Reality check: will federal budget cuts REALLY mean we can’t forecast hurricanes?

Photo above - believe it or not, this is how hurricane severity is predicted - bunch of guys staring at PC monitors. Could AI possibly offer an edge?

If I were asked, I’d vote for more air traffic controllers, instead of weathermen. There have been a number of well publicized airport glitches and outages recently. And apparently a half dozen more that barely made a ripple in the media. Experts are still trying to sort out if this is hacking, bad software, or rookies in the control tower pressing the wrong buttons. We await their findings.

Let’s turn our attention to weathermen, instead. The link below (“States and cities fear a disaster season”) is hilariously misleading. The article features plenty of rants from federal agency big shots. They warn that there could be a disaster if their budgets are reduced, even a smidgeon. And a bunch of ordinary homeowners who got 2022 FEMA checks were interviewed. Which proves exactly nothing when it comes to forecasting 2025 hurricanes. FEMA is an agency that helps you rebuild in that same dangerous location right after you got flooded or flattened.

I yield to no one in my admiration for rainbow colored satellite images pinwheel shaped hurricanes, or iPhone videos of alligators swimming alongside Ford 150 Platinum Lariat pickups on flooded Florida cul-de-sacs. But I’m skeptical that culling a few steers from the herd of 12,000+ NOAA employees is going to mean that Hurricane Wendy will sneak up on us. (Wendy is one of the official names for 2025 hurricanes, when they reach the starting grid).

But there’s hope on the horizon. Heads of NOAA, FEMA, the National Weather Service, and NEMA (the National Emergency Services Association) should probably take a look at the second link below: “AI weather tool surpasses current forecasts”. That is going to send a chill down the spine of a LOT of GS 12 weather forecasters, no?

AI software programs excel because they use “machine learning”. This is the same approach being used to diagnose and cure cancer and otherl diseases. The “Aurora” program, had it been listened to, accurately predicted the path of typhoons like Doksuri. Aurora and it's brethren are apparently FAR more accurate than a platoon of weathermen with plastic pocket protectors puzzling over satellite snapshots.

Every spring the folks at the National Weather Service tell us the same thing: Expect a more active hurricane season this year. Because of climate change, El Nino, La Nina, sunspots, Canada’s jet stream stepped out of bounds or whatever. No agency will ever get a bigger budget and more headcount by predicting FEWER hurricanes and tornados. But in fact, we’ve had a multi-year lull in hurricane activity for much of the past several decades. 2024 was forecast to be one of the “worst ever” by NOAA. Instead, it was below average. The same “worst in memory” predictions are being recycled for the 2025 season, as a defense against budget cuts. See CBS link at bottom.

I don’t expect that AI weather forecasts like Aurora will be perfect. But I do think they will be better than whatever NOAA has been using to serve up the same hurricane predictions year after year.

And my apologies in advance to homeowners who rebuilt in storm surge areas after previous hurricanes. If your place is destroyed again, don’t blame NOAA, FEMA, NEMA, or the National Weather Service budget cuts. It was your own decision to rebuild in a high-risk zone, after getting federal disaster relief funds. But you're not alone. California homeowners keep rebuilding in the fire zones, too.

I’m just sayin’ . . .

States and Cities Fear a Disaster Season Full of Unknowns Amid Federal Cuts – DNyuz

A new AI-based weather tool surpasses current forecasts

Why South Florida can't let its guard down for the 2025 hurricane season, no matter the forecast - CBS Miami

Confined · 56-60, M

Lots of weather geeks on you tube. We will be ok weather wise.
Need to stop air planes from falling out of the skies.
Need to get rid of democrats. Would save billions, Maybe trillions.

SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F

@Confined i celebrate "weather geeks", "asteroid geeks", "shark geeks", and "polar bear geeks"

i just don't want to bust the federal budget enabling their videos.

by the way, most scientists estimate that polar bear populations are at an all time high, from any point going back to the peak of the last ice age. despite their becoming the honorary mascot of climate change geeks.

iamthe99 · M

@SusanInFlorida

by the way, most scientists estimate that polar bear populations are at an all time high, from any point going back to the peak of the last ice age. despite their becoming the honorary mascot of climate change geeks.

This is a lie.

Most scientists estimate that polar bear numbers are, at best, stable, but there is no evidence that they are at an all time high, and they are certainly not increasing.

A Jan. 4 Facebook post shows a graph that claims to chart the global polar bear population dating back to the 1960s.

“Polar Bears 1960s-2021,” reads the text above the graph. “Increasing – But they don’t want you to know.” (why that is, I don't know, by the way)

The graph was shared more than 500 times in three weeks.

This is False

Experts say the rising tally of polar bears reflects an increased ability to track bears – not an actual increase in the population. The graph is based on various estimates of the global population that include unscientific estimates, extrapolation and insufficient data sets, according to scientists.

The graph shows global population estimates from 1993, 1997, 2001, 2005, 2009 and 2021 taken from the Polar Bear Specialist Group’s most recent status report. But experts say those figures, especially the earliest ones, are unreliable, and the variety of methods used makes comparisons between those years illegitimate.

“Populations have not grown,” Steven Amstrup, chief scientist for Polar Bears International, said in an email. “Rather our growing knowledge has shown there may be more bears in these areas than we previously thought.”

John Whiteman, chief research scientist at Polar Bears International, pointed out that the data is sporadic and not as continuous as the graph makes it appear.

Page five of the report notes “these numbers must be interpreted with caution because they reflect the status of polar bears as well as the amount and quality of scientific information, both of which can change over time.”

Dag Vongraven, former chair of the group, noted the 1965 and 1981 figures in particular are rough estimates not based on scientific evidence.

"This is guesswork, pure and simple," Vongraven told USA TODAY in an email. "You just can't use these. There's very little data behind them."