Associated Press A NOAA satellite image taken Thursday showing patchy clouds developing in the Caribbean.
As my colleagues Eric Lichtblau, Ron Nixon and I report in summary form in Thursday morning’s paper, the budget deal moving through Capitol Hill slashes funds that the Obama administration requested for a satellite program considered vital for the nation’s weather forecasting. That raises the prospect of less accurate forecasts and other problems, some of them potentially life-threatening, starting in 2016.
Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, warned at a Senate hearing on Wednesday that the cutbacks would probably lead to a serious gap in satellite data, undermining National Weather Service forecasts.
Research by her agency suggests that without the type of capability that the proposed satellites were expected to provide, the weather service might fumble forecasts of future events similar to the huge snowstorms that hit Washington and New York the last two winters.
“It’s a big risk,” said Daniel Sobien, head of the union that represents government weather forecasters.
Forecasters would still have access to data from satellites not affected by the cutbacks, but those would offer less detailed coverage of the country, which is why the weather forecasts would become less accurate.
The potential coverage gap would be limited to 18 months or so — but only if Congress agreed to restore as much as $1 billion in funds needed for the satellite program in the budget year that begins in October. Many people on Capitol Hill, including some Republicans, support doing that, but given the pressures on the budget and the political tensions over federal spending, that is by no means a certainty. So the situation raises the prospect of a deterioration in weather forecasts that might last for years.
Dr. Lubchenco warned that even if Congress restarted the program, the government would probably wind up spending $3 or $4 for every dollar saved by halting it this year. “We have to cancel the contracts — we have to let people go,” she said. “These are very sophisticated, skilled workers. Then you need to bring the programs back up.”
Satellites and other government-run instruments provide virtually all weather data used to make forecasts in the United States, including those on television, radio and in newspapers. Like all satellites, weather satellites wear out and have to be replaced regularly. Planning and building them takes years, and any hiccup in that program means the government can lose access to vital data a few years down the road.
A coverage gap is not an absolute certainty; it will depend on how quickly the satellites that are already in the sky in 2016 wear out. But with the cutback, Dr. Lubchenco said, a gap will become pretty likely.
The program that is being cut is an attempt by the Obama administration to clean up a decadelong mess in putting new weather satellites into orbit. A plan by the Clinton and Bush administrations to combine military and civilian weather satellites ended in failure after cost overruns and mismanagement, exasperating Democrats and Republicans in Congress.
The Obama administration’s recovery efforts have won support in principle on both sides of the aisle, but winning money has been far harder in a year when few programs are being spared from cutbacks.
It’s not just essential weather information that is at risk, Dr. Lubchenco said in testimony on Wednesday. The weather satellites pick up emergency beacons used by wilderness hikers, boaters and others who venture into remote areas: nearly 300 people were rescued this way in 2010 alone.
A gap in satellite coverage could mean that it would take hours longer for rescuers to find people who get into trouble. In some cases, that time interval could be the difference between life and death.
“That data gap will have very serious consequences to our ability to do severe-storm warnings, long-term forecasts and search and rescue,” Dr. Lubchenco said.