Is it a good time to slash Hurricane Hunter funding?

[Hugo]

The House is proposing slashing funding for the Hurricane Hunter program by 40%. Beyond the political aspect of this, do you think this is a good idea as far as forecasting hurricanes is concerned? Will the cuts barely be noticed or will it seriously hamper our efforts to improve hurricane forecasting?

Link to story: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/08/26/2376186/hurricane-hunter-program-could.html

[Dunkman]

Well, with Irene, it went from "ehh, somewhere on the east coast" before all the sampling data to the Euro and then the GFS absolutely nailing the track, even the NNW track it took into NC and the atlantic city to vermont run inland. Also, there was a point where the T numbers for Irene declared she was a category 4 storm, and without the hurricane hunters there would have had to be much more extensive evacuations along the east coast which would have cost who knows how many millions of dollars. This doesn't even take into account all that we learn from these missions that help improve modeling and forecasting in the future. Finally, our intensity forecasting is clearly the weak link right now, and less data certainly isn't going to help the process of getting better.

[Thunder Road]

Does "hurricane hunters" also cover USAF Recon flights? Just curious, as the article didn't really say and I don't know too much about MacDill AFB (i.e.e who's based out of there)

[dan88]

Does "hurricane hunters" also cover USAF Recon flights? Just curious, as the article didn't really say and I don't know too much about MacDill AFB (i.e.e who's based out of there)

Looking at http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/local/hillsborough/hurricane-hunters-may-face-budget-cuts-08292011 , it seems this budget is the NOAA missions rather than the Air Force missions

[Ed Lizard]

Looking at http://www.myfoxtamp...t-cuts-08292011 , it seems this budget is the NOAA missions rather than the Air Force missions

Anyone ever seen the comparison of (I believe the GFS) for a hurricane (Katrina?) with and without G-IV data? Unless they could find a way to transfer the G-IV operations to the 53rd WRS, which would probably be cheaper than NOAA/Commerce (I used to be an enlisted man, I know what techs and mechanics make in the military) there would be a significant degradation of forecast skill.

Of course, I believe in six years interest on the national debt will pass DoD spending, there is little room left for non-entitlement spending, so good or bad, and this doesn't seem like the smartest place to cut, cuts are coming to important programs.

[HurricaneJosh]

It's beyond stupid, given the importance of the Hurricane Hunters and the fact that the amount of money they're taking about is pocket change.

[phlwx]

Well, with Irene, it went from "ehh, somewhere on the east coast" before all the sampling data to the Euro and then the GFS absolutely nailing the track, even the NNW track it took into NC and the atlantic city to vermont run inland. Also, there was a point where the T numbers for Irene declared she was a category 4 storm, and without the hurricane hunters there would have had to be much more extensive evacuations along the east coast which would have cost who knows how many millions of dollars. This doesn't even take into account all that we learn from these missions that help improve modeling and forecasting in the future. Finally, our intensity forecasting is clearly the weak link right now, and less data certainly isn't going to help the process of getting better.

http://www.philly.com/philly/insights/in_the_know/20110831_Better_tools_on_the_way_for_hurricane_forecasters.html?cmpid=124488799

PSU is working on an intensity model that did relatively well with Irene. Track was kinda "meh" (east of consensus) but it did better than most modeling on intensity projections.

[Stebo]

Stupid cuts are just too stupid to comprehend.

[Ed Lizard]

To avoid being political, (and this topic screams AP, I'm informed a thread does exist), this is obviously not the first choice of places to cut money as far as bang for the buck. There has to be something everyone can agree is a waste, like Cowboy Poetry Festivals in Nevada or something that should obviously be cut first.

My Google-Fu is weak. I think it was Katrina, best track versus GFS initialized w/o G-IV dropsonde data versus GFS with G-IV data, and the G-IV data leads to significant improvement.

[johnc]

To avoid being political, (and this topic screams AP, I'm informed a thread does exist), this is obviously not the first choice of places to cut money as far as bang for the buck. There has to be something everyone can agree is a waste, like Cowboy Poetry Festivals in Nevada or something that should obviously be cut first.

This is probably one of those programs that can be cut without too much screaming, which is why it's likely being targeted in the first place.

Try to sliver back somebody's SS check and people will riot.

[ArtRosen]

This is probably one of those programs that can be cut without too much screaming, which is why it's likely being targeted in the first place.

Try to sliver back somebody's SS check and people will riot.

Won't be people left to scream. They'll all be dead without important hurricane hunter info. But hey, look on the bright side! If a major hurricane hits Florida unexpectedly, less money spent in social security that year! Win-win for Republicans, right?

Honestly, it's scary. This is chump change and isn't even 1% of 1% of our budget and the importance of these missions cannot be understated.

[NickD2011]

Show them the GFS forecast 3 days in advance of the hurricane and the actual track. The reason the GFS nailed the track was because of precise data from the Hurricane Hunters.

But I'd say that once a hurricane is well inland and extratropical, the Hurricane Hunters don't need to keep following it as data from land is enough for the models. They could have stopped flying through Irene once it was over Massachusetts.

Opponents would say that we shouldn't let the Caribbean island nations, Cuba, Mexico, etc freeload off our data and warnings since more often, other countries are affected and the US isn't.

[CoralRed]

For all the reasons people have already stated and many more, I believe cuts to any hurricane-related research are a bad idea.

The more we know about the path and intensity of hurricanes, the more we save:

1. We save more lives;

2. We save more property; and

3. We save more money

4. Plus as an extra added bonus, we give ourselves greater peace of mind.

All this would be true even if our population hadn't rapidly increased -- which of course it has. The US population has grown from around 200 million in the 1960s to around 310 million. We're expected to reach 400 million around 2050. With so many more people, the impact of the storms of today and the future will frequently be much greater than in years gone by.

Frankly I think we should increase the budget on this; it would pay for itself many times over.

[k***]

Show them the GFS forecast 3 days in advance of the hurricane and the actual track. The reason the GFS nailed the track was because of precise data from the Hurricane Hunters.

But I'd say that once a hurricane is well inland and extratropical, the Hurricane Hunters don't need to keep following it as data from land is enough for the models. They could have stopped flying through Irene once it was over Massachusetts.

Opponents would say that we shouldn't let the Caribbean island nations, Cuba, Mexico, etc freeload off our data and warnings since more often, other countries are affected and the US isn't.

They don't fly in storms once they are over land.

[isohume]

I could see NOAA going with something like the unmanned Aerosonde program. It'd be much cheaper than the current Orion/Gulfstream 4 missions.

Also...the Areosonde is able to more fully sample the near-surface layer in stronger hurricanes....areas too dangerous for the Orions to fly. This would provide more continuous data of the critical air-sea interface region of TCs...and a more complete dataset for improving model parameterization schemes, etc.

[Ed Lizard]

I could see NOAA going with something like the unmanned Aerosonde program. It'd be much cheaper than the current Orion/Gulfstream 4 missions.

Also...the Areosonde is able to more fully sample the near-surface layer in stronger hurricanes....areas too dangerous for the Orions to fly. This would provide more continuous data of the critical air-sea interface region of TCs...and a more complete dataset for improving model parameterization schemes, etc.

I still like the idea of moving NWS back into the Army Siganl Corps (or maybe the USAF), with appropriate ranks given to GS workers, a phase in period for people close to retirement to stay in the GS system, and, of course, people who are already O-6 like Stacy Stewart winds up head of NHC. 20-30 year retirement program opens up positions for new met grads, labor costs are lower. You'd all get snazzy uniforms to wear to work. And surprise urinalysis.

Sure, it won't happen, but it'd save money.

[isohume]

I still like the idea of moving NWS back into the Army Siganl Corps (or maybe the USAF), with appropriate ranks given to GS workers, a phase in period for people close to retirement to stay in the GS system, and, of course, people who are already O-6 like Stacy Stewart winds up head of NHC. 20-30 year retirement program opens up positions for new met grads, labor costs are lower. You'd all get snazzy uniforms to wear to work. And surprise urinalysis.

Sure, it won't happen, but it'd save money.

Ha...no thanks. I already do all that.