Perhaps we should study how salmon, porpoises, tuna and cod attained their political power.
Posted on 10/10/2005 7:41:22 AM PDT by NautiNurse
The clues to help forecasters figure out why hurricanes defy them sit untouched inside a dusty storage room off Miami's Rickenbacker Causeway.
Here, at the government's Hurricane Research Division, the life spans of dozens of storms are documented on nine-track tapes stacked floor to ceiling, wall to wall, from Claudette to Fabian to Irene to Andrew.
There are trillions of bytes of data. But the division's 16 remaining researchers don't have time to study them.
While the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has been warning the nation about the rise in dangerous hurricanes, the agency has denied requests from its hurricane researchers for more scientists, modern equipment and backing for breakthrough projects, a Herald investigation found.
Since 1995, NOAA's Hurricane Research Division lost 11 scientists and has replaced just four, leaving 31 people and a base budget that hasn't topped $3.5 million in more than two decades.
A former director and two senior researchers say they've pleaded for 10 years for an increase of at least 50 percent, but NOAA has granted only incremental bumps that barely kept pace with inflation -- or no increases at all.
''Our requests were dead on arrival,'' said former Hurricane Research Division Director Hugh Willoughby, who quit the post in 2002 after seven years of denials. ``Basically, it was a fool's errand.''
It's difficult to track how much money researchers have asked for and why it was denied. That's because requests for budget increases made by NOAA agencies including the Hurricane Research Division are considered a part of internal planning -- kept outside the view of Congress and the public. NOAA administrators decide which projects to support, then send an agency-wide request every year to the Department of Commerce and eventually to the president.
''It means Congress can think they're funding hurricanes properly when they're not,'' said research meteorologist Mike Black, a 20-year division veteran.
Through more than 20 e-mails, spreadsheets and other Research Division reports, The Herald documented the decadelong budget struggle -- which continues even as powerful hurricanes, most recently Katrina and Rita, batter the United States.
At the Research Division, it has come to this: Black studies the intricacies of storms that killed thousands of people on a rigged personal computer because the one NOAA gave him was 8 years old and obsolete. Key data from hurricane hunter flights is stored on a 10-year-old computer; there's no money to replace it.
The screen that researchers use to dissect satellite images is a hand-me-down from a lab in Colorado. Devices they rely on to test ocean temperature were Cold War leftovers donated by the Navy.
But nothing is as frustrating as the possibility of progress, just out of reach.
''We are the world's experts on hurricanes, but we're desperate. We need help,'' Black said.
The nine-track tapes, so far unexplored, are filled with data from radars and hurricane hunter planes, documenting how eye-wall changes made hurricanes stronger, how cool water made them weaker, how cloud patterns produced torrential rainfall.
Researchers believe unraveling the behavior of past hurricanes will help their colleagues at the National Hurricane Center predict storms of the future more precisely.
Forecasters say the tapes, among other benefits, could detail such dynamics as hurricane eye-wall replacements. That's when an outer ring of wind and rain forms outside the main eye wall, choking off the wall and weakening the storm, or in some cases, contracting and intensifying, producing a stronger hurricane.
By examining dozens of storms, scientists also hope to find patterns that can help them pierce two of the biggest blind spots in hurricane forecasting:
• The sudden strengthening of storms just before landfall, like Hurricane Charley in 2004, Hurricane Iris in 2001 and Hurricane Keith in 2000, all mild-mannered hurricanes that unexpectedly exploded.
• Rainfall prediction, a particularly unsettling mystery because freshwater flooding has become the No. 1 killer during hurricanes. Deadly flooding sideswiped Richmond, Va., during Hurricane Gaston in 2004, South Florida during Hurricane Irene in 1999, and Honduras and Nicaragua during Hurricane Mitch in 1998. During that hurricane alone, more than 9,000 people died.
Researchers have another goal, too: feeding more weather information, like wind data from radars, into NOAA's computer models, used by the Hurricane Center to predict the path and strength of storms.
That requires faster computers, but NOAA is falling behind. In November 2000, the computers NOAA used for weather prediction were the sixth most powerful in the world -- today they're 69th, according to a 2005 ranking of the world's fastest supercomputers compiled partly by the U.S. Department of Energy.
Upgrading the computer models also requires expert help; the Research Division wants to hire at least four more scientists to build programs that would allow more detailed weather-observation data to feed into the models. But NOAA has refused requests for more staff.
''Significant improvements are possible right now,'' said longtime meteorologist and former Penn State University dean Charles Hosler, whose former students include top administrators at the Weather Service. ``Even a very small expenditure would mean a lot for this country -- and we're talking millions, not billions.''
NOAA chief Conrad Lautenbacher counters that many research arms of the agency compete for money -- and that's in limited supply. NOAA's 2005 budget request included $6 million to assess the stock of monkfish and blue marlin, $12 million to research endangered salmon, $5.5 million to start air quality ozone forecasts and $6.6 million to study aerosols, records show.
There was no additional money for the Hurricane Research Division. NOAA's 2006 budget request also included no new money.
''Sitting at the top of the pyramid of my empire, I'd certainly like to have more money, too,'' said Lautenbacher, appointed by President Bush in 2001. `` . . . I'm a scientist. I'd like to see as much as we can get them.''
Between 1998 and 2005, the Research Division's base budget grew by about 14 percent, from $2.6 million to $3 million, an increase that barely kept pace with inflation. The division also receives grant money from within NOAA and from other agencies, but that money is doled out on a year-by-year basis and is not permanent.
BUDGET WOES
RESEARCHERS LEAVE
AMID FRUSTRATIONS
The lack of support for hurricane study has frustrated researcher Stan Goldenberg, who fumed in a 2004 e-mail to a colleague: `What will it take, a Category Three/Four (hurricane) hitting New York City?''
The Research Division's budget troubles heated up when Willoughby became director in the mid-1990s.
Records show he regularly told his bosses about deficits the division faced simply to keep operating at basic levels, according to a review of his budget spreadsheets.
Still, no money.
Top scientists left, including Mark DeMaria, who had created the only computer model capable of helping to predict a storm's strength.
''You could see that this was an agency that was not growing,'' said DeMaria, who left research for the Hurricane Center and now works for another NOAA agency in Colorado.
Even after a landmark study in 2001 by the Research Division's scientists warning of far busier hurricane seasons, NOAA continued to turn down requests.
Former Hurricane Center directors were so concerned that they decided to take an unprecedented step: They appealed directly to Congress.
''This is not the time to allow funding for this vital organization to continue decreasing,'' five former directors wrote in 2001.
Willoughby left a year later. He took a job across town at the International Hurricane Research Center at Florida International University.
It wasn't always this bad, he said.
Forty years ago, leading hurricane experts were clustered on the University of Miami campus -- forecasters at the Hurricane Center, scientists at the Research Division and academics with the university's meteorology department. Hurricane hunter research planes were stationed nearby at Miami International Airport.
But NOAA changed that, moving the researchers to a building on Virginia Key, the forecasters across town to the FIU campus, the hurricane hunter planes to MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa.
The separation frustrated scientists, who were used to poring over satellite images and radar data together, or driving minutes away to the airport for regular hurricane hunter missions.
Despite the problems, researchers have managed with limited resources to advance the science of hurricane forecasting.
They helped design new equipment, including an acclaimed stepped frequency microwave radiometer that for the first time measures surface wind speeds from hurricane hunter planes. On a shoestring budget, the project took 20 years, ending last year when the device was brought into regular use. The equipment has been so useful to forecasters, Congress is paying $10 million to install the device on all hurricane hunter planes.
The Research Division was also the first to discover that sampling the winds in the environment around a storm would dramatically improve track forecasts. Former Hurricane Center Director Bob Sheets persuaded Congress after a decade of discussions to buy a $43 million jet devoted exclusively to those missions; the jet is now credited with improving track forecasts by as much as 25 percent.
Researchers want to do more, but say the competition for dollars has grown even tougher under Lautenbacher.
A retired Navy vice admiral, Lautenbacher was president of the nonprofit Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education before taking the helm of NOAA.
Some suggest Lautenbacher focuses more heavily on ocean sciences, given his background.
''Hurricane researchers are competing with porpoises and tuna fish and codfish, meaning in a bureaucracy, who gets funded isn't necessarily based on merits but on politics,'' said Hosler, who has studied NOAA for Congress.
Tornado research has also drawn support.
NOAA's National Severe Storms Laboratory in Oklahoma, the nation's authority on tornado research, has a $19 million budget this year -- more than $15 million came from NOAA, the rest from grants. The lab has 44 NOAA employees plus 75 from the University of Oklahoma who receive grant money.
That's four times the staff at the Hurricane Research Division. The lab's mission is broader than the Research Division's, and researchers acknowledge that tornadoes impact more states.
But advocates for hurricane research argue the United States is experiencing a dangerous surge in tropical weather -- nine of the past 11 years have posted above-normal hurricane seasons -- and research dollars have not kept pace.
Lautenbacher counters: ``Many of my research divisions would like more money . . . I can give you a long list of national priorities, like defense and homeland security.''
THE FUTURE
NO ADDITIONAL
MONEY AFTER 2007
NOAA officials also say the Research Division isn't the only arm of the agency that studies hurricanes, and that overall, hurricane research funding NOAA-wide grew from $5 million to $8 million since 2000.
''If you compare that to a lot of other federal agencies, they'd be envious,'' said NOAA budget director Steve Gallagher.
Yet, a NOAA official confirmed in late September that the Research Division's most recent request for more money to study why hurricanes rapidly intensify has been denied.
In NOAA's budget plan for 2007 through 2011, there's no additional money for the Research Division.
Said former director Willoughby: ``We see the outlines of what needs to be done, but before it comes to fruition, more people could die.''
Histrionics on parade...Hurricane researchers are competing with porpoises and tuna fish and codfish
Part II of the hurricane forecast funding series.
Part II of the hurricane forecast funding series.
I have a prediction myself: The future will bring more major hurricanes. This year, we have at least three more.
I wonder if they considered taking up a collection along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts.
From Article: Said former director Willoughby: ``We see the outlines of what needs to be done, but before it comes to fruition, more people could die.''
uhhh... "If we do not make abortion legal, more women will die."
Oh boy. Not a good statement to make, IMHO. NOLA had, what, 4 days' warning? And people refused to leave. Ergo, even with the best, absolute best system in place, I guess the solution is to declare the Entire US, eminent domain, so everyone can wear "Robinson Crusoe on Mars" bracelets and be hunted down if they refuse to leave?
Okay.. I'm off into hyperbole land... now...
That's just weird.
I wonder how many $$$ could be saved if we eliminated all studies from our budgets. Most of the info is either irrelevant to our lives, or a study of what is already obvious to everyone but the researcher. Eliminate these studies and most sociologists and dolphin chasers will have to do real work for a living.
Good points. Forecasting aside, I still don't understand why local municipalities don't preemptively shut down electricity and water to "encourage" evacuation. Last year, they threatened to do just that prior to Hurricane Charley. It got our attention in the neighborhood.
And the point is, no matter how good the forecast might become, you don't wait for the forecast to become clear to start evacuating, because by then it is too late.
"NOAA's 2005 budget request included $6 million to assess the stock of monkfish and blue marlin, $12 million to research endangered salmon,..."*snip*
Gee, I can see where these programs will make a HUGE difference in my safety and quality of life. {/sarcasm off}
Perhaps we should study how salmon, porpoises, tuna and cod attained their political power.
Why do I get the feeling that the IBF/IRF phrase is about to be tossed out there by these chuckleheads?
So they can bleat "global warming".
This sounds like such a sensible idea, I'm wondering why it isn't done?
Took about two seconds for my "whiner sensitivity alarm" to buzz: Imagine, folks have their electricity and water cut off (traffic accident, accidental cutting of power line).. thinking it's a storm, leaving town, and then suing the government for "misinformation"? Likely?
What is needed, however, and IMHO, a clearer accounting of monies. What gets funded by Joe Taxpayer, and then eventually purchased or "donated to" by a private org -- does that private org money get factored into newer budgets for the initial project or category of product, and then.. how's the accountability -- is the study product actually beneficial?
Fishing industry must have made some donations.
Local Tampa news had a segment on the story this evening too. It's getting serious media coverage.
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.