Panic Over Failing QuikSCAT Satellite Overblown

daeg writes "We previously read and discussed about the aging QuikSCAT weather satellite used to help predict tropical storms. It turns out that the panic is likely overblown and the loss of the satellite won't have any dramatic effects on forecasting at all. Some in the National Hurricane Center are now calling for Director Proenza's resignation over this and his overall handling of the center."

QuikScat name origin

[Anonymous Coward]

SCAT comes from Scatterometer (which is what the instrument is). Quik comes from the speed with which the spacecraft and instrument came together.

QS was created to fill a gap when the satellite carrying it's predecessor (NSCAT) failed after 6 months on orbit. There was already another scatterometer being built (Seawinds) which was scheduled to launch a few years later on ADEOS-II. They took spares from that instrument, found a spare launch vehicle (Titan II) found a spacecraft (Ball BCP2000), and cobbled it all together in 13 months from start to launch, which is VERY quick in the NASA satellite business, hence the name..

Peer Review

[Citizen Snips]

The commentary from the author seems uneven. For example, the author first states,

I contacted one of the authors, who informed my that the study was submitted for publication on January 26, 2007, and accepted for publication in the journal Weather and Forecasting on May 23, 2007. It will probably appear in the October-November time frame, according to the publisher. This raises an immediate problem, since only a privileged few are able to read unpublished research. This limits the possibilities for an informed debate on the issue, and basing important policy decisions on unpublished research is thus normally to be avoided.

then goes on to cite a "poster presentation" at a conference,

When I attended the AMS hurricane conference in May 2006 in Monterey, I came across a poster presentation by Dr. Jim Goerss that evaluated the impact of QuikSCAT on the NOGAPS model.

The author insinuates that a "poster presentation" at a conference receives more rigorous peer review than a journal article accepted for publication. In order for an article to be accepted for publication, it is usually reviewed by several people deemed "experts in the field" by the journal editors, while conference submissions are usually accepted based on only an abstract.

Re:Peer Review

[mparker762]

If you read further the author does bring up the issue of peer review:

...the study cited by Proenza has undergone peer review, and is thus the only scientific study one can use to make arguments on QuikSCAT's effectiveness. The Goerss study has not been published in a journal, and has not undergone peer review. However, Proenza was making his QuikSCAT accuracy arguments in March, two months before the Zapotocny study he cited had been accepted for publication.

The fact that the Zapotocny study has been peer-reviewed doesn't make it more relevant for Proenza's argument if it's studying the wrong hurricanes or has too-high of an uncertainty factor.

On Weather Satellites

[brennz]

(Disclaimer: I work for NOAA)

I am not sure about the mode by which Bill P raised the alarm on the upcoming loss of weather satellites. I do think his message was correct though - to raise the profile on what he sees as a critical issue - the issue of proper funding for NOAA and satellite capabilities. NOAA does so much, with so little... We are stretched incredibly thin compared to other agencies.... I don't believe Dr. Jeff Masters had access to the all the data Bill P used in his decision to go public. People disagree with how he did it and it made more work for the NWS PR people.

Jeff Masters is also advocating the replacement of QuickSCAT with a "next-generation" scatterometer, one that has greatly improved capabilities to help tackle the structure and intensity problem"..... I hope Dr. Masters isn't trying to recreate the NPOESS problem [space.com] by linking a satellite needed now to a high-risk/experimental sensor because it sure sounds like it.

Killing the Messenger to hide Global Warming.

[twitter]

They have treated him to a pop inspection, kind of like they did Iraq before the invasion:

Federal officials are expected today to finish a surprise inspection of the hurricane center, to see if it can fulfill its mission under Bill Proenza.

Want to bet the result is a smear job?

The attacks on the integrity of his policy shows up the problems of scientific publishing more than it does anything else. Jeff Master's [wunderground.com] critiques look solid, but he points to a big problem:

It will probably appear in the October-November time frame, according to the publisher. This raises an immediate problem, since only a privileged few are able to read unpublished research. This limits the possibilities for an informed debate on the issue, and basing important policy decisions on unpublished research is thus normally to be avoided. However, making accurate hurricane forecasts is important enough that such considerations can be excused.

The article should be widely available so I don't have to take Master's opinion of it. Weather Underground, because of the Weather Service Scandal [slashdot.org] is a suspect source of information. They did their best to cripple free updates from the national weather service and I'm still angry at them for it. Even if Master's claims are valid, they don't warrent the attention Proenza is getting.

Really what you see here is a scientist being smeared and muzzled. It's not the first time scientists at the NOAA have been gagged [govexec.com]. Only bad policy has to be defended by firing people and shutting up the rest.

Proenza's problems and forcasting are just the tip of the melting iceburg of this scandal. QuikSCAT provides information about storm intensity, a key point in global warming research. It looks like the Bush administration is willing to sacrifice forcasting accuracy in order to bury evidence of global warming. There's more where that came from.

Re:No effect?

[Blackeagle_Falcon]

So, if the satellite was so worthless that it will have no effect on weather forecasting, why did we bother supporting it?

Well according to TFA, QuickSCAT does a better job of gathering data for hurricanes far out at sea, particularly in areas where bouys and hurricane hunter aircraft aren't available. "QuickSCAT data is invaluable in identifying weak systems and in defining storm structure, particularly of outer wind radii of 34 knots and 50 knots. This is particularly true outside of the Atlantic, where there are no Hurricane Hunter flights, and in the Atlantic beyond where the Hurricane Hunters can reach. Track forecasts for tropical cyclones in the Pacific and Indian Oceans may benefit from QuikSCAT data, since Hurricane Hunter information is not available. QuikSCAT also helps identify when a tropical depression or tropical storm is intensifying."