Devastating budget cuts for earth science satellites

Under the draft Trump plan, NOAA's satellite program would be cut by more than a half billion dollars. 

These cuts would be particularly dangerous given that the Trump team has suggested eliminating NASA's Earth observation program and shifting its work over to NOAA.

Apparently, the only kind of satellites team Trump likes are those that point away from Earth and thus can't see and report on our changing climate. Who cares if those satellites are also critical for agricultural forecasting, disaster planning, weather prediction, and predicting the path of extreme events like hurricanes, tsunamis, and tornadoes?

"Cutting NOAA's satellite budget will compromise NOAA's mission of keeping Americans safe from extreme weather and providing forecasts that allow businesses and citizens to make smart plans," former NOAA chief Jane Lubchenco told the Post. NOAA's former chief scientist Rick Spinrad said such cuts "would virtually guarantee jeopardizing the safety of the American public."

[Climate Progress]

Politics of Weather Forecasting Satellites

First of all, we should all take a moment to thank the brilliant and tireless forecasters at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service. Without their remarkably accurate and timely forecasting capabilities, the impact of Hurricane Sandy could have been so much worse. 

Unfortunately, if Congressional Republicans and Vice-Presidential nominee Paul Ryan get their way, next time they will be worse.

Our nation's environmental satellites are aging, and replacements have been slow to come online. When Congress passed last year's spending bills, cutting more than $150 million from President Obama's request for the satellite program, the Government Accountability Office predicted that "there will likely be a gap in satellite data lasting 17 to 53 months" between the time the old satellite shuts down and when its replacement can come online.

In his proposed budget, GOP Vice-Presidential nominee Paul Ryan recommended further cuts to environmental programs—14.6 percent across the board. If these cuts were distributed equally, NOAA's satellite program would lose more than $250 million from its 2012 funded levels.

And according to multiple sources, including the Washington Post, Palm Beach Sentinel, and the Center for American Progress' Senior Fellow Scott Lilly, the sequestration process looming over Congress' lame duck session would cost the program an additional $182 million.

So what does this gap in service mean for our prediction capabilities? NOAA ran an analysis in 2011 that found without data from the satellite closest to the end of its shelf life, the accuracy of its forecasts for major storms like blizzards and hurricanes would decrease by approximately 50 percent. This means more uncertainty about the storm's intensity and direction.

Unless we somehow decide that weather-monitoring satellites are no longer necessary, and that we should just forgo building them all together, we will have to replace them. And if we wait, they only get more expensive. Three to five times more expensive according to NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco who a year ago called this decision "a disaster in the making," "an expression of dysfunction in our system," and "insanity."

In congressional Republicans' mindless crusade against all government spending, they have forgotten that there are some things the government actually does well and the private sector cannot provide. A few years ago, one GOP congressman famously asked then NASA Administrator Dan Goldin, "Why are we building meteorological satellites when we have The Weather Channel?" Where do you suppose the Weather Channel gets its data? That's right, kids! NOAA's meteorological satellites!

The GOP's push for budget austerity is as blunt, broad, and mindless as a hurricane bulling its way forward without regard for the health, value, or well-being of anything in its path. 

by Michael Conathan  - http://bit.ly/Rswu2w

Extreme Weather and Science Budget Cuts

Observations and predictions by climate scientists have for years pointed to global warming causing more intense rainfall; damaging floods and intense droughts; and increasingly unpredictable weather that will expose more people to danger. Recent reports by the National Research Council, an advisory board to the Vatican, and others have pointed to an increasing need for action to reduce the carbon pollution that is destabilizing the climate.

Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), decried the attempts by Republicans to cut important funding to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and its National Weather Service, which is currently providing important warnings to American citizens in the path of devastating tornadoes. House Republicans are also proposing to end funding for climate research at NOAA that would increase knowledge about the connections between human-driven climate change and extreme weather trends.

"Americans rely on NOAA and its National Weather Service to sound the siren when a storm is approaching, and give timely information to citizens on how to protect themselves from extreme weather events," said Rep. Markey. "It is also vital to continue climate research funding to sound the sirens on the long-term impacts of unchecked global warming and look for ways to cut emissions to protect ourselves from worsening extreme weather trends."

Teeing off the Ryan budget, the Republican committee that controls the purse strings for fiscal year 2012 cut funding to science agencies, including NOAA, by 13 percent from the president's 2012 budget request. If this level of cut is carried through to the NOAA budget, it would decrease by $700 million.

Last year, NOAA also predicted heavy rainfall in the southern United States, providing flood information days, rather than hours, in advance, decreasing risks to life and property.

"When it comes to climate change, there is plenty left to discover, and so much to lose," said Rep. Markey. "Whether the links between these recent events and climate change are direct or indirect, they have all been deadly, and should cause us to look for answers, not sweep the questions under the rug."

http://democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/press-release/markey-time-take-warming-driven-extreme-weather-trends-seriously