Panic Over Failing QuikSCAT Satellite Overblown 131
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."
Thats management for you (Score:4, Insightful)
...and Bill Proenza is right. You won't get the resources if you don't scream for them. It makes you look bad, but the sad fact is that there is only one way to get the attention of Government and it is closely related to the thinkofthechildren meme.
Make a case, exaggerate if you have to. Get the resources when you are able to make the argument. Don't wait until it is too late.
No effect? (Score:5, Insightful)
The answer is either:
A) They are spinning the loss and trying to blame it on the squealer.
or
B) Weather forecasting is so useless, nothing could affect how accurate it is.
Reading the article, I find that they are critical of the report he used with only 19 samples. The satellite hasn't existed long, and major storms are -not- that common. How the hell was he supposed to get more data? It's his -job- to do the best he can with what little data he has, especially since we're talking about one of the most imprecise and unpredictable sciences there have ever been: Weather forecasting.
So, the situations stands thus: He tried to warn people that the satellite, which provided valuable data (even if exagerated in usefulness) was going to fall. He was warned to shut up about it. Satellite falls, and now they want to fire him for it.
I can't see in any way, shape or form how this was his -fault-, only that he tried desperately to get someone to do something about it. Since he can't fly, and doesn't have the money to send up a space shuttle, he did the best he could.
Did he overstate the importance of the satellite? Probably. Does that matter a whit? Nope.
The problem with the sky is falling argument... (Score:4, Insightful)
We have seen proclamations of the end of all mankind if we do not research something, that it almost seems miraculous that we are still here at all, becuase we obviously haven't researched everything. Noted cynically, the last 50 years has seen a bevy of failed pronouncements by members of the academic community:
a) The asteroid will hit us at any second.
b) We're real close on nuclear fusion.
c) We'll have nuclear power in everything from planes and ships to cars.
d) A cure for cancer is right around the corner.
e) We've mastered bacteriological illnesses and we're real close to conquering the virus.
f) The sea has an inexhaustable supply of fish, if we would just harness that we could feed the world.
g) The planet is cooling down, and we're headed for an ice age.
h) Global warming will cause more hurricanes.
i) Eat plenty of eggs and cheese.
Instead, we haven't been hit by an asteroid, nuclear fusion is still decades away, nuclear power has been destroyed by
To make matters worse, people see scientists as just another kind of smart people, like doctors and lawyers. People already have a growing distrust of western medicine, witness the rise of alternative medicine. And nobody trusts lawyers.
The best approach for any scientist looking for funding is to tell the truth, and simply, and not to over-sensationalize things. That way, when something does need to be sensationalized, such as global warming, people will actually believe it, and right now, they don't.
Why else, might you ask, would 10,000 scientists, from the UN, argue for action, meaning research dollars, on global warning, only to fall on deaf ears.
Forecasting sooo important? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not important. Proenza probably dumbed down/oversimplified on his statement and that's a good thing, because he is the main fundraiser for his institute. It should be slightly over the top. He's a fucking salesman, and Congress damn well knows this.
It's not important at all to say "yeah well, it's not quite accurate and why didn't he give a measure of uncertainty" blah blah.
Point is, the QuickSCAT satellite is used for lots of things, among them crossreferencing data of other satellites when the accuracy of those isn't up to snuff.
Satellites get older. Sensors decay due to cosmic rays damaging sensor pixels. Models use multiple inputs of data and when one satellite heavily degrades, that's a loss for science.
No way (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No effect? (Score:5, Insightful)
The option he missed was that it might be that the guy's job was to pitch useless junk, and they decided that they didn't like it
See no Evil, Speak no Evil (Score:5, Insightful)
"The director of the National Weather Service has told Proenza to be more tactful within the bureaucracy and more moderate in his public comments."
So, here is a manager who was outspoken in trying to get/save funding for a center who's funds are being slashed, who tried to explain to the public the value of technology to weather forecasting and what would happen without it and the response is....tone it down?
Hell, I'd quit, find a nice home in Oz or New Zealand, and laugh as the US slowly crumbles away.
As proud as I am of the heritage of this country, I am saddened, disheartened, and at times disgusted with it current crop of leaders and citizens. 500 billion and counting (can't even speak of of the human cost) for a shithole conflict that will have done squat for security of this country, yet we cannot fund basic universal healthcare, we cannot fund programs who's job is to monitor and protect our own shores (USCG/Police/Fire), and we slash funding on systems that would provide some measure of early warning to people living in harms way.
While good folk try to warn, our *elected* officials play See no evil, Speak no evil, Hear no evil...but have no problem with Do Evil.
the fiddling sounds just a bit closer today.
Re:I've read them (Score:2, Insightful)
However, there is a bit of a civil war going on on the right side, and, so, the smart ones among us actually did jump parties and go with Democrats in the last election, so long as they don't promise to spend too much money on stupid socialism, as that is a better alternative than stupid and repressive things like banning gay marriage. For our side, its all about the profits, and well, if gays get married, from my neck of the woods, its only more profits for my wife, who is a photographer.
So, from you lefties, either the religious side in our party is going to tone it down, or, the Democratic Party is about to get a hell of a lot bigger.
Re:I've read them (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, he's nuts alright. This puts political theory in the same category as say, sex and race, for example, I was born a white male, which affects the way I think about issues.
I think this line of thought is perpetuated by the neo-conservatives, they aren't republican in nature after all, they have hi-jacked the GOP and the definition of "conservative" has changed from meaning "fiscally responsible" to "good American Christian". Now we have a colossal debt and arm-chair religious based science being taught in schools. The only thing we can really do is classify the nut bag neo-conservatives as right wing extremists, they do not support the vast majority of republican views.
The Problem with Both Left and Right is Extremism (Score:2, Insightful)
Extreme right wing followers argue that the pure free market will solve "all" of our problems, by increasing the wealth of society. Followers of the extreme left (communism) argue that market forces are evil and should be banished, since they lead to an uneven distribution of wealth in society. Both of these positions are extremist ideologies that have little to do with what happens in the real world.
An ideology is a set of ideas which purports to define how the world works. Examples might include pure free market capitalism, communism, and extremist religious ideologies. They tend to be simplifications, focusing on a limited set of characteristics of the world. They usually outline a series of steps to follow to achieve "salvation"; if we follow the "steps", there might be a period of painful adjustment, but in the end our society will show great improvements.
The problem with ideologies is that their simplistic prescriptions ignore the true complexity of the world. Pure free market capitalism is extremely useful in ensuring that goods and services are properly distributed in a society. However, it does not form the basis for managing a civilization. Free market ideologues promised that in Iraq, the free market would free the suppressed economic potential of the country. These promises ignored the true complexities, the history and culture of Iraq. We see the result today. Soviet communists also ignored complex reality, and their system failed.
Our civilization tends to have a weakness for ideologies. They are seductive and simple prescriptions, promising solutions to our problems. Perhaps it is our laziness, our unwillingness to look the world as it actually is: complex, and difficult to understand. We tend to pick ideologies like we pick sports teams to watch. We root for our own ideologies and boo the opposing ones, without any real thought as to the implications of what we believe. We ignore complexity because it is uncomfortable, because it reminds us of our own limitations in understanding the world. Ideologies promise certainty, while the real world is uncertain. As Voltaire said, "Doubt is uncomfortable, but certainty is absurd".