to-day assimilation, but the high-resolution images of TCs from TRMM and AMSR are unmatched by other instruments. Of course we are still going to know the general track and intensity of a landfalling TC even without polar orbiters. But over the last 10-15 years we have spent hundreds of millions to billions of dollars trying to improve the TC intensity forecasts--specifically RI--and some of the most promising research requires the high-resolution MW images. Not to mention that we are dropping hundreds of millions on recon, which provides only a small fraction of the benefits of a MW imager.

It just doesn't make sense from a financial perspective to drop all this money on researching/developing MW satellites and then cutting support right when it starts to yield results.

[am19psu]

TRMM is technically a polar orbiter, just with a very high inclination angle. It has all of the other characteristics of a polar orbiter. It was supposed to be sitting at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean right now, but the operational community pressured NASA into extending the mission at the expense of controlling where TRMM crashes. TRMM is well beyond its expected lifetime and could fail tomorrow. It should last until GPM in 2013, but there's no guarantee since it's already 14 years old.

Yeah the GOES sounders are good for day-to-day assimilation, but the high-resolution images of TCs from TRMM and AMSR are unmatched by other instruments. Of course we are still going to know the general track and intensity of a landfalling TC even without polar orbiters. But over the last 10-15 years we have spent hundreds of millions to billions of dollars trying to improve the TC intensity forecasts--specifically RI--and some of the most promising research requires the high-resolution MW images. Not to mention that we are dropping hundreds of millions on recon, which provides only a small fraction of the benefits of a MW imager.

It just doesn't make sense from a financial perspective to drop all this money on researching/developing MW satellites and then cutting support right when it starts to yield results.

Strongly agree with everything in this post. Good stuff.

[isohume]

TRMM is technically a polar orbiter, just with a very high inclination angle. It has all of the other characteristics of a polar orbiter. It was supposed to be sitting at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean right now, but the operational community pressured NASA into extending the mission at the expense of controlling where TRMM crashes. TRMM is well beyond its expected lifetime and could fail tomorrow. It should last until GPM in 2013, but there's no guarantee since it's already 14 years old.

Yeah the GOES sounders are good for day-to-day assimilation, but the high-resolution images of TCs from TRMM and AMSR are unmatched by other instruments. Of course we are still going to know the general track and intensity of a landfalling TC even without polar orbiters. But over the last 10-15 years we have spent hundreds of millions to billions of dollars trying to improve the TC intensity forecasts--specifically RI--and some of the most promising research requires the high-resolution MW images. Not to mention that we are dropping hundreds of millions on recon, which provides only a small fraction of the benefits of a MW imager.

It just doesn't make sense from a financial perspective to drop all this money on researching/developing MW satellites and then cutting support right when it starts to yield results.

Great info, thanks.

My whole point in this discussion didn't include tropical concerns or research into RI....but this is good to know. I'm talking about a WFO approach to near-term operational forecasting and the use of timely satellite products for metwatching and nowcasting of aviation, winter, marine, severe, etc.

[chris87]

Great info, thanks.

My whole point in this discussion didn't include tropical concerns or research into RI....but this is good to know. I'm talking about a WFO approach to near-term operational forecasting and the use of timely satellite products for metwatching and nowcasting of aviation, winter, marine, severe, etc.

There still appears to be a general misunderstanding about the role of these data and how important they are to forecasters, even in the case of near-term operational forecasting and "nowcasting". Every time you consult any NWP guidance (RUC; HRRR; NAM; GFS; ECMWF) you are relying on these satellite observations, a significant increase in skill of NWP models have been realized because our ability to assimilate these observations for improved initialization.

That being said, the elimination of future sensors will have a detrimental effect on NWP performance.

I'm assuming you work for the NWS, but you should talk to your WFO leadership and request that they schedule some training/seminars on NWP and data assimilation so that forecasters can at least familiarize themselves with the data that is being used and to highlight the importance of such datasets. Operational forecasters are an important advocate in this debate and you will eventually be the ones most hurt by the elimination of future satellite assets.

[Riptide]

Satellites will continue to fall out of orbit and/or crash into the Earth. The United States won't be able to maintain and build any kind of satellite program in 10 years.

We'll will probably be paying fees to access Chinese data.

[isohume]

That being said, the elimination of future sensors will have a detrimental effect on NWP performance.

Lol...I AGREE with this. Like I already said. What more do you want? An affidavit?

Are you trying to tell me some model is going to give me a better idea than a sat loop of where advecting stratus is currently developing and what TAF sites will be most impacted by low cigs (and at what flight cat) within the next hour or two? Or where the differential heating gradient is certain to set up, which is often missed by the high res WRF and RUC13, etc?

[chris87]

Lol...I AGREE with this. Like I already said. What more do you want? An affidavit?

Are you trying to tell me some model is going to give me a better idea than a sat loop of where advecting stratus is currently developing and what TAF sites will be most impacted by low cigs (and at what flight cat) within the next hour or two? Or where the differential heating gradient is certain to set up, which is often missed by the high res WRF and RUC13, etc?

You're right...if you sit everyday at the aviation desk, you're probably not interested in NWP. Unfortunately, there are forecasters in your office who will be adversely affected by the potential loss of future sensors. There is more to forecasting than a 0-2 hour nowcast, so take a step back from nowcasting and put yourself in the shoes of someone who needs to issue a 72 hour forecast for a category 5 hurricane or a 48 hour forecast for a rapidly developing snowstorm in the Northeast, a forecast which relies on numerical guidance and try to make a case that you are comfortable eliminating datasets which have been crucial to the recent improvements in NWP.

[isohume]

You're right...if you sit everyday at the aviation desk, you're probably not interested in NWP. Unfortunately, there are forecasters in your office who will be adversely affected by the potential loss of future sensors. There is more to forecasting than a 0-2 hour nowcast, so take a step back from nowcasting and put yourself in the shoes of someone who needs to issue a 72 hour forecast for a category 5 hurricane or a 48 hour forecast for a rapidly developing snowstorm in the Northeast, a forecast which relies on numerical guidance and try to make a case that you are comfortable eliminating datasets which have been crucial to the recent improvements in NWP.

Yeah I get your point. Once again, I get your point. For the last time, I get your point. My whole point from the getgo was the operational use of sat data, such as nowcasting, etc. Yes, we rotate forecasts desks. Yes, I use NWP as guidance in the short and medium range when I'm working those desks. Yes, NWP may be adversely affected without polar orbiting sat data for input. No, a "rapidly developing" snowstorm will not be missed because of it. No, a cat 5 hurricane will not be missed because of it. Can we move on now?

[chris87]

Yeah I get your point. Once again, I get your point. For the last time, I get your point. My whole point from the getgo was the operational use of sat data, such as nowcasting, etc. Yes, we rotate forecasts desks. Yes, I use NWP as guidance in the short and medium range when I'm working those desks. Yes, NPW may be adversely affected without polar orbiting sat data for input. No, a "rapidly developing" snowstorm will not be missed because of it. No, a cat 5 hurricane will not be missed because of it. Can we move on now?

One final point, and really no need to get bent out of shape, you started a meaningful and healthy debate which doesn't have an easy answer given the current financial situation.

Nobody argues that they will be missed (they won't), but the added uncertainty with track and intensity are very important considerations, these uncertainties will cost municipalities $$$ and poor forecasts will ultimately lead to the lost of life.

[isohume]

One final point, and really no need to get bent out of shape, you started a meaningful and healthy debate which doesn't have an easy answer given the current financial situation.

Nobody argues that they will be missed (they won't), but the added uncertainty with track and intensity are very important considerations, these uncertainties will cost municipalities $ and poor forecasts will ultimately lead to the lost of life.

Just tired of saying the same thing is all. I highly doubt a snowstorm or hurricane will be missed due to the lack of POI in the model initializations. Maybe some measure of initial location or intensity...but certainly not the magnitude of operational error that will cost millions or lives. I just don't see that, sorry. With all the data that goes into the models, I just don't see it. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

[chris87]

Just tired of saying the same thing is all. I highly doubt a snowstorm or hurricane will be missed due to the lack of POI in the model initializations. Maybe some measure of initial location or intensity...but certainly not the magnitude of operational error that will cost millions or lives. I just don't see that, sorry. With all the data that goes into the models, I just don't see it. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Sure, let's just hope it doesn't come to the elimination of satellites. I think we can agree that science should be adequately funded and maintained.

[Ed Lizard]

Does JMA and ECMWF use the data from these satellites?

Why don't they launch one or two. The US pays most of the UN budget anyway, let the WMO launch these.

[dtk]

Does JMA and ECMWF use the data from these satellites?

Why don't they launch one or two. The US pays most of the UN budget anyway, let the WMO launch these.

Absolutely they use data from our satellites (our operational NOAA birds as well as experimental data from NASA). Just like in this country, the satellites are not under the control (nor budget) of the actual NWP centers (NWS/NCEP/EMC, JMA, ECMWF, UKMET), but instead are controlled by separate entities (NOAA/NESDIS, MSC-Japan, EUMETSAT-Europe). The Europeans are already flying a polar orbiter much like our NOAA POES satellites (called METOP). In fact, we are partnering with them to ensure we have the best possible global observing system possible (they fly in a certain orbit, which is complementary, not redundant, to our NOAA orbits).

I'm not sure that MSC/Japan has any plans to launch a polar orbiting satellite, but their MTSAT (Geos) data is quite good. The Chinese already have polar orbiters up there, but we are still unable to use that data operationally (partly political, I think, but also issues with quality). It's my understanding that that Indians already have a polar orbiter flying (of note is that they have something similar to our now-dead QuikScat....an ocean surface scatterometer).....and pretty ambitious plans (new satellites) moving forward.

It is not quite as simple as outsourcing these satellites; and getting into the details regarding politics, telecommunications/data sharing, data quality, etc., would require its own thread (and not my area of expertise).