House Hearing 6-26-2013 9 am on Weather Forecasting

[arlwx]

Link to webpage for House Science, Space and Technology hearing part 2 on improving US weather forecasting

 

 

http://science.house.gov/hearing/subcommitte-environment-hearing-restoring-us-leadership-weather-forecasting-part-2

 

Featuring representatives from NOAA, AMS and universities.

 

[arlwx]

Now to be at 10 am.

[arlwx]

After Sullivan's prepared testimony, questions from the chair about a surveillance study.  Sullivan said the study design is still under review.  The chair asked about funding restrictions on research.  Sullivan said NWS operational office in Norman OK is co-located with National Severe Storms center, etc, working on hazardous weather testbed.  Also, a focus on research re daily and seasonal weather.  She wanted to have further co-location. The chair wanted longer warning times.

 

The next person was concerned about climate and ocean research cuts to fund weather forecasting.  Sullivan said forecasting was top priority.  However, she said there had been research on oceans, oscillations and its effect on hurricanes.  She said that models were needed to improve review of inner core of hurricane.  She was asked what NOAA structure should be changed to improve forecasting?  She said improvements had been made in hurricane forecasting.  She wanted improvements in keeping NOAA's computers back to cutting edge.  She said a research model can't fit into the supercomputing model, that the derecho of last year was predicted by the research model.

 

Someone else wanted to have an hour of tornado warning.  Sullivan said there are human reactions to warnings, and people could forget about warnings and get caught.  She said there is research about the right time to communicate.  The committee member asked if NOAA was smarter than the public?  Sullivan said scientists including those at NOAA caution her on this.  She was asked about phased radar at Norman OK, and whether energy could be deployed to get an hour lead time.  Sullivan said there is still looking at what dual radar can do. She noted that improvements in current computing are needed to improve forecasting.  She was still being asked about lead time.  Sullivan replied she wanted to know what would cause people to take action now.

 

Another member noted that NOAA is a multi-mission agency, and thought current (budget?) legislation is flawed in slashing budget for climate research.  Sullivan noted that the European research agency has only one mission, to run the 12-day model, and other nations have their models.  She said that the European research agency works to keep computers on cutting edge, versus the US spend then let it fall back again.  She said the Europeans also focus on data input.  She said the US had adopted a more efficient model that now the Europeans want to use.  Sullivan noted the US has more varied weather than Europe.

 

Someone else said certain members are pilots and are concerned about that.  188 million for climate research, 82 million on weather forecasting, and if 30 million could be shifed to weather forecasting.  Sullivan replied that the climate research was needed to be able to extend weather forecasting beyond 5 days.  The member objected to Sullivan's reluctance to extend timing of warnings to an hour.

She was asked if a dollar in weather forecasting research was more valuable than climate research.  Sullivan said it depends.  The member asked about the unauthorized transfer of funds within NOAA, and if this impacted transferring research into use.  Sullivan indicated that there was well-intentioned efforts to support forecasters in everyday work. The member objected to moving funds around, and claimed that Sullivan was wedded to climate research versus advancing warning lead time. 

 

The next member asked about the fund transfers and if Sullivan had known about transfers when it took place.  She said an OIG complaint surfaced the issue, and that NOAA promptly within hours started an inquiry.  The member asked what happened to the members.  Sullivan said some people are no longer with NOAA, and internal controls have been strengthened and senior personnel trained.  She was told that Congress therefore had questions about the budget and hoped there were safeguards against moving the money.

 

The chair wanted to get responses regarding questions for the record asked last year.

[arlwx]

Droegemeier, Gail and Chen read from their prepared testimony and showed videos about forecasting and other issues. 

 

Gail said lengthening forecasting is a worthy goal, but Chen said that there are open questions about predictability.  The chair thought that lengthening warning times was a good idea.  Droegemeier thought there could be improvements in communicating to the public.  The chair thought that an hour's warning was better than 15 minutes, but asked how communications could be made.  Gail said the question is how to communicate so that people take appropriate action. 

 

The next member cited reports about moving items from research into operations, and the difficulties in doing so, and wondered if those reports could be used to improve legislation.  Chen thought there needed to be systematic efforts to move results from research into operational use, especially the research from non-NOAA groups.  Gail thought that legislation could help with this.  Droegemeier said that the collaboration in OK between universities, NWS and the Severe Storm Center is good and that could be done elsewhere.  He noted that there are model errors and some observations are needed.  The member asked about social science research and how people's attention can be held, and asked for written answers.

 

Someone asked about phased radar.  Droegemeier said it was a simulation.  He was asked who uses phased radar?  He replied that there is the military, and one testbed in OK.  The member asked if there was ideas about networking phased radars to aid in targeting an item?  Droegemeier replied there had been a study about that.  The member asked if the private sphere could help develop this for profit?  Droegemeier said that was still under consideration.

 

A member asked about social science research and noted some in Congress reject that.  She thought that the research on communication could augment outcomes.  Droegemeier said NIH, NSF, etc have looked at trust about communication, and that there is a body of scholarship, but outsiders have really not worked with NOAA about this.  He said he did not know how much money is spent on such research, but said NOAA needs to work on this issue.  The member asked if there is the right kind of balance.  Droegemeier said that climate research would continue even without climate change questions.  Chen said hurricane forecasts project 7 days out, but the errors could lead to overwarning the public.

 

The chair said that Section 5 of the legislation encouraged research.

 

Another member said that a lot of money had been spent to prove climate change, and doubters were denied grants.  He asked if the dollars could be better spent on weather research/warnings.  He noted there may be an upcoming gap in polar data.  Gail said there are recognized risks.  The member said that a hearing last year had someone say that commercial data may be the most cost-effective way to get data, and asked if NOAA has any plans to do this, or look to see if it would be cost-effective. Gail said that it should be whatever works best.  The member thought that the government does too much, and doesn't contract out things.  He said the SpaceX supply vehicle saves money. 

[MN Transplant]

Thanks for the recap of the second session.  I was a little frustrated at the end of Sullivan's testimony that some of the members were focusing on the reprogramming of funds from a couple of years ago, basically asking "why would we give you more money if we can't trust you with it."