The weather gap - how our ability to predict could be impaired

[twilyth]

I'm behind on my reading so this is from a couple of months ago but it's still both interesting and disturbing.

It seems that our weather forecasts rely not only on geosynchronous satellites but just 2 - count 'em - 2 low orbiting satellites that circle the poles. But both are on their last legs and the bird that is to replace them won't be ready until 2018. That assumes it survives launch, which is never guaranteed. If it doesn't, the next one won't be built for another 4 years after that.

Having both of the current satellites go offline before then, which is a very real possibility, would be devastating.

To pull together your five-day forecast, meteorologists rely on two types of satellites. The first sits 22,000 miles up, capturing basic information on a fixed location. The second orbits the poles, 500 miles up, filling in crucial image gaps and, more important, providing essential information about cloud formation, surface temperatures, and atmospheric conditions—the data that help us know where a storm is heading and how big it will be when it gets there.

Those polar-orbiting satellites, a primary and its backup, are the ones in crisis. The primary satellite—a short-term pathfinder built to test emerging technologies—was never really intended for use. Its backup isn't much better: an aging satellite with failing sensors that passed its predicted life expectancy last year. We would send up a replacement now, but it's still being built. When it is ready, should it survive launch, it could take until as late as 2018 to transmit usable data. Which means that, depending on when our current satellites stop working, the U.S. could be without crucial data for years. That's worse than inconvenient. It could cost us trillions of dollars, and hundreds, if not thousands, of lives.

Article

 

[cadaveca]

They can use the GOES solar satellites as well. That's why weather forecasts can't be accurate for more than 3 days out... it takes three days for stuff from the sun to get here, and since we get all our warmth from the sun...

Seems a bit alarmist, to me.

 

[twilyth]

They can use the GOES solar satellites as well. That's why weather forecasts can't be accurate for more than 3 days out... it takes three days for stuff from the sun to get here, and since we get all our warmth from the sun...

Seems a bit alarmist, to me.

Those are 22k miles out. The polar orbiting sats are only 500 miles out so GOES sats can't provide the same sort of data.

 

[cadaveca]

True enough, but they are effectively seeing the same stuff. The idea that the US gov won't be able to track weather, but can track PEOPLE is rather inane.

 

[twilyth]

True enough, but they are effectively seeing the same stuff. The idea that the US gov won't be able to track weather, but can track PEOPLE is rather inane.

Did you happen to read the quote? The low orbiting sats are the ones that provide much of the important data. ". . . providing essential information about cloud formation, surface temperatures, and atmospheric conditions—the data that help us know where a storm is heading and how big it will be when it gets there."

And if you read the article, it seems that you need special sensors to get that information - sensors that even the backup sat might not be able to provide.

 

[cadaveca]

Yeah, of course. I meant it seems crazy that they'd overlook something like this. Not that the article was off or your post.

At the same time, comparing data between the GOES cluster and the low-orbit array should provide something, you'd think.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Even without the satellites, most civilized countries have a robust network of RADAR for detecting atmospheric moisture. The only thing we'd be partially blind to is hurricanes and typhoons but, we know where those form generally and aircraft/ships can survey for/report them.

 

[twilyth]

Even without the satellites, most civilized countries have a robust network of RADAR for detecting atmospheric moisture. The only thing we'd be partially blind to is hurricanes and typhoons but, we know where those form generally and aircraft/ships can survey for/report them.

Well, it also mentioned surface temperature. You're going to have a hard time getting those readings - at the same time - from a bunch of ships scouting about. The same is true for land surface temp readings. AFAIK, most weather stations don't measure surface temperature but air temps - which aren't really the same thing.

And even if radar can measure clouds and moisture, I don't know if we have radar that covers the entire country. Plus it's not like all weather originates in the continental US anyway, so you still have a problem making predictions.

I don't really think there's anyway you can argue that we don't need these satellites in order to maintain the current level of weather information that we get - or that we don't depend on that information in many ways that are critical to both the health and safety of people as well as the economy. It's really just plain stupid that we're even in this situation.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Well, it also mentioned surface temperature. You're going to have a hard time getting those readings - at the same time - from a bunch of ships scouting about. The same is true for land surface temp readings. AFAIK, most weather stations don't measure surface temperature but air temps - which aren't really the same thing.

USA has NOAA weather stations all over it that measure at least temperature, wind speed, wind direction, and humidity. MODIS does surface temperatures, among other things.

I don't really think there's anyway you can argue that we don't need these satellites in order to maintain the current level of weather information that we get - or that we don't depend on that information in many ways that are critical to both the health and safety of people as well as the economy. It's really just plain stupid that we're even in this situation.

The bulk of the important weather data is collected from land-based sources. Broad climate data will continue to be collected by MODIS as well as other climate satellites. I really don't see a problem. I'd rather cheer the fact NOAA is saving taxpayers some money or at least diverting it to more important matters.

 

[twilyth]

USA has NOAA weather stations all over it that measure at least temperature, wind speed, wind direction, and humidity. MODIS does surface temperatures, among other things.



The bulk of the important weather data is collected from land-based sources. Broad climate data will continue to be collected by MODIS as well as other climate satellites. I really don't see a problem. I'd rather cheer the fact NOAA is saving taxpayers some money or at least diverting it to more important matters.

MODIS resolution isn't very good though - 1km for almost all of its spectral bands. The only people in the US who seem to use MODIS data are the forest service to track wild fires.

I don't know why you're trying to argue this. Do you really think people would be so concerned if they could just tap the ESA for the information they need? If you read the article you would know that the only other country with anything close that we could use is China and their satellites have military applications so they're not going to be eager to share.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I don't think it is worth spending billions of dollars replacing satellites that serve duplicative purposes. 1km resolution is plenty for its purpose.

 

[twilyth]

I don't think it is worth spending billions of dollars replacing satellites that serve duplicative purposes. 1km resolution is plenty for its purpose.

And you know that how exactly? I didn't know you had a degree in meteorology.

And what is the duplicate purpose? You lost me on that one.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Weather prediction is a series of averages extrapolated over a week at most. For example, exhaust from an industrial building may represent a small area of intense heat but that is unlikely to change weather patterns--it's the warming of a significant area that can. MODIS already provides that broad information and not only does it for the surface, but does it for various altitudes as well.

There's already similar satellites in service as well as many, many terrestrial-based sources that do similar readings often at substantially lower cost and higher accuracy. No one seems to be panicking about this except the author of that article because it really isn't that serious. We all know how inaccurate weather predictions are anyway and on that note, this Bell satellite better do a better job than the outgoing models or I would strongly argue we're wasting money on it.

 

[RCoon]

Sounds like the plot to a Hollywood disaster movie. Weather sats go down, government and general ignorant military person decides we don't need them and we'll wait for 2018. Suddenly out of nowhere a weather system forms and nobody notices it except a young handsome scientist who warns them all and nobody listens, shortly followed by a love plot and the general destruction and inevitable suicide of said hated military guy. Then somehow humans survive through no real effort of their own.

Luckily we're re not in a Hollywood movie, so I think we'll be just fine. Us in Britain can continue forecasting rain, because 80% of the time it's always rain.

 

[twilyth]

Weather prediction is a series of averages extrapolated over a week at most. For example, exhaust from an industrial building may represent a small area of intense heat but that is unlikely to change weather patterns--it's the warming of a significant area that can. MODIS already provides that broad information and not only does it for the surface, but does it for various altitudes as well.

There's already similar satellites in service as well as many, many terrestrial-based sources that do similar readings often at substantially lower cost and higher accuracy. No one seems to be panicking about this except the author of that article because it really isn't that serious. We all know how inaccurate weather predictions are anyway and on that note, this Bell satellite better do a better job than the outgoing models or I would strongly argue we're wasting money on it.

OK, you go ahead and write to NOAA and tell them that they're all a bunch of morons and pussies for even being concerned about this. Should they ever actually respond, let me know what they say.

Sounds like the plot to a Hollywood disaster movie. Weather sats go down, government and general ignorant military person decides we don't need them and we'll wait for 2018. Suddenly out of nowhere a weather system forms and nobody notices it except a young handsome scientist who warns them all and nobody listens, shortly followed by a love plot and the general destruction and inevitable suicide of said hated military guy. Then somehow humans survive through no real effort of their own.

Luckily we're re not in a Hollywood movie, so I think we'll be just fine. Us in Britain can continue forecasting rain, because 80% of the time it's always rain.

Didn't a lot of towns in Britain get swept away by flooding last year? There's rain and then there's the kind of rain Noah was telling his friends about. You might want a little warning about the latter type.

But I like the movie idea though. It reminds me of one I saw on SyFy but I can't remember the name.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

OK, you go ahead and write to NOAA and tell them that they're all a bunch of morons and pussies for even being concerned about this. Should they ever actually respond, let me know what they say.

Has NOAA even put out a statement on this subject?

 

[twilyth]

Has NOAA even put out a statement on this subject?

Did you read the article? It's pretty safe to assume that they're concerned based on their actions and related statements. Specifically, and from the article:

By the time President Obama separated the two organizations in 2010, NOAA had to scramble to pull together a new program. As a stopgap, it sent up the only option left, our current satellite—that demonstration model, with a life span of only three to five years.

If that happens, NOAA has proposed a variety of mitigation plans, from targeted jet missions to private and international outsourcing. The federal government recently signed agreements with Japan, Canada, and Europe to secure support in the case of catastrophic satellite loss, but there are no guarantees those programs will provide the data we need—or that we can afford them.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Yes, and that's all language from the Popular Mechanics' author (which was very poorly written and , not NOAA. This is all I found from NOAA and this is all that talks about the specific subject of satellite replacement:

To ensure that these “space sentinels” are always protecting our nation, next-generation satellite systems, such as the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) and GOES-R, must be built, launched into space, and fully operating before an aging satellite reaches the end of its expected lifespan.

It was created almost a year ago (December 2013). Government organizations always form contingency plans should plan A fail; this is not extraordinary.

Edit: Looking closer at that PDF, it appears as though the entire Popular Mechanics article was based upon it. NOAA says POSE and GOES satellites need to be replaced before they completely fail but it doesn't place urgency on doing so like the Popular Mechanic's article stresses. I find the article very alarmist and disingenuous.

 

[twilyth]

Yes, and that's all language from the Popular Mechanics' author, not NOAA.

Well, I suppose everything in the article is the language of the author. That's sort of his job. But he's describing actual events - unless you want to contend that he's just making shit up.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

See edits. TL;DR: PM article is alarmist. The impression I am getting from NOAA is no alarmism. NOAA expects JPSS to be operational in 2018 with no fanfare.

 

[twilyth]

See edits. TL;DR: PM article is alarmist. The impression I am getting from NOAA is no alarmism. NOAA expects JPSS to be operational in 2018 with no fanfare.

No one disputes the 2018 date, not even the author. The problem is if the current satellite fails. It had a 3-5 year life expectancy. If it was launched in 2010, then by 2018 it will be at least 3 years past it's design life. So that's one issue, since the backup satellite is not only on its last legs but inferior.

The other problem is if the 2018 launch fails, which is quite possible. Failed launches happen all of the time. The problem then is that you can't even get a replacement built for another 4 years.

This stuff is all covered in the article btw.

 

[RCoon]

Didn't a lot of towns in Britain get swept away by flooding last year? There's rain and then there's the kind of rain Noah was telling his friends about. You might want a little warning about the latter type.

Those towns get flooded every single year for the past 20 years this country is fully aware of what weather to expect, but the government and town councils refuse to spend any money putting down a little grit and pre-emptively deploying sandbags, or just moving to a non flooding location. We get a couple of inches of snow on a bad year, and the entire country grinds to a halt. Other countries including America have far worse snow but they just deal with it and don't take days off of work or school.

 

[twilyth]

Those towns get flooded every single year for the past 20 years this country is fully aware of what weather to expect, but the government and town councils refuse to spend any money putting down a little grit and pre-emptively deploying sandbags, or just moving to a non flooding location. We get a couple of inches of snow on a bad year, and the entire country grinds to a halt. Other countries including America have far worse snow but they just deal with it and don't take days off of work or school.

That's interesting. When I google UK floods, I see the flooding described as "intense." They even made news here in the US - and if you're not familiar with our news reporting, they don't generally give a crap about floods anywhere else in the world unless it's something notable. But I'll take your word for the fact that this year was no different than any other.

 

[RCoon]

That's interesting. When I google UK floods, I see the flooding described as "intense." They even made news here in the US - and if you're not familiar with our news reporting, they don't generally give a crap about floods anywhere else in the world unless it's something notable. But I'll take your word for the fact that this year was no different than any other.

Don't get me wrong, the floods are bad, really bad, but they happen so often you can only blame the authorities for not preparing for it. Even one of our mayors said the authorities are idiots about it

 

[FordGT90Concept]

No one disputes the 2018 date, not even the author. The problem is if the current satellite fails. It had a 3-5 year life expectancy. If it was launched in 2010, then by 2018 it will be at least 3 years past it's design life. So that's one issue, since the backup satellite is not only on its last legs but inferior.

The other problem is if the 2018 launch fails, which is quite possible. Failed launches happen all of the time. The problem then is that you can't even get a replacement built for another 4 years.

This stuff is all covered in the article btw.

You do realize that virtually all of the nuclear reactors in the USA are operating beyond their intended lifecycle, right? The one nearest me (which was surrounded by water two years ago) was commissioned in 1973 and only expected to operate 40 years. Do a little math and you realize it is already operating beyond its intended lifespan--as are most of the 100+ reactors in the USA. What concerns me more: a storm that we could have known a little bit more about or a nuclear power plant melting down due to catastrophic containment vessel failure? I don't think I should have to answer that rhetorical question.

And...back to the point, there are 2 POSE satellites and the second's design purpose is as a backup to the first. In other words. One can completely and utterly fail and the status quo remains. A vastly superior satellite is in the works and it will launch in a few years. Even if we have no POSE satellites for that entire period, we'll survive with nary a scratch.

Satellites are launched on known-to-be-reliable platforms for a reason and that is that the payload is often more expensive than the rocket itself. For this reason, catastrophic failures of rockets launching commercial/governmental satellites are rare. Sure, prototype systems have problems all of the time but, well, they're prototypes. We know enough about space to build reliable satellites. This is why, excepting the Popular Mechanics author, no one seems to be overtly concerned about the failure of the satellite nor the launch vehicle. If you don't believe me, here's some stats:
2012: 78 launches, 6 failed -- Only (semi-)failure from Cape Canaveral was a Falcon-9 SpaceX rocket.
2013: 81 launches, 3 failed -- No failures at Cape Canaveral.

If it isn't ubundantly obvious by now, that Popular Mechanics article belongs in the trash. It discredits the publication.