Panic Over Failing QuikSCAT Satellite Overblown

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."

Comments

Re:No effect?

[canUbeleiveIT]

So, if the satellite was so worthless that it will have no effect on weather forecasting, why did we bother supporting it?

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.
C) Or something else entirely that you don't know about.

Seriously, don't you think that falls under the heading of a false dilemma?

Re:The problem with the sky is falling argument...

[Gary W. Longsine]

You might enjoy the following books. Be warned, they are subversive. You may wind up with an understanding of science less like that conveyed by a diet of Fox News (strange, skewed, and vaguely hostile). These are fun to read and very accessible.

Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman
Chaos
The Selfish Gene
Why Flip a Coin?

Re:No effect?

[morgan_greywolf]

Didn't Lorenz already determine decades ago that weather is a chaotic system, such that, we couldn't possibly build enough monitoring stations to actually get the weather more accurate than a week out? If the weather satellite could effectively sample the earth and extend the forecast out by a couple of days, then it is a big deal. But, probably, at best it might add a few hours to the precision, and therefor, is not such a big deal.

Actually, even a few hours makes a big difference with tropical storms. A few hours advanced notice could mean the difference between people evacuating before the storm arrives or evacuating at the last minute, as the hurricane makes landfall. This time is the most dangerous and many, many people die or get badly injured trying to run away from a hurricane that's right on top of them. Take note: I live in Florida.

I've read them

[tjstork]

Chaos by Gleick is one of my all time favorite books of science for laiety, but it was much more fun to grab a couple of fractals equations off of the internet and run them myself. "Surely you are joking", is another great book. I hope that if my son decides to build a cyclotron, I'll have the money to help him do it.

I write in a voice as the slashdot spokesman of the right wing, largely becuase I think its safe to say that I am the only Bush support on slashdot that can program in assembly language and is also self effacing enough to take my politics not too seriously. The reason, in all seriousness, is to not try and change your mind about your preferred economic system, because I can't, but at least that, if there are people like me to build some bridges of understanding, we can work together and over time put some of the political wars behind us and work for a better quality of life for all NATO members.

The thing though, is that, the left assumes that because we on the right are critical of science, that we do not support it.

Far from it!

If anything, right wingers support science even MORE. First off, we have a relentless need for new products that only scientific research can genuinely provide. Then, to get that product around the globe we've needed advances in everything from transportation to logistics, bringing in jet aircraft, super sized ships, massive cranes, computers, containers, along the way. Finally, to ensure that the reach of our consumer free trading system is global, we pour hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars every year into military research, so that, if we can't reason our way into our superior system, we can at least help those who are more backwards still to see the light.

Along the way of doing all this, we righties have learned that scientists use the sky is falling argument. And yes, we certainly understand that even if an experiment fails, the knowledge gained has some intrinsic value so therefor, at some level, its ok to say that the planet might freeze up, only to later learn that it might warm up. But, on the opposite side, we have shareholders (each other), our customers and employees, and they demand that planes fly farther, cheaper and faster, ships that hold more, goods delivered on an increasingly accurate schedule, and new products to be released on time, and so, at some point, the pure asthetic gain of knowledge gained must yield to the current demand for practical results.

I certainly agree that you wouldn't expect to hear this on Fox News, but the reality is, most of us weller to do right wingers, even far righties like me who still support President Bush, watch the likes of Fox really more for entertainment, and view the likes of Hannity and Rush in the same kind of people as Howard Stern - shock jocks but not real values. For real news, we listen to NPR or read CNN's web site, the WSJ, the Economist, Scientific American, Discover, and yes, gasp, Slashdot.

Incidentally, this whole globalalization thing is a vision, actually, we stole from your liberal Roosevelt. We of course wanted to have protected markets but saw that the war which resulted was a disaster, and realized that if capital could flow everywhere on the planet, we could get really rich. We were the original isolationists, and now your side is. And, from you liberals, we learned that change is not so bad, in fact, change is really good, because, where there is change, there is opportunity, and where there is opportunity, there is profits.

That lesson, my friend, you liberals have seem to have forgotten, and if you rediscover it, pat yourselves on your back for one thing. Roosevelt's vision worked and the world is richer than it has ever been for it. You were right about that.

Re:I've read them

[rossifer]

The other thing too, is that, the right wing is a diverse group, just as much as the left wing is. For us, we have a coalition of religious types and free market libertarian types. I fall into the latter.

This is what I find interesting. In your previous post, you label yourself a Bush supporter, and in this post, you label yourself a libertarian. I also label myself a libertarian, and I find Bush's corporatist factionalism, authoritarian leanings and complete lack of any fiscal responsibility to be completely contrary to anything like libertarian principles.

Basically, if you're:

1. In support of the establishment of fundamental Christianity as the official Church of the USA
2. In favor of letting moneyed corporations write market regulations
3. In support of finishing the conversion of the USA into a police state
4. In favor of radically reduced privacy and personal freedoms
5. In favor of unlimited deficit spending to pursue any of the previous four goals

then I can see why you're a Bush supporter.

But how do you support even one of those things and call yourself a libertarian? Now, clearly, in this message, you're moderating that position, but I have found it utterly astonishing since 2003 for any non-fundamentalist person to express any support whatsoever for Bush since he is so obviously against the interests of you and I. How do you reconcile your statement about being a Bush supporter with his blatant antipathy for you and your wife (since her business is not a large and established contributer towards the Republican party)?

Regards,
Ross

Re:The problem with the sky is falling argument...

[Silver Sloth]

I feel that the problem lies deeper than that.

With modern information technology we live in a world where, in order that we may keep up with the input, it has to be reduced to soundbites and oversimplifications. It doesn't matter if it's science, or politics, or medicine, the information has to fit in a two minute portion of the evening news and it has to shout pretty loud to be heard in the first place.

Because of this oversimplification complex truths become simple lies, and, as the simple lies fail to come true the complex truths behind them are seen as untrue. The end result is a breakdown in trust such that nobody trusts anybody any more. Whereas the teacher, the banker, the politician, the policeman were all seen as pillars of society, nowadays they're all suffering from mistrust and lack of respect. It is in this climate that such beliefs as Intelegent Design can grow.

Now, if only I knew what to do about it...